Thursday, 13 October 1983 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Chiropractic Services To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Free,Mr Hollis,Mr Porter and Mr Saunderson. 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 workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the convention is likely to result in maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. 4. The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Anthony. 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. 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 Dobie. 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 ground 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 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. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of undersigned electors of the Division of Barker respectfully showeth: That we are deeply concerned about the move to allow children privacy in medical matters as proposed by Dr Blewett. We feel that while parents are morally responsible for their children's actions they should have every right to know all of their children's involvements and concerns, including medical advice or service given. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Dr Blewett be encouraged to withdraw his proposal. If he does not seen fit to do so, all voting members be urged to vote against his motion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, the 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 7th 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. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern attempts by the Soviet Union through the Soviet foreign trade Deputy Minister Nikolia Smeljakov, at the Australia-USSR mixed commission on trade and economic co-operation, to resurrect the Tasmanian floating-dock proposal; and (2) calls on the Government not to entertain the said proposal and not to take any action in respect to the same without full and proper consultation with the Government of the State of Tasmania. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes the recent decision of Bristol Myers to substantially increase the price of the infant formulae Pregestimil and Glucose Nutramagin; (2) is of the opinion that this decision is causing considerable financial distress to many families throughout Australia who use such formulae for their children; and (3) urges the Government, through the Minister for Health, to expeditiously resolve this serious problem. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Lillee (Mrs Darling). Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condems the Government for its tardy and off-handed approach to a National Crimes Commission; (2) acknowledges that there have been numerous inquiries into organised crime and drug trafficking, including Royal Commissions conducted by Commissioners Williams, Stewart, Woodward and Costigan, which have clearly identified the massive scope and scale of organised crime in Australia; and (3) expresses its disappointment that a delay of over one year has occurred during which time no clear policy has emerged to deal with this all-pervading blight on our society. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with concern recent movements in building material prices, especially in Western Australia; (2) urges price and wage restraint upon employers and unions in the building industry; (3) notes recent reductions in interest rates and urges further reductions in housing rates; (4) recognises the recent 20 per cent increase in building society loans; and (5) notes with pleasure the fact that the Government's First Home Owners Scheme produced 35,000 inquiries in the first four days of operation. The motion will be seconded by the honourable member for Perth (Dr Charlesworth) . Mr KATTER(Kennedy) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House is of the opinion that there is an urgent need to significantly increase coastal surveillance in northern Australia, particularly in far north Queensland, in light of statements by a policeman from Mareeba reported in the Brisbane Sun of 13 October 1983 that at least two unchecked flights a week land in north Queensland, depositing illegal immigrants and drugs, before backloading with Australian native flora and fauna. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) will second: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) Although in Australia life expectancy for women is considerably higher than that for men, women are eligible for the age pension at the age of 60, while men are not eligible until the age of 65; and (b) at a time of high unemployment, this leads to a situation in which many people who would like to retire cannot, while many others who would like to work cannot; (2) recognises that some people who reach retiring age would prefer to continue working and have much to contribute; and (3) resolves to investigate the feasibility of reducing the retiring age for both sexes to 55 years with this retiring age to be voluntary for both men and women. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Queensland Government on its action on the Commonwealth wage pause program whereby it has provided more unemployed Queenslanders with jobs than any other State; (2) notes that the Queensland Government has spent 45 per cent of its Commonwealth allocation, and created work for 2,743 unemployed Queenslanders whereas Victoria has spent only 2.6 per cent of its allocation and created only 874 jobs; and (3) condemns Government Ministers and the Queensland Branch of the Australian Labor Party for perpetuating deliberate untruths to the people of Queensland in regard to the State's spending of moneys received under the Commonwealth wage pause program. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the Queensland Government on its reputation as the lowest taxing State in Australia; (2) notices that Queensland does not have to introduce iniquitous taxes such as - (a) financial institution duty, (b) tobacco taxes, (c) alcohol taxes, (d) pub taxes, (e) footy taxes, and (f) equity taxes; and (3) notes that people are deserting the Labor States at the rate of 38,000 a year to benefit from Queensland's healthy climate and positive private enterprise policies of the Queensland Government. Mr ADERMANN(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the complete disarray of the health services in New South Wales and Victoria due to a lack of money and mismanagement by State Labor Governments; (2) congratulates the Queensland Government on its commitment to a free efficient hospital system; and (3) registers concern that Medicare has caused Queenslanders to be levied a health tax of one per cent for a service which was free. Mr SINCLAIR(New England) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to speak to a point of procedure. Perhaps I should explain-- Mr SPEAKER —The right honourable member is seeking a very broad indulgence. If he explains the point of procedure. I will listen to him. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Speaker, you will recall that on 8 September last you made a statement to this House regarding the average number of questions asked each day and offered some figures to the House suggesting that in the 1982 Budget session an average of 14.8 questions were asked, and in the Autumn session 1983 an average of 14.3 questions were asked. While yesterday might well be considered an aberration for other reasons-- Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Could the Deputy Leader of the Country Party indicate what he is leading to? Mr SINCLAIR —I am. Mr SPEAKER —I have briefly given him indulgence to explain. He has rasied a point of procedure with me. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We are known as the National Party, not the Country Party. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I call the right honourable member for New England. Mr SINCLAIR —The point I wish to raise is that the Opposition is concerned that an adequate opportunity should be given in this place for a reasonable number of questions and for Question Time not to be abused. I raise the matter at this time because of the change in our Standing Orders which makes it difficult to raise it during Question Time. There are only two brief points that I wanted to address. During Question Time yesterday there were at least two answers to questions that might properly have been addressed by statements to this House. Without identifying them, they were matters which were of significance and matters which on other occasions-they reflected government policy-would not have been addressed during Question Time, but by way of statements to this House. Mr Speaker, you no doubt would have read with some interest in the Sun Herald of 9 October the following comments by a senior Canberra journalist: Oldtimers in Canberra reckon that Question Time under Hawke is at it lowest ebb since broadcasting of the event began in the 1940s. Never have the familiar Dorothy Dixers asked by Government members been more blatant-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the National Party has raised questions of procedure. He is now getting into a debate on the matter he has raised. Mr SINCLAIR —I am raising it by way of a quotation. But I think they are matters that this Parliament should hear. Mr SPEAKER —I think the honourable member should put forward his own views on procedures, not those of the media. Mr SINCLAIR —They might be even stronger than those in the quotation I have just offered. I believe that Question Time has been abused. I suggest to you, sir, that it would be appropriate if to the maximum you keep both questions and answers to a minimum and that when answers are given which should properly be given as statements to this House, that should be so done. Mr SPEAKER —I respond to the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. I indicated earlier that I hoped that questions would be succinct and that answers would be to the point. However, if honourable members turn to the relevant pages of House of Representatives Practice-I think page 500 is the most relevant-they will see that there are no Standing Orders which enable me to cut down on the length of an answer. It can be done only by persuasion. Similarly, one must remember that with regard to questions the habit has grown for a question to contain more than one question. I hope that the House will take note of the request and that questions will be succinct and answers similarly so. Mr Scholes —Mr Speaker-- Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Defence is seeking my indulgence to speak. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —On the matter of procedure, it should be drawn to the attention of the House that during the period of the previous Government this matter was raised on a number of occasions and the then Leader of the House opposed it on every occasion. I do not think he can have his cake and eat it, too. Mr SPEAKER —We are now getting into a debate. I have indicated that the Chair is limited by the powers that the House itself gives the Chair. Mr Dawkins —Mr Speaker, on this point-I do not want to prolong it-but it is all very well for the Opposition to make claims about the Government abusing Question Time. We had plenty of examples under a former regime, but in any event -- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Dawkins —It would be useful if the Opposition asked some sensible questions. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I am willing to hear matters of procedure. I am not willing to have a debate. Mr ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party) —With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a point. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party should be very relevant to the point. I will not allow a debate on this matter. Mr ANTHONY —Yesterday a member of my Party was suspended from the House. I think all of us regret that a member of this Party was suspended and you, Mr Speaker, would regret very much having to exercise your authority to keep order. But yesterday it was obvious that because of the prolonged and provocative answers that were given by Ministers and the Prime Minister the Opposition reacted. The Opposition will react, and there will be trouble in this Parliament unless there can be-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party is defying what I have said. I have already asked the Minister for Finance to resume his seat and not debate the matter. The point has been made. I will give no further indulgence on this matter. 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 11 October. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The law reform policy released before the election stated that a top priority for a Labor government would be the introduction of a Bill to propose overdue reforms of the Family Law Act. This Bill is the fulfilment of that promise. Any government that cares for people and is concerned to minimise unhappiness and social conflict must give paramount consideration to family law matters. Family law affects more Australians-adults and children-than any other single area of law. When marriages break down, for whatever reason, every effort must be made to ensure speedy resolution of differences with the minimum of trauma and expense and the maximum possible benefit to all parties. I believe it is overwhelmingly accepted that the Family Law Act was a landmark in social legislation. It was a great Labor achievement and is one of the enduring legacies of Senator Murphy's time as Attorney-General. Its removal of the concept of matrimonial fault from the law relating to this most complex of human relationships was a revolutionary advance. Its establishment of the single ground, no fault divorce, must on no account be jeopardised. The Family Law Amendment Bill 1983 will give effect to many recommendations of the parliamentary Joint Select Committee on the Family Law Act that reported in August 1980. I am sure the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who so ably chaired that Committee will, for one, join with me in hoping that the Bill will have a swift passage in this House. The Bill before honourable members has been subjected to extensive and intensive examination by bodies like the Family Law Council, the Law Council of Australia, by judges and others. It was, of course, the subject of lengthy debate in the Senate. Because of its concern for people the Government would like to see the proposed reforms operative as soon as possible. The amendments contained in the Bill fall broadly into three classes: Those which expand the jurisdiction of the Family Court of Australia; those which relate to the structure and procedures of the Family Court; and those which affect the substantive law applied in courts exercising jurisdiction under the Act. Expansion of Jurisdiction of the Family Court By far the most important amendments in the Bill relate to the expansion of jurisdiction concerning children. At present, proceedings under the Family Law Act can be brought only in relation to natural or adopted children of both parties to a marriage. The Bill in clause 4 adopts the Joint Select Committee recommendation that the category be extended to cover step-children and even foster children. The Bill seeks therefore to increase the number of children in Australia who may be assisted by the enlightened conciliatory procedures of the Family Court. But there will unfortunately remain, for constitutional reasons, some children who in the event of domestic disruption cannot be dealt with by the Family Court. It is hoped that by means of an appropriate referral of powers by the States or by a constitutional amendment, the Commonwealth may one day be able to legislate for the guardianship, custody and maintenance of all children in Australia. In addition, the Bill provides in sub-clause 3 (1) that a third party, say an uncle or grandparent, may bring proceedings under the Act against one or both parties to a marriage in relation to a child of the marriage. At present where a third party wishes to institute such proceedings he or she must do so in a State court under State law unless the child had previously been the subject of proceedings under the Family Law Act. It will be seen therefore that the Bill seeks to reduce the number of situations that require resort to two different courts and legal systems. Further, the Bill will expand the jurisdiction of the Family Court concerning children to enable proceedings to be brought relating to the welfare of a child. Courts exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act will be invested with power similar to the wardship power of the State supreme courts. This gives effect to another of the major recommendations of the Joint Select Committee. I would, however, stress that the Commonwealth does not intend to intrude into the area of State child welfare law. I trust that the relevant provisions of sub- clause 3 (1) of the Bill make this abundantly clear. To reinforce this policy, clause 5 of the Bill will repeal sub-section 10 (3) of the Act which provides for the Family Court to override State welfare orders. Property proceedings at present can only be brought in relation to concurrent, pending or completed proceedings for dissolution or annulment of marriage between the parties. The Bill in sub-clause 3 (1) will enable proceedings to be brought by parties to a marriage in relation to property of the parties at any time where the proceedings arise out of the marital relationship. This is a further significant recommendation of the Joint Select Committee and will be of advantage to many persons faced with marital breakdown who wish to secure a settlement of property rights before the 12 month period of separation required for divorce proceedings has expired. This amendment would ensure that all married people are entitled to the benefit of the principles of the Family Law Act which are generally more just than under State law in that they permit a spouse, who has contributed to the acquisition of marital property in an indirect or non-financial but nevertheless significant way, to claim a share in the property without having to institute divorce proceedings. Clause 16 of the Bill will enable the Family Court in the Australian Capital Territory to be invested with as broad a jurisdiction as possible in family law matters. This was a further recommendation of the Joint Select Committee and this Government hopes that the Family Court throughout Australia will one day exercise such a broad jurisdiction. Procedures and Structure of the Family Court There has for some time been a call for the Family Court to be opened to the public. The Bill in clause 52 gives effect to the majority report of the Joint Select Committee and the Family Law Council that proceedings in the Family Court may be held in open court although it empowers the Court to exclude persons from proceedings. While the Bill relaxes the present total prohibition on the publication of details of proceedings under the Act, it provides, in clause 72, severe penalties for publication of any account of proceedings or part of proceedings that identifies a party to the proceedings, a person related to or associated with a party to the proceedings or a witness in the proceedings. Another important recommendation of the Joint Select Committee was that there should be a pool of Family Court judges from which full courts would be constituted to hear appeals. Certain of these judges could be permanent members of the pool; others would sit on appeals by rotation. The Bill provides in clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14 for an Appeal Division comprising up to five permanent members together with an unspecified number of other judges who would hold appointment in the Appeal Division for a maximum period of two years. On the basis of the High Court decision in the Commonwealth of Australia v. HCF of Australia the Bill in clause 73 will empower registrars and deputy registrars of the Family Court, as officers who in fact form part of the Court's organisation, to exercise a greater range of powers in proceedings under the Act but subject always to review by a judge. It is expected that this course will achieve the more effective use of judicial time and a reduction in the delays in the hearing of matters before the Court. An amendment moved by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) and passed in the Senate directed to the preservation of marriages is contained in clause 21 of the Bill. It requires that where in dissolution proceedings the parties have been married less than two years, the application cannot be heard by the Court unless, before filing the application, the parties have considered reconciliation with a marriage counsellor. This amendment will replace the existing provision in sub-section 14 (6) of the Act that provides that where there is an application for the dissolution of a marriage of less than two years duration the parties must have marriage counselling before the hearing of the application. The general view is that once the application has been filed and the divorce process set in train it is often too late to effect a reconciliation . A further amendment accepted by the Attorney-General and passed in the Senate and directed at conciliation is contained in clause 9 of the Bill. It requires the Family Court or any other court exercising jurisdiction under the Act and any legal practitioner acting in a matter to have regard to the need to direct the attention of parties or persons considering taking proceedings to the facilities for counselling and to the procedures for the resolution by conciliation of matters. The Bill provides in clause 29 that there should be no final order in guardianship and custody cases until the parties have attended a conference with a court counsellor. This amendment reflects the philosophy of this Government that every effort must be made to resolve disputes by processes of conciliation and counselling and that recourse to the Court and the adversary process must be a last resort. An amendment accepted by the Attorney-General and passed in the Senate and contained in clause 36 provides that no final order in contested property proceedings be made, except in special circumstances, unless the parties have attended a conciliation conference with a registrar or deputy registrar of the Family Court. Here again the emphasis is on achieving amicable settlement of disputes rather than having orders imposed upon the parties by the Court. The Bill as introduced in the Senate would have enabled all undefended divorce applications in certain circumstances to be dealt with without the necessity of either of the parties or their legal representatives to attend before the Court. Notwithstanding safeguards in the proposal and in the Act the proposal attracted opposition from certain groups. The Attorney-General moved an amendment in the Senate, now included in clause 53, that will enable undefended divorce applications to be dealt with in this way but only where there are no children of the marriage under 18 years of age. By excluding all cases where children are involved, this amendment answered most of the objections to the original proposal while preserving much of the benefit, particularly in savings of time and cost, of the simplified procedure. Other amendments of a procedural or structural nature that were proposed by the Joint Select Committee and which are included in the new Bill are: Amendments that will permit the judges of the Family Court to make rules of court, as do judges of other superior courts, clause 75; amendments that will enable parties to make joint applications for divorce, sub-clause 3 (1) and clause 24; and amendments to expand the duties of a full time marshal of the Family Court, clause 17. One of the principal duties of a full time marshal will be, as recommended by the Joint Select Committee, liaison with the various police forces to ensure the more effective enforcement of Family Court orders. Changes to Substantive Law In relation to children, clause 29 of the Bill requires the Family Court to take into account any wishes of a child, no matter of what age, and to give to such wishes what weight it considers appropriate. The Bill also implements certain Joint Select Committee recommendations in relation to children which were not taken up by the previous Government but are endorsed by this Government . In particular clause 29 provides that Government departments, instrumentalities and other persons or bodies who have information concerning the whereabouts of a missing child who is the subject of a custody order may now be required to divulge this information to the Court, subject to appropriate safeguards. The Bill also contains in clause 29 an express statement of the criteria that the Family Court must take into account in determining guardianship and custody matters. The Joint Select Committee had argued that the inclusion of criteria would assist the more rapid resolution of disputes over children by introducing greater certainty and predictability into the exercise of the Family Court's discretion in this controversial and emotive area. Following debate in the Senate some additional criteria have been included in the Bill now before the House. A further significant recommendation of the Joint Select Committee which is implemented by clause 65 of the Bill is that there is to be a discretion given to the Court to attach a power of arrest to an injunction granted for the personal protection of a party to or a child of a marriage or to exclude a person from certain premises. The Court will be able to attach a power of arrest order to an injunction not only where violence has already been committed but also where violence is threatened. Relevant provisions in the Bill take account of State legislation dealing with domestic violence and seek to preserve the operation of effective State legislation. The Joint Select Committee recommended that the terms 'guardianship' and 'custody' should be defined and that their usage should be consistent with other Commonwealth and State legislation. The Bill in clause 26 defines these terms. In relation to property settlement proceedings, an amendment moved by the Attorney-General and passed in the Senate relating to maintenance agreements under section 87 of the Act is contained in clause 44 of the Bill and is of significance. It will have the effect of widening the circumstances in which the approval of a maintenance agreement may be revoked by the Family Court and it invests the Family Court with the common law and equity powers of the High Court in proceedings in relation to such agreements. Proceedings in relation to section 87 maintenance agreements are made a matrimonial cause and will come within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court. Clause 36 makes it clear that the Court has the power to adjourn property proceedings where this is necessary to enable justice to be done between the parties in cases where the financial circumstances of one of the parties are likely to change in the future. This provision will be of particular value where one party in the foreseeable future will become entitled to superannuation benefits although at the time of the hearing there may be little other property available for distribution between the parties. Clause 37 of the Bill proposes an extension of the range of circumstances in which the Court may vary or set aside an earlier property order. A recommendation along these lines was made by the Joint Select Committee. The Bill revises and relocates in the Family Law Act the provisions of Part III of the Migration Act relating to offences for the removal from Australia of children in respect of whom custody or access orders have been made or sought. Clause 33 provides for increased penalties for these offences. It is hoped that relocation of these provisions will more effectively bring them to the notice of the public and the legal profession. Also relevant to the issue of the wrongful removal of children is the amendment in the Bill in clause 61 which enables regulations to be made so that Australia can implement the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Provision is also made in clause 55 and 61 respectively to enable Australia to accede to the Hague Convention on the Recognition of Divorces and Legal Separations and to the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions Relating to Maintenance Obligations. The reforms to be implemented by the Bill are urgently awaited. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Consideration resumed from 11 October. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.33) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is purely consequential upon the Family Law Amendment Bill 1983. It simply removes from the Migration Act those provisions of Part III of that Act, relating to offences for the removal from Australia of children in respect of whom custody or like orders have been made or sought. These provisions are now inserted in a revised form in the Family Law Act. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Debate resumed from 6 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.34) —The Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid Costs) Bill has already passed through the Senate and it was, in general terms, supported by the Opposition in the Senate. It was pointed out by Senator Durack that the purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government either to promulgate regulations or to make grants subject to conditions in the family law area, the purpose of which is to ensure that private legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters under the Family Law Act are bound by an Australian-wide scale of fees. The significance of the Bill lies in the great importance and the dominant position that family law cases have in our system of legal assistance. The reasons for that were pointed out by the Attorney-General, Senator Gareth Evans. He pointed out two things. He pointed out first, how costs are increasing generally in legally aided matters and, secondly, the very high proportion of costs in legally aided matters where Commonwealth funds are provided which are taken up by family law cases. Senator Evans also pointed out that while Commonwealth payments to legal practitioners acting in legally aided matters have risen from $14.69m in 1979-80 to $32.426m in 1982-83, a cumulative increase in real terms of around 64 per cent. The cumulative increase in legal aid cases referred to private practitioners in the same period increased by only 28 per cent. So while the Commonwealth is spending more money it is not getting a proportionate increase in cases referred and, of course, dealt with by the private profession. The dominant position of family law in legally aided matters is very clearly made apparent when one looks at the figures for 1982-83. We see that $32,426,000 was spent by the Commonwealth in payments through the Australian Legal Aid Office and the legal aid commissions to private legal practitioners. Of this, $ 20.3m or 63 per cent was expended in connection with family law matters. So family law matters are roughly taking up two-thirds of the funds spent by the Commonwealth on legal aid. These trends, that is, a general trend in increasing costs in the private profession and an increase in legal aid generally, will not be short term trends. I think it is of critical importance to understand why, with reference to this Bill, costs are increasing and are likely to continue to increase in family law cases. In the first place, there is the undeniable social fact that there is a general upward trend in the breakup of marriages. None of us can say when that trend will level off but there do not appear to be any signs that it is levelling off. Secondly, costs of the professions are generally on the increase. All the costs of rooms, staff, a proper law library and yearly payment for subscriptions to keep oneself informed about the law are on the increase. It is my impression, gained over 19 or 20 years of practice at the Bar, that those increases are generally ahead of the yearly increases in the consumer price index. Of course, somehow or other the increase in the cost to the legal practitioner has to be met if he is to be in a position to provide a service and to get a decent living from his work. Thirdly, wherever a government provides a subsidy for a service, the potential always exists for increase in use of that service and for abuse of the subsidy. The reasons for increase are perfectly plain. Very often there is a genuine need , as there is in this case, for some form of assistance. People are in need and people who would not otherwise be able to go to the courts are able to go to the courts because assistance is provided. So the provision of the subsidy promotes the service, and that, I suspect, is an increasing trend. At the same time, we see abuses take place where the Commonwealth provides a subsidy. We all know that that is a fact of life. there is no particular reason why it should not apply to the legal profession. After all, the legal profession is made up of the same kinds of human beings who make up any kind of profession, or who provide any form of service. Just as we have come across problems in relation to the medical profession, so we find some problems in relation to the legal profession. They would arise in the administration of a system and in delivery of the service, particularly where, in delivering the service, one is not concerned with a client's money, but is being paid effectively by the Commonwealth. There is a tendency in those circumstances not to be quite as careful about how the money is spent; a perfectly natural tendency perhaps. In my view that will fuel this trend to an increase in costs within the family law jurisdiction. The Law Council of Australia pointed out in the submission that it put to the Attorney-General that in its view, and rather than introduce an Australian Legal Aid Office scale, there was an alternative means of reducing the overall legal aid budget. Its principal suggestion was that greater attention should be given by legal aid bodies to the opportunity to obtain increased contributions from legally aided persons. I think that is a very sound recommendation for the reason that if the person who is getting the benefit of the service has to provide a contribution to that service, and if attention is paid to ensuring that the right kind of contribution is obtained from the person who gets the benefit of the service, the odds are that one will get closer attention to how the funds are spent, not just the private funds of the person who is getting the benefit, but the funds of the Commonwealth at the same time. I would like to make a more general observation about the family law jurisdiction. When we see a growth in specialised jurisdictions where litigation is subsidised-I refer particularly to the family law jurisdiction and to the workers' compensation jurisdiction-there does seem to be a tendency within those jurisdictions to grow more rapidly than other jurisdictions. I think it is evident that some kind of constraints are necessary. Whilst there might be argument as to whether what is proposed is right, certainly constraints of some kind are necessary in relation to a specialised jurisdiction such as the family law jurisdiction. It is worthwhile remembering that when a specialised jurisdiction is subsidised, it is likely that people will be attracted to it. Some people will be attracted to it because they can look to a fairly reliable source of income. When this takes place one quite often finds that the jurisdiction does not work as efficiently as it should. In saying that, I do not wish to be critical of family law practitioners but I do not share the confidence expressed by the Attorney-General in his second reading speech when he said: Many of the competent family law practitioners are comparatively young lawyers who are committed to assisting persons with family law problems. These young practitioners quickly develop the expertise required to handle complex family law matters and acquire the skills necessary to direct their clients towards an appropriate settlement. Speaking from experience and observation, I doubt how quickly skills can be acquired to advise on and to handle very complex family law matters. My own experience leads me to think that it takes quite a few years before the competence is developed in most practitioners to deal with complex cases. The reason for that is very simply that in law, in presenting cases, experience counts more than anything else and one gains experience only by time and practice. In conclusion I make some general observations. I agree with the Attorney- General when he says that he does not propose industry assistance to the private professions. Whilst he does not propose industry assistance, the continuing involvement of the private professions in the delivery of legal services and family law cases is not only welcome-the Government has embraced its involvement -but, I should think, essential, because of the vast reservoir of professionalism that is to be found in the private professions. Whilst I believe that the private professions need to be involved I think it is necessary to monitor trends within the profession, to understand, so that one can come to a better view of things in a year or two, who are the specialists, which firms specialise and perhaps what percentage of income is derived from subsidised work . There is, I think, a danger that some members of the private professions could become unduly dependent on subsidised work. That is not only unwise for those practitioners, as it means that effectively they put most of their apples in one barrel, but also generally unwise for the profession, I think, if elements of it become too dependent on subsidised work. The Attorney-General referred to the need to examine other options. I quite agree that there is a great need to examine other options. It seems to me that at times our legal system is getting out of control-that applies to our courts as well-and that cases which one would hope could be dealt with quickly and expeditiously are not, very often for reasons which are beyond the control of those concerned, including the courts, dealt with quickly and expeditiously. We all look for that chimera, the simple solution. I do not believe that there are any simple solutions to the present very complex system but we may need to look to a radical restructuring of how family law cases are dealt with, just as I think we need to look to a radical restructuring of the way in which the workers compensation commissions in the various States function. It may be that we can to an extent delegalise the systems. I say that as a lawyer, being aware of attempts to delegalise various systems such as the conciliation and arbitration system which seemed to result only in those systems becoming even more complex, even more extensive and even more time consuming. It is possible that something can be done in the nature of a radical alteration to the existing system. The legal system, the courts, the administration of justice and all the supporting apparatus are really foundational to our democracy. From time to time we are very critical of how they work, whether it be the courts, judges in particular cases, the legal system generally, time delay or cost, but criticism is the hallmark of our system. Any citizen who needs to have recourse to a court can have recourse to a court, hope to have his case dealt with quickly and expect to have his case dealt with fairly. No one can ensure that the result will always be the right one. Of course, mistakes take place in any legal system. We try to ensure that as far as possible it is right, it is quick and it works fairly. Yet we find ourselves now it seems to me in a time when only the very rich, the very well off or those who are subsidised can afford to litigate complex cases. If one looks at the cost of a case which will last four or five days and which requires very careful preparation, Queen's Counsel, a junior, a solicitor and a lot of work, one sees that it is quite beyond the pocket of the ordinary citizen. If somebody comes to me and says 'Look, Mr Spender, I want you to have a look at this case and tell me what you think the prospects are' I must consider not only the merits of the case and make a judgment about my client's prospects but also think carefully about and advise him about what the cost of that case will be to him. On many occasions I have had to say to clients-and I know that other barristers and solicitors have been in exactly the same position: 'Well, you have a good case and the odds are that you should win, but I have to tell you that the cost is such that I think you should seek to settle because, if you do not win, the cost will be very heavy. Even if you do win you will not recover all your costs from the other side and a substantial part of your costs will have to be paid by you' . I think it will be a continuing problem in our society to make sure that the doors of the court remain open not just to those who are wealthy or very well off, not just to those who are subsidised such as those within the workers compensation jurisdiction who are subsidised by unions and those within that jurisdiction who are subsidised by insurance companies, and not just to those who go to the family law courts and get a Commonwealth subsidy, but to all citizens. This again requires a great deal of thought by practitioners and by governments because when the time comes, if it ever comes, that the courts are simply beyond the average citizens because they cannot afford the cost, that would be a sad day for our society. It was once observed very cynically or perhaps very realistically many years ago by an English lawyer, if I recall correctly, that the courts are open to everyone, like the doors of the Ritz Hotel in London. I believe that because of widespread legal aid that observation is no longer as accurate as it once was, but it remains a fact that those who are not legally aided, when the stakes are comparatively high and when the costs are going to be equally high, are often in the position of having to settle for less than they would have got had the case been fought, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to take the chance of losing. That is a trend within our society which I do not wish to see go any further. To sum up, therefore, we support the Bill. There has been some criticism of it of a general kind by Senator Durack. One needs to monitor the guidelines which have been laid down in the Bill. One needs to monitor how successfully those guidelines operate. We need to look at all times for ways to make not just the family courts but all courts open to all citizens at all times. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.56) —I will respond briefly to the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). The fact that the Opposition in the Senate did not oppose this Bill has been reflected in what the honourable member for North Sydney said. He dealt with the increase in payouts for legal aid from $14.69m in 1979-80 to $32.426m in 1982-83 and, most significantly, reiterated what the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) said in respect of this Bill, that over 60 per cent of that $32.426m was going to family law matters. One has to agree with the honourable member that unfortunately it appears to be an undeniable fact that there is an upward trend in the family law area. One matter which should be referred to is the concern expressed by the honourable member for North Sydney in relation to the natural tendency of some members of the profession, as he put it, not to be as careful in dealing with Commonwealth money. He referred to what I think he designated as a specialised and subsidised jurisdiction which may not work as efficiently as it should. That may or may not be so. In fairness to the honourable member, I must say that he referred to the matter to which I am about to refer. While this Bill, as was indicated by the Attorney-General, will enable the Commonwealth to restrain the growth of legally aided family law expenditure, it should not be thought that it represents the sole response to the burdens placed on the legal aid budget. Since assuming office the Attorney-General has indicated-the honourable member for North Sydney referred to this-a general review of legal aid and the role of the Commonwealth in the delivery of legal aid services. Following the Budget he announced that the Government had approved the establishment of a small legal aid task force to explore cost effective methods of legal aid delivery throughout the country. Until that task force has had the opportunity of looking at the most cost effective method of delivering legal aid, some of the assumptions that all of us may make could well be not justified. There is considerable significance in the work to be carried out by that task force, as the honourable member for North Sydney acknowledged. Another question to be addressed and which has been adverted to is whether all the family law cases which currently receive legal aid funding really require lawyers and legal advice for their resolution or whether there is a more cost effective method of resolving family law disputes. That is the sort of matter that should be examined. In seeking answers to the question, the Attorney- General again has put in train an examination of the various options available for possible alternative advice and dispute resolution facilities. Also, of course, he has asked the Family Law Council and the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council to assist in the examination. Therefore, it appears that in broad thrust , if not in detail, the concerns of the Government are shared by the Opposition. Having regard to the matters which the Attorney-General has directed be examined -I refer to the task force on cost effectiveness and the possibility of adopting alternative methods of addressing this problem-I think everyone hopes for a resolution of many of the grave problems which have been outlined in the course of discussion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 11 October. Schedule 2. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure, $653,298,000. Department of Health Proposed expenditure, $493,045,000. Department of Veterans' Affairs Proposed expenditure, $707,504,000. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(11.03) —This morning I wish to address my remarks to the expenditures through the Department of Health on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In this area there is need for fairly urgent action by the Government to overcome very severe problems in the supply of pharmaceuticals to the Australian community. Perhaps I should say that although the trouble goes back many years- and I in- tend to talk about what happened not only under this Government but also during previous governments-the matter came to a head following the economic statement of 19 May 1983 by the Treasurer (Mr Keating), in which he said: Under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme there are a number of multi-branded pharmaceutical products which bear different rates of subsidy. The Government has decided that for such generally equivalent pharmaceutical products, the price differential between the highest and lowest price brands should be reduced as soon as possible to no more than 5c. Savings in 1983-84 are estimated at $6m. Within that apparently innocent sounding statement there lies extraordinary turmoil. I do not believe that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) understood what was involved in that statement at the time it was made, but I believe that officers of the Deparment of Health knew perfectly well what was involved. I would like to go back over a little of the history of pharmaceutical pricing. Incidentally, although the change announced in the May statement was to have come into operation on 1 July, extensions and further extensions were granted and ultimately, after the failure of negotiations with the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, it came into operation on 1 October. Over the last decade there has been increasing pressure on prices charged by the pharmaceutical manufacturers in Australia, most of whom are multinational companies. A squeeze on pricing has been pursued with considerable vigour by the Department of Health, with the result that over these years prices for drugs obtained through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme-the biggest purchaser of the drugs, in effect, on behalf of the taxpayer-have been very much indeed below average world prices. This policy of putting the squeeze on overseas manufacturers was pursued with the approval, of course, of both the Whitlam and Fraser governments. Certainly, it has had substantial support from within the Department of Health, backed up, I would think, by the Treasury. The obvious beneficial effect has been the provision of drugs to the Australian community at lower cost, but there are difficulities. Those difficulties were becoming extremely apparent by the time I took over the ministry of Health. There were very unfair differences between different companies because the prices were not set in any market-place or by reference to any market. Rather they were set by the Department of Health through the so-called pricing bureau, which held all the cards. The contribution of Australia to world-wide research and development by these companies was at a lower level than, certainly, I judged was fair, if one looked at what should be a fair contribution by a country such as Australia. A squeeze was imposed on local manufacturing plants because it became less profitable to manufacture locally. Export opportunities were lost because Australia, which should have been an export centre for these types of drugs, became much less attractive and companies tended to supply the local region directly from their home bases. Assistance to local medical research through direct grants and contact between the companies was lessened. Opportunities for clinical trials by Australian researchers within the world pharmaceutical scene were being lost. Also, with the closing down of a lot of the local services of these companies, access to direct information of a detailed kind from manufacturers was being cut off. Local testing or advice by such companies became increasingly uneconomic. All this added up to a big problem about the potential quality of the service to the Australian public. Of course, on the other side, was a very much lower cost to the taxpayer. I judged that we had gone much too far over that decade. I am not claiming a particularly partisan point here, because certainly both sides had indulged in the practice and the Government of which I was a part certainly had done so. I believed that something had to be changed. I had discussions with the Australian Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association and, in conjunction with the then Minister for Industry and Commerce, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), planned a joint submission to the Cabinet to try to bring about a fairer pricing policy, one which would have quite beneficial effects on the quality of supplies to consumers as well as on the local manufacturing industry. Then, of course, the election came and we were thrown out of office. After that one hoped that there would be discussions of a reasonable kind between the incoming Minister and the APMA, but the first thing that appeared was this little piece of poison in the May statement. When I saw it I judged that the whole thing had been thrown back into the administrative machine. I did not believe that there had been a full ministerial understanding of this particular item, and I think some of the activities that have taken place since back me up in that. One of the outcomes of the statement was a threat that the purer forms of insulin, the provision of which affect some 30,000 diabetics in Australia, would not be available at the prices that could be charged by the manufacturers. There was, of course, a tremendous outcry from diabetics, and the Government, after considerable public pressure was exerted, adjusted prices to allow those purer forms of insulin to remain on the market. However, in other areas-this is not wholly related to the May statement, rather to the general problem that I have raised-where fewer people are involved, in this particular case I think fewer than 3,000 children, the Government has been totally inflexible in pricing policy. Certain products have been delisted. The products that have been delisted are ones which are designed for infants with an allergy to both cow's milk and soya-based formulae. Only a small number of prescriptions for these products are issued throughout Australia each year. But a family affected by this decision will experience considerable difficulty. The nutritional preparations concerned in this case are Pregestimil and Glucose Nutramigen. They are both produced by Bristol-Myers Co. Pty Ltd under the Mead Johnson label. Bristol-Myers is also in the same trouble over certain small volume cancer drugs. I do not have time to talk about those this morning, but the situation is equally difficult. Representatives from Bristol-Myers came to me during the early period when I was Minister for Health, saying that because of the small volume of their production in Australia and because of the relatively high overheads in relation to the volume of those two types of drugs, they believed they should have a price increase which would bring the price of the drugs on the Australian market closer to the world average prices for those drugs. I examined their case and was sympathetic towards it. But since I was involved in general negotiations with the industry to try to get an overall satisfactory pricing system, I did not agree to a special price for them at that stage. But I made it clear that I believed their case was justified. The company and other companies in that industry would have expected the new Minister to have continued the negotiations and discussions that I had had with the industry. But they were disabused of this by the May statement of the Treasurer. Also, subsequent meetings with the Minister have not been happy. Consequently, those two drugs for babies who suffer allergies and must have them have been withdrawn from the PBS list. They are no longer available to families on a subsidised basis and the cost to an individual family for those preparations is about $200 a month. As predicted, the company reached the end of its tether. It had been negotiating for three years to try to get a reasonable pricing structure for the drugs, and I believe its case was justified. A press release from the Minister states: We are not prepared to bow to blackmail from foreign owned companies. The Minister said that families who use these products have every reason to be outraged, but that anger should be directed at the company and not at the Government. The real difficulty is that multinational companies are fair game. I have looked at this case as objectively as I possibly can. I have looked at the whole problem of the industry, and I believe that the Minister in this case is following bad departmental advice. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter and also to reconsider the situation of overall negotiations with the industry to try to improve the quality and availability of drugs to the Australian public and also build up a good high technology industry. Mr DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FREE(Macquarie)(11.13) —In speaking this morning to the estimates of the Department of Social Security, I want to make some comments about the Government 's assets test proposal. In particular, I want to contrast the reality of that proposal with the rhetoric of the Opposition on this matter. The Australian Labor Party came to power committed to raising the value of the basic pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings and to achieve this objective, to improve the lot of those pensioners living below the poverty line, clearly the greatest assistance must go to those people in greatest need. The Government's approach, its philosophy, was made clear in the joint statement of the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and the Minister for Veterans' Affairs (Senator Gietzelt) on 24 August. They stated: It is unacceptable that retired people with large estates and hundreds of thousands of dollars should be able to arrange their assets so that they can receive full pension and fringe benefits. I will deal briefly with the main features and facts of the assets test. It is important that people should be aware of the facts because there has been a lot of disinformation. The Opposition, particularly since Budget night, has been running a fear campaign about the assets test. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the alternative Prime Minister of this country, has been busy for the last seven weeks trying to frighten old people about the assets test. He has talked of the elderly 'reeling' under the means test. He has claimed that the Government wants to 'squeeze every last ounce' out of pensioners. He has said he will not allow this Government to 'grind down the elderly'. He is just like his predecessor; he is happiest when he is trying to scare old people. We all remember the former leader of the Liberal Party when he was in trouble in February. His immediate resort was the blunt instrument, the scare campaign. We all remember when the former leader of the Liberal Party talked about people's savings. He said: 'It would be safer if you put them under your bed than in the banks'. We all know what happened to that scare campaign. The former leader of the Liberal Party reaped a bitter harvest on 5 March. Unfortunately, his successor appears to be a slow learner. I will spell out the major features of the assets test. First, who will it affect? The most important point that should be appreciated is that of the two million pensioners in Australia, one and a half million will not be affected. Of the remainder, 170,000 will be better off. The rest, the 330,000 people with considerable assets which are not presently earning income, will be asked to put those assets to work. The need for an assets test is obvious in the context of the Government's pre-election promise to raise the level of the basic pension to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Average weekly earnings are currently about $350 a week. Twenty-five per cent of that figure is $87.50. The single rate of pension is currently $82.35; in other words about $5 below 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. Put simply, the Government's aim is to increase pensions by about $5 a week; that is a real increase of $5 over and above the regular six-monthly consumer price index increases. Clearly, if that is the Government's desire, one must examine where the Government will find the money. The answer lies in the assets test, by requiring retired people who have deprived themselves of income, often by depositing large sums in cheque accounts in order to obtain full pensions, to rearrange their affairs. I point out in passing that over the years this practice has really amounted to a huge interest free loan by pensioners to the banks and financial institutions. Nobody really knows how much is involved. But some time ago the National Times estimated that $500m was involved-a huge interest free loan to the banks. There is no doubt that the present income test, a creation of the former Government, encouraged the belief that somehow or other a dollar from the Government was more valuable than a dollar from one's own investments. Many pensioners went ahead and deprived themselves of income, frequently receiving less by way of pension than they could have received by way of investing that money. The main beneficiaries of that system introduced by the former Government certainly are not the pensioners; they are the banks and financial institutions. While the banks and financial institutions have not had to pay interest on that money, they have certainly had the use of that money for many years-in fact, for seven years-and they have been able to lend it out and earn a great deal, at least $50m a year, by doing so. The details of the operation of the assets test are gradually being communicated. The assets that are not counted include a home, its contents, personal effects, car, boat, caravan and cash amounts-cash at hand-of $1,500 for single people and $2,500 for a married couple. The assets that will be counted include cash in excess of those amounts that I have mentioned, which will be deemed to be earning 10 per cent. Of course, the money would be able to earn more. Safe investments are available at the moment that will return 13 1/2 per cent and 14 per cent. But the important point is that only 10 per cent will be deemed to be earned. For example, an amount of $50,000 invested at 14 per cent would leave a pensioner almost $40 a week better off because that money will be deemed to be earning only 10 per cent. The application of the assets test will mean that a single person will be entitled to a full pension if he has assets of up to $17,100 and a part pension if he has assets of up to $106,400. He will retain fringe benefits with assets of up to $31,140. A married couple will be able to claim the full pension with assets of up to $28,500, a part pension with assets of up to $177,428 and will retain fringe benefits with assets of up to $51,380. Quite clearly, under the new system some pensioners will need financial counselling and advice. I am quite confident that the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs will play a very constructive role in that area. It is also encouraging to see that the financial institutions-the ones that have had the use of this money for so many years-recognise that they have a part to play as well. I shall quote from a brochure issued by the NSW Building Society Ltd. No doubt other financial institutions will do the same thing. This useful and informative brochure, which is entitled What retired people should know about the asset means test, has some very good things to say about the assets test. Its first page, which is headed 'Good News!', states: Despite the post-budget hysteria, there is no need to panic about the government's new asset means test. The new regulations are neither sinister nor unreasonable. In fact, in many ways, the government has been quite generous! The aim of the asset means test is to clamp down on those people who are exploiting the existing system. Although all pensioners will be required to provide full details of income and assets, only a small percentage will actually be worse off. Some pensioners will even do better under the new scheme! Exact details have not yet been finalised, but the government is currently consulting with pensioners' organisations . . . You should maintain your current investment arrangements until a detailed announcement is made by the government. In the meantime, relax! The new regulations will not apply until November, 1984 . This document is not put out by the Government or by the Labor Party; it is put out by the NSW Building Society. I should like to read the whole brochure but it is rather long. The last page which is headed 'Feeling Better?' states: Now that your are a little better informed, we hope you're a lot less worried about the asset means test. I commend this brochure to members of the House. Mr Shipton —Are any members of the Labor Party on the Board of that Society? Mr FREE —No. In fact they are all Liberals. I understand it is a battle between two rival factions of the Liberal Party in New South Wales, or it certainly used to be. I commend this brochure to members of the Opposition in particular because they obviously need to be better informed about the assets test. I recommend that every member of the Opposition pick up two copies of this brochure. They should send one copy to their leader because he needs help in this matter. Liberal members should read the brochure very carefully; for members of the National Party there is a very nice picture on the front. Mr WILSON(Sturt)(11.23) —In taking part in this debate I should like in the first instance also to deal with the Australian Labor Party's proposal to introduce an assets test because in making that announcement the Labor Party broke yet another promise. In the lead-up to the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised that his Government would not 'take money out of pensioners' cheques'. By reintroducing the assets test his Government is doing just that and as a result is causing anxiety and concern amongst many aged pensioners. That concern has also been increased for a significant group of the aged population-those over 70-because of the reintroduction of an incomes test which is to be converted into an assets test for persons 70 years and over. It needs to be pointed out that a lot of people have planned their retirements on the basis of there being no income test or assets test for a basic pension for people over 70. Who abolished the means test? It was a Labor Government. The Whitlam Government abolished the means test for people over 75 and then reduced that age so that people over 70 were entitled to a means test-free pension. How consistent is the reintroduction of an assets test or the reimposition of a means test of one sort or another on pensioners over 70 with the Labor Party's professed claim that it will one day introduce a national superannuation scheme? It is mostly those with modest savings who will be penalised because after paying their taxes they saved what they could for their retirement. It is ludicrous for Labor spokesmen to justify their actions by claiming that this proposal is aimed at the very wealthy. The very wealthy comprise a very small proportion of those who will lose or will have money taken out of their pension cheques as a consequence of Labor's action. Although the pensions of all people may not be affected, all pensioners will be required to provide details of their belongings by supplying inventories of their assets to the Department of Social Security. If one wants to understand what this means to old people one has to see reports of the way in which the over 70s are affected. Those people are receiving letters from the Department of Social Security calling upon them to provide details of their income and their assets in a way in which they previously did not have to do. In many instances officers of the Department of Social Security call on elderly people and ask them to provide details not only of their income but also their assets. In many circumstances the very people who are required to provide this information could simply say to those officers: 'Knowing my assets and my income, I know that I will no longer, because of the re-introduction of an income test for pensioners over 70, be entitled to a pension, so therefore I do not have to provide you with any information'. But no, that is not the approach. There is an invasion into the private affairs of many pensioners who are now not entitled to pensions and who should not in those circumstances be required to give details to departmental officers. The Labor Party, when it abolished the means test for those over 70, introduced taxation on pensions and justified that introduction on the basis that the means test on all pensions was to be phased out. What will happen when the assets test is reimposed? Is there any suggestion that, as a consequence of that and as a consequence of the reintroduction of the pension for the over-70s, pensions will no longer be taxed? To be consistent, pensioners should not be subject to tax on their pension income. Under Labor's recent Budget proposals pensions will still be taxable, even though the means test is being reimposed. As a result, pensioners whose pensions rise by, say, $100 a year will lose $50 of their pension because of the means test and will pay $15 tax on the balance. As a consequence, they will lose 65c out of every dollar of additional income. This is a very high effective rate of tax and one which takes away the reward for effort and destroys the incentive for self-reliance. Until Labor came to office our age pension scheme provided retirement incomes to nine out of ten people aged 65 and over. Having held out the promise of a national superannuation scheme, which presumably would provide pensions and universal income protection for all people, the Labor Government, by the reintroduction of the means test, played a mean trick on those who have retired or who are approaching retirement. I wonder whether it is practical to reimpose an assets test. It is one thing to say that pensions are available in the first instance on the basis of people satisfying a test, but it is another thing, having given pensions to hundreds and thousands of ordinary, average Australians who have modest savings, to seek to reimpose that test. I am of the view, and have been throughout my political career, that every Australian reaching the age of 65 should as of right be entitled to a retirement income. On that basis we could build a sensible and rational national superannuation scheme as, on that basis, people could plan and could save to supplement the basic pension that would be available to all. As I have pointed out, it seems to me totally inconsistent of the Labor Party, in espousing the introduction of a national superannuation scheme, to step back from the very foundation upon which a sensible national superannuation scheme could be built. I turn to two other matters with which I will deal very briefly. In our social security system, we currently assess entitlement on the basis of the income and/ or assets of both husband and wife. I think the time is coming when we should change that approach and begin to look at the needs of individuals and of those individuals as they are affected by the assets and income of the household or housekeeping unit of which those individuals are members. I think the time has come when we need, for example, to look at converting the spouse rebate into a cash allowance payable to the mother at home or the homemaker. In some instances it is not the mother who is at home; it is the unemployed husband of an employed wife. All men and women need a degree of personal economic independence. It may not be possible in the first instance to provide everyone with an income equal to the married rate of unemployment benefit or pension. But at least we should make a start by providing to every adult a level of income that gives to that adult, in whatever household he or she lives, a degree of economic independence. I believe that could be achieved by converting the spouse rebate into a cash allowance. The same is true for young people. I think that 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds need some degree of economic independence. I find it very strange that the Labor Government should be promoting in its education policy participation in an equity program to get young students to remain at school whilst, at the same time, it increases the unemployment benefit payable to that age group without providing those who stay at school or their families with additional income support. I think we need to look at the young, the 16-year-olds, and 17-year- olds, and apply common income entitlements to them all. I hope that, over the months ahead, the Government will look at the possibility of providing youth allowances to 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.33) —I desire to talk for a little while on the appropriations relating to health insurance. The Government regards access to quality basic health care as a right of all Australians, regardless of their income. At the moment, two million Australians have no health insurance at all. They would have to pay the whole cost of treatment themselves if they became sick. Many others have health cover because they know it is too risky to leave themselves and their families without cover, but it is a drain on their finances that they cannot really afford. The Labor Government believes that the costs of health care should be related to ability to pay. Medicare will cost one per cent of taxable income, regardless of whether the consumer earns a wage or is self- employed. If one earns less than $215 a week as a family or $129 a week as a single person, with an allowance of $21.15 for each dependent child, it will cost nothing. If one earns $300 a week, it will cost just $3 a week and so on, that is, one per cent of income. The maximum weekly payment from any income will be $13.40. The levy will be paid at the same time as we pay our taxes. In return for this, all permanent Australian residents will be refunded a minimum of 85 per cent of the scheduled fee component of their medical bills. The maximum gap the patient will pay is $10 for any one service- Mr Shipton —For a doctor of choice? Mr SNOW —If the doctor of choice is outside a public hospital. If the doctor direct bills the Government, it will cost the patient nothing. Hospital treatment and accommodation will be completely free if one goes to a public hospital and is treated by hospital doctors. So, there is a choice of doctor under the levy. The levy covers free treatment by hospital doctors in a public ward. Extra private insurance may be taken out to cover non-public accommodation , medical extras or the doctor of choice in a hospital. The total cost to the patient will not be anything like the present cost a person pays for full cover. A patient with a chronic health problem will be covered for 100 per cent of the doctor's scheduled fee after gap payments of $150 in any one year. Many exaggerated claims have been made about Medicare. One is that many people will lose their jobs. I believe that, given the Government's preference for employing people already employed in existing funds, this will have far less effect than is suggested by the many purveyors of panic who are predicting thousands of unemployed. Much has been made by the Opposition of doctors bulk billing. I remind the Committee that chemists have been bulk billing since the introduction of the Page scheme in 1951. It is arrant hypocrisy for the Opposition to decry bulk billing by doctors when it has been allowing chemists to bulk bill and has been fixing their prices for 30 years. We heard the extraordinary argument from the Opposition during the debate on the Medicare legislation that this Government is decreasing chemists' incomes by reducing incomes from agencies. There has been some debate in the pharmacy field whether agencies such as private hospital funds are worth keeping. Whatever the answer-and I know it does vary from State to State; there is a comparatively low usage in New South Wales, for instance, compared with Victoria-the effect will be nothing like the treatment by the Liberal-National Party Government of pharmacists and a host of other small businesses on regular payment from government as well as wage and salary earners. All these people had their incomes frozen by the Fraser Government. I point out in the context of the Opposition accusing the Government of decreasing pharmacy incomes that the Opposition played a full role in decreasing the incomes of pharmacists and other small businesses in contract or with other financial arrangements with government. They had their incomes frozen by the Government during the time of the price freeze. Many of these small business operators, already hit by drought in country areas, by recession and by increasing costs, had their government- derived incomes frozen. Medicare will reduce fraud because it is a universal health scheme. It is quite wrong for anyone to claim that fraud will increase under Medicare. Fraud existed under the various Fraser health schemes. Private health funds are still prosecuting people for fraud. This sort of thing will be minimised by a universal health scheme. The various Fraser health schemes-each one a repair job on its predecessor-were all consistent in one way: They took from the poor and gave to the rich. This has been the history of Liberal governments not only in health but in all their policies. I refer now to the comments by the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who said, when talking about his concern for pharmaceutical manufacturers, that this Government had followed bad departmental advice. Compared with the disastrous and complex form introduced by the honourable member, when he was Minister, a form which he blamed on departmental advice, the sorts of things that he talked of were of far less consequence. I know that his questions will be answered later in this debate, so I will not dwell on them. I remind the Committee that the dry philosophy of the previous Government and of many honourable members in the previous Parliament led to the sort of situation in which this type of chaotic checking system was introduced. Pharmacies throughout the country, at great cost, had to put up with a complex form which patients had to sign. I would be surprised if two out of 500 patients were able to fill in the prescription forms without instructions from a pharmacist or from staff in a pharmacy. The sorts of checks that were instituted allegedly to recover fraud would in no way have paid for themselves, particularly if forms were checked within the Department. I guess that no attempt was made within the Department to check thoroughly the forms that were filled in. No attempt was made to remove those forms until there was a change in government. The Hawke Government, quite decisively, considerably modified the form. Mr Carlton —You modified it but did not remove it. Mr SNOW —Fewer details on the front of the form made it far easier for customers . I can tell the honourable member for Mackellar that far more people are now able to fill in the form without assistance. The Hawke Government's health proposals are a move away from the inspector state that we had. They are based on the belief that the Australian taxpayer is entitled to an efficient health system with a minimum of form filling and a minimum of overlapping. They are based on the belief that all Australians, regardless of income, have a right to basic health care, and that is why Medicare will succeed. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(11.43) —I wish to raise two matters on these estimates: First of all the disguised but significant increase in the Government's propaganda or public relations machine, of which there is evidence in the estimates for the Department of Social Security as in other estimates; and, secondly, the increasing difficulty for the self-employed to have anything like the same income security safety net which is available to every other Australian. Page 135 of Budget Paper No. 5, under the sub-heading 'Average Employment Analysis' indicates a massive increase in total average employment for the Department of Social Security this financial year. The number of staff will increase from 13, 110 to 15,554, an increase of close to 20 per cent. I draw the attention of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to one of the sections of that average employment analysis, and I would like an answer from the Minister. The number of staff in parliamentary liaison will be increased from 23 to 28. More particularly the number of staff in the Public Information Service will be increased from 58 to 69. Why is there such an increase-from 58 to 69-in the number of staff in the Public Information Service? Unless the Minister can give some reasonable answer one has to agree with the allegation that the increase is part of a disguised but massive development of a government propaganda machine, a system to use taxpayers' money to promote, publicise and create a favourable political image for the Government, all at the taxpayers' expense. Mr Hand —You ought to talk about that! Mr LLOYD —If the honourable member sitting in the back row would like some further evidence I will give it to him. According to page 142 of the same Budget Paper, under the Department of Administrative Services, under four separate sections-Government Information Unit, National Media Liaison Service, Ministerial Media Group and Federal Information Offices; in other words, the central core of the Government's propaganda machine-the number of staff is up from 17 under the previous Government last year to 33 this year, an increase of almost 100 per cent in the direct central core of the Government's propaganda machine. Honourable members will remember the outcry that the Government-then the Opposition-made about the previous Government's Information Unit and Federal Information Service which had a staff of 16. There are 33 positions in this Government's two organisations which have replaced the previous Government's organisations. I believe that deserves an answer as does my question relating to the Department of Social Security. Why is there a massive increase from 58 positions to 69 in the Public Information Service? I could go through the position in other departments as well. Why was the number of staff in the Government's propaganda machine in the Department of Administrative Services increased from 17 to 33? It is nothing but a ripoff of taxpayers' money. It is completely contrary to the Government's criticism when it was in opposition and is contrary to what it claimed it would do when in government. I express my concern at the increasing difficulty for the self-employed in this country to have anything like the same income security net which all other Australians have. The self-employed have always been disadvantaged by superannuation arrangements and benefits, that is, the basic form of somebody being able to assist himself for his retirement. The previous Government provided some remedy through the taxation system, but the advantage of superannuation in retirement still remains most decidedly with wage and salary earners. There has always been greater difficulty in obtaining, under any government, some form of government welfare assistance for the self-employed than there has been for the wage and salary earners. The system was obviously designed for the wage and salary earner and, in my opinion, has always been administered with a bias against the self-employed. I will give examples of several ways in which it is now harder than ever for the self-employed to receive the income security net arrangement which is available for other Australians. I refer to the unemployment benefit. Over the last few months we have been advised that it is now almost impossible for a self -employed person to get unemployment benefit because of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal determination. I put this point to the Minister and I would like to receive an answer. Is that advice correct? Is that assertion correct? It appears to be correct because of the complaints coming into my office in the electorate from the self-employed who have tried to get unemployment benefit. If this Tribunal's determination does provide some impediment surely it is up to the Government, if it is a sincere believer in providing the same or anywhere near the same level of income security for the self-employed, to do something about it. The self-employed have always found it harder to obtain unemployment benefit because of the different income test that is used for the self-employed, which is based on annual net income or corrected income, than for the wage and salary earner, who is on a weekly income. I will give an example of the absurd situation that this creates in my electorate which is the major dairying electorate in Australia. Many a dairy farmer, whose net income is under $8,000 per annum, is available for work but is not eligible for any unemployment benefit because that figure is above the annual income level he is allowed. If the $8,000 is not the correct figure at the moment it is not far from it. It depends on the number of dependent children. Such a dairy farmer is income tested out of any assistance whatsoever; yet a tanker driver, employed by a dairy factory in the same dairy industry in the same electorate, who is earning an income, salary or wage of over $15,000 a year but is laid off for a few weeks in the off-season, is immediately eligible for a full unemployment benefit. Does the Government call that fair? Does the Government call that equitable for the unemployed in this country? A few years ago we had the equally absurd situation that one of the criteria for the payment of sickness benefit was that one must show loss of income. I think this still applies; I have not checked it lately. Farmers who showed a negative income in the rural depression of the mid-1970s-in other words they had a minus cash flow-were not eligible for sickness benefit. How could one have a loss of income if one did not have any income? That was the absurd logic that applied at one stage. To my knowledge that was corrected by Senator Dame Margaret Guilfoyle. I hope that is still the case. If it is not the case I would be pleased to be advised. The final point concerning this question of income security for the self- employed relates to the asset test. I believe that the abolition of the asset test by the coalition Government in 1976 was a great social welfare reform. For years we had fought for its abolition. This was one of the recommendations of the Henderson Commission of Inquiry into Poverty. New Zealand had never had an asset test; it had always had an income test and, to my knowledge, it still has only an income test. A particular problem with the self-employed is a high ratio of assets to cash flow. In fact, one of the reasons for the Australian farmer's leading position in the world in relation to efficiency is this high capital per worker. In other words, on world efficiency ratings, the more capital a worker has the more efficient he is. The Australian farmer is at the peak in capital per worker. Even for a small farm one would need about a quarter of a million dollars of assets. I would say that, in seven years out of 10, there is no way in which farmers in my area could earn $25,000 net income or get 10 per cent return on capital. Yet they will be ruled out. It is my understanding, from answers to questions on notice in this place and in the Senate that, the farm home is exempted from the assets test if the farmer , who is applying for the pension is still living in it. Of course, he has to be 65 years of age before he is eligible for the age pension. Who else in Australia is still working at the age of 65? That is an equally absurd situation. If he is not working that farm, if he has retired and somebody else is living in that home and maintaining the farm, the farm home is included in the asset test and is used against him. In other words, this Government, by reintroducing the asset test, is doing more to destroy the family farm than any other single thing that has ever been done in this country. The younger generation must be able to live in farm homes and to work farms to allow the transfer of family farms from one generation to the next. The asset test will do more to destroy the concept of the family farm than anything else that has ever been introduced. I hope that honourable members opposite are aware of that. Some special provision has to be made to exempt the family farm home from the asset test. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(11.53) —I wish to make a few points about the rather emotive comments made by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd). Mr McGauran —Sincere comments. Mr BRUMBY —The honourable member for Gippsland says that they were sincere comments. I doubt that. As the honourable member for Murray well knows, there has been no legislation at all that deals with the defined and final procedures for the assets test applicable to pensions. Mr Lloyd —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. What I said was based on answers to questions on notice in the Senate by the Minister for Social Security. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr BRUMBY —I repeat that the honourable member for Murray knows full well that final details of those assets tests have yet to be announced. He is engaging in an unnecessary campaign of fear and scaremongering. That is typical of the tactics of the National and Liberal parties. It is typical of their policies in Government continually to divide the community. One would think that honourable members opposite would have learnt from events on 5 March. They have not. The former Government divided the community time and time again. The object of its tactics in government was to create division. It is still doing it. I thought that honourable members opposite might have learnt something from their massive defeat on 5 March. Unlike the members of the Opposition, I would like to speak to something positive in the appropriations for the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Firstly, in the area of health, I refer to the Budget allocation of $489,000 under the national disease control program. That money is allocated to control the spread of Australian encephalitis and dengue fever. The Budget increase is a very significant one. It provides for an increase of $295,000 over funding for disease control of that kind in 1982-83. Most significantly-I hope that this is of interest to the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) and the honourable member for Murray- the Commonwealth will be providing dollar for dollar a $103,000 grant to Victoria this year. As honourable members know-the honourable member for Mallee knows this full well-that compares with the very meagre, in fact miserly, $35, 000 which was actually spent by the Federal Government in Victoria in 1982-83. Of course, last August, when that decision was announced by the Federal Government, I was a candidate for Bendigo. I campaigned strongly against the then Government for that massive cut in funds for this very important activity. I do not need to remind honourable members of the events of 1974, when 13 Australian lives were lost because of the outbreak of encephalitis. Apart from generating very serious personal and health costs for those individuals and their families, it decimated the tourist industry along the Murray and the tourist industry in my electorate of Bendigo, which area is frequently used as a thoroughfare to the Murray and as an overnight stay. I draw to the attention of honourable members, in particular the honourable member for Mallee and the honourable member for Murray, that this Budget increase is a significant one. It will enable the continuation of full and thorough research into Australian encephalitis. It should severely restrict, if not totally eliminate, further possibilities of another disastrous outbreak of Australian encephalitis. Also in the health field I raise a matter of some concern to me and to constituents in my electorate concerning allocations made to the National Acoustic Laboratories, which come under the Department of Health. The Laboratories provide a diagnostic and remedial service to hearing impaired persons. In Victoria that service is operated from Melbourne. While I certainly acknowledge the very dedicated, sincere and conscientious efforts of all staff at the National Acoustic Laboratories to provide the best possible service, the service provided to the people of my electorate is, because of the shortage of resources, totally inadequate. Since March of this year I have received an enormous number of representations from constituents and organisations within my electorate concerning this matter. They have all complained that the National Acoustic Laboratories, visiting service to Bendigo is now less frequent than it has been in the past. The technician who used to make those visits no longer goes to Bendigo. I want to outline briefly the extent of the need for services of this type in Bendigo. The need cannot be underestimated. I think it is important for honourable members to be aware of it. The Eaglehawk and Long Gully Community Health Centre, a magnificent complex which was funded and constructed under the previous Whitlam Government, has some seven resident general practitioners. During 1982 each of those GPs consulted, on average, 12 seriously hearing impaired persons. I have made a few investigations of my own and I think that that is a consistent level of consultation. Some 40 GPs operate in private practice throughout Bendigo. On that basis alone some 480 individuals in my electorate of Bendigo are consistently seeking services for their hearing impairments. A second group of people need this service. I refer to the McDonald House School for Deaf Children in Bendigo. That school has 29 students. It is highly regarded by the community and performs an absolutely essential and valuable service. All the children there have very severe hearing impairments with ongoing needs for assessment and technical assistance. The third group of my constituents that needs hearing services comprises the aged. I refer particularly to the Bendigo Home and Hospital for the Aged which accommodates approximately 400 people in nursing beds. At present the home forwards more than 100 hearing aids to the National Acoustic Laboratories in Melbourne annually for repair or modification. It is making new applications at the rate of more than 12 per year. The figures-I think they fairly and reasonably represent individual groups within my electorate-show that, in the general community, there are some 480 people with severe or serious hearing impairments who need that service. At McDonald House 29 children regularly need that service. At the Bendigo Home and Hospital for the Aged more than 100 people regularly need and require the services of the National Acoustic Laboratories. Those figures come to a total of more than 600 people. I will be raising this matter with the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) this week. I have prepared a very detailed submission to give him on the need for increased servicing in my electorate of Bendigo. I certainly hope that my comments today ensure that the Minister will be able to see fit next year when we are discussing these estimates to make an allocation for the establishment of the National Acoustic Laboratories service in Bendigo. I know that would be welcomed by the people of Bendigo, that it would be cost effective and certainly that the need is there. The last point I make refers to aged care which again comes under the Department of Health, the Department of Social Security and, as well, initiatives taken in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. We announced in the Budget a number of new initiatives in the aged care field. Some $2m was allocated for the development of effective approaches to assessing the care and needs of aged people. It has certainly been demonstrated that aged people are happiest and best cared for when they receive the level of care which is most appropriate to their needs. That sum of money which has been allocated will enable effective assessment of aged care needs in the future and that, in turn, will ensure that premature dependency, which is sometimes created at the moment when people are put into nursing home beds when they do not need them, is eliminated in the future. I particularly welcome those initiatives. Honourable members would be aware of the difficulties in my electorate in respect of the Stella Anderson wing of the Home and Hospital for the Aged. I have raised this matter in this Parliament in a question addressed to the Minister for Health. It is a building well ahead of its time which wants to offer care for the frail aged in the space between the care offered by hostels and nursing homes. But at the moment, as we follow the policies of the previous Government, there is simply no legislative mechanism to allow that building to be funded. As a consequence it has been unoccupied but I know that we are taking the right steps now to ensure that it can be opened. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.03) —In the Sydney Town Hall last week-last Tuesday to be precise-2,500 pensioners loudly and clearly told the Hawke socialist Government what they thought of this Government's disgraceful betrayal of the pensioners of Australia since it came to power on 5 March this year. Those 2,500 very angry pensioners in the Sydney Town Hall were speaking on behalf of two million Australian pensioners who have now been hit five times in seven months by the Hawke socialist Government which publicly claims that it really cares for the pensioners, the superannuitants and the elderly citizens of Australia. The Minister for Social Security, Senator Grimes, was guest speaker at the Sydney Town Hall. It was the Minister's birthday. I suggest that it was a birthday he will never forget. The headlines tell it all. The headline in the Telegraph read : 'Pensioners rage at asset test'. The article started: Grey power hit Sydney yesterday and its first victim was the Federal Social Security Minister, Senator Grimes. The Sydney Morning Herald, in an interesting play on words, proclaimed: Age catches up with Grimes. Right around Australia the newspapers told the story of how 2,500 representative Australian pensioners made it very clear to the Hawke socialist Government how they felt about the Government's treatment of them-the pensioners, the elderly and the senior citizens of Australia-since the Hawke Government came to power earlier this year. Let us take our minds back to that gala theatrical performance in the Sydney Opera House earlier this year when the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) solemnly promised the pensioners and the people of Australia that a Labor government would not-these are his precise words-'take money out of the pensioners' pockets'. That was the solemn promise, the solemn pledge-a Labor government would not 'take money out of the pensioners' pockets'. I suggest that on the basis of that promise alone many thousands of pensioners right around Australia would have been conned into placing their trust in the Prime Minister and an Australian Labor Party Federal government. That trust has been sadly misplaced because in five savage blows the Hawke socialist Government has belted the pensioners of Australia over the head. I suggest that it has treated them disgracefully and unjustly and that it will reap a massive electoral backlash from the senior citizens of Australia, who call themselves grey power, at the next Federal election. In chronological order the five savage blows are as follows: First, the reintroduction of means testing of the over 70-year-old pensioners for which there was no mandate whatsoever and not a word of which was spoken in the policy speech; secondly, the lump sum superannuation tax proposals; thirdly, the freezing of the tax threshold; fourthly, the proposed asset means testing; and, fifthly, the Medicare mugging, to use the words of the shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), or, in my words, the Medicare rip-off, whereby single pensioners will be robbed of $2.30 a week and married pensioners will be robbed of $3.90 a week from May of 1984. I want to address some remarks to these five savage blows delivered to the pensioners, the elderly, the aged, the infirm and the widows of Australia by this Hawke socialist Government which has the hypocrisy to claim that it is a caring government. Let us take them one by one. The reintroduction of means testing of pensions for over 70-year-olds is a cruel, unjust and inequitable move by the Hawke Government and reverses a just and humane action by the Whitlam Government. Let it be conceded on both sides of this chamber that it was Prime Minister Whitlam who had the courage to stand in this Parliament and say that it is unjust, inequitable and unfair to means test the over 70-year-olds of Australia. He said that his Government believed that it was so unjust that it should be repealed. In 1974 the Whitlam Government, to its very great credit, brought into this Parliament legislation which abolished means testing of the over 70-year-olds. Mr Whitlam, again to his credit, said: ' We will move as economic circumstances permit to reduce the age further'. In other words, it was not a one-off commitment. It was a commitment put into practice with a further commitment to move down the line. But in 1983 the Hawke socialist Government has trampled on and swept aside that just and humane action carried out by the former Labor Government under the Prime Ministership of Mr Whitlam. The second blow was the lump sum superannuation tax proposals which are putting fear and concern into the hearts of the senior citizens of Australia. It is unjust and iniquitous to move from a tax on 5 per cent of the lump sum to a tax of 30 per cent up to 46 per cent. What does this do for all those hundreds and thousands of Australian citizens who have believed all their lives that it is right and proper to be prudent and to prepare for their retirements? They now find that as the result of the actions of this Government they will not have the money upon which to retire and live in some moderate standard of comfort. They will not have assets to pass on, as they are properly entitled to, to their children and grandchildren. The lump sum superannuation proposals do not just relate to airline pilots and rich businessmen. They relate to ordinary men and women of Australia who, during their working lives, have been prepared to take action to prepare for their retirements. They are being belted over the head. The message from the Hawke socialist Government is now clear-people should not prepare for their retirement, be prudent or endeavour to look after themselves: Big brother will do it for them. The third blow was the freezing of the tax threshold. If ever a government stands condemned for doublespeak, Hawkespeak, cant and hypocrisy it is this Government. In fact, the Government during its term in opposition repeatedly plugged the question of the tax threshold and pointed out that unless the tax threshold was lifted more and more pensioners would fall into the situation of having to pay tax. As the result of this Government's actions thousands of Australian pensioners who currently are not paying tax will now have to pay tax because this Government has not moved up the tax threshold. The Government will probably catch anything betwen 25,000 and 50,000 Australian pensioners in the next financial year who will be told that while they have not had to pay tax in the past they will have to pay it in the future. Is this the way the Government treats old people? Is this the way it shows its care and concern for the elderly ? The mere delivery of a tax assessment of a few hundred dollars will place many of these people in a situation of absolute terror. Where will they get the money from? Where will they be able to find the assets to pay? I now turn to the question of asset means testing. The former Prime Minister, the Rt Hon. Malcolm Fraser, following the humane and just lead of Prime Minister Whitlam, moved successfully in this Parliament in 1978 to abolish asset means testing, a move which was supported by many members of the Labor Party. I can tell honourable members the move was publicly applauded by members of the ALP in Tasmania. What has the Government now done? It is now bringing in legislation which will hang over the old people of Australia for the next 12 months. They will fret and worry as to what it is doing. Senator Grimes now says: 'Of course, we will consult with the pensioner groups'. I suggest he should have consulted with the pensioner groups before he announced this incredible legislation. Under this legislation pensioners who put their money into jewellery or works of art will not be caught, but pensioners who have a small holiday shack at a coastal seaside resort bought for probably #2,000 or #3,000 40 years ago will find that that will be deemed to be an income producing asset and their pension will be docked. The plain fact of the matter is that Senator Grimes has conceded that the asset means test will affect over 300,000 pensioners, either in reduction of their existing pension or wiping it out completely. Does the Government think it is right that out there in the rest of Australia, in peoplesville, two million pensioners are wondering whether they will be caught up in this iniquitous asset means test. We should not pretend it will get only the tall poppies. What the Government is effectively doing-as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) who spoke earlier in relation to farm properties pointed out-is hitting and punishing those who built up assets which they, in turn, wish to pass on to their family. As to the Medicare mugging, the Government will effectively reduce the consumer price index by 2.6 per cent. That means that as of May next year when pensions will go up, single pensioners will be robbed by the present Hawke socialist Government of $2.30 a week-that will be a continuing weekly robbery of their pension-and married couples by $3.90 per week. Shame on the Government; it is not a caring government. It has betrayed the pensioners of Australia. Grey power sees what the Government is doing, grey power will remember and grey power will take it out on the Labor Government at the next Federal election when it will be turfed out of office, and properly so. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(12.13) —The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) pointed out that the Opposition continues to misrepresent the facts. I will not say any more about what the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) had to say. I am sure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) will deal with him in his summing up at the end of this debate. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) and his staff on doing a magnificent job in the formulation of the Budget Papers for the Department of Social Security. I also congratulate the departmental heads throughout Australia and the staff who work for the departmental heads and for the Department of Social Security. They do a marvellous job for me and all the Queensland Federal members and senators. I mention especially Mr Nolan, the Director in Queensland and Miss Terese Guilfoyle. Members of the staff have a very difficult and complex job. They deal with many complex problems every day. I congratulate them on the way they handle the problems, especially for the aged, the infirm and the unemployed. I would be the last one to add to their work load, but I suggest that there is one area where they could do a little better than at present, and that is in regard to co- operating with the Australian Electoral Office. The estimates of expenditure for the Department of Administrative Services show that we are spending some $4,362, 000 for accommodation and installation of computer facilities for the Department of Social Security. Page 50 of the explanatory notes shows that the Department of Social Security is spending another $2,036,000. Page 30 mentions the spending of another $14,148,000. I think that is worth while. We need these extra Stratplan computer facilities to enable people to get their payments on time and to check on the fraudulent behaviour of people who are recipients of social security payments. I will deal with that point later on. I point out that we are spending many millions of dollars in updating the computer systems for the Department of Social Security. I thought this would be a very good time to update the system. With the technology we have today the Department of Social Security would be able to assist the Australian Electoral Office. I have written letters in this regard. I pointed out to the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) and the Minister for Social Security that it had been brought to my attention that many people who contact my electoral office and are benefit or pension recipients are not on the electoral roll. I always check the people who come into my office. If they want me to give them assistance and check with the Department of Social security. I always make sure that they are registered. If they are not I try to help them. If they are over 18 years of age and are Australian citizens we always try to make sure they get on the roll. It is mandatory that an Australian citizen who is over the age of 18 and has lived in a certain residence for a certain period be registered. He can get fined if he is not. These people can be paid unemployment benefits or social security benefits and they do not have to be on the roll. I thought we could work out a system where the Department of Social Security and the Australian Electoral Office would be able to work in co-operation with one another. Mr Brumby —Good idea. Mr HUMPHREYS —I think it is a very good idea, as the honourable member points out. On page 49 of the explanatory notes we find that the Department of Social Security has to pay the Australian Electoral Office for the cost of microfiche access to the Electoral Office records. In 1982 the expenditure amounted to $10, 840; it has increased now to $98,000. I would like the Minister to explain how the increase occurred. Perhaps the Department of Social Security will take on board what I have suggested. A Press release from the Australian Electoral Office written by the Chief Electoral Officer dated 26 September 1983 states: Electoral office research reveals massive underenrolment of more than 500,000 . . . amongst young unemployed. Surely, those people would be receiving social security payments. Yet we find that 500,000 people are not on the roll. Surely we could work out a way in which the Department of Social Security can work in co-operation with the Australian Electoral Office because we do pay these people an amount of money. The Minister for Social Security replied to my letter. He pointed out that he appreciated the rationale behind my suggestion, and pointed out a few of the problems that existed within his Department. The Special Minister of State also appreciated what I was saying. He said in the letter-I will not read the letter out-that he would appreciate a little more co-operation from the Department of Social Security. Perhaps we can get the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, who is at the table, to encourage Senator Grimes to take that matter on board. This would help to get these young people on the roll. The Press statement of the Australian Electoral Office stated that the young people do not know enough about this matter. The Department of the Special Minister of State will be spending $3m to encourage people to get on the roll. Surely we could be spending that money in co-operation with the Department of Social Security in creating jobs instead of advertising and giving it to the media barons, although, hopefully, that would be successful, but I do not believe it would be. The Press release states: Many people believe that . . . the Government will do that job for them . . . I think we should do the job for them. This is reflected in the Press release. Young people will get on the roll if the Government helps them. That is a good point to make. I believe that this would stop a lot of fraud in the Social Security Department. We know that there are rogues who have three addresses. We see from the explanatory notes for the Department of Social Security that the Department checks the electoral roll to ensure that people are not defrauding it . Let us look at the figures. The payout from the Department of Social Security this year will be $16 billion. In 1982-83, some 12,661 incidents of fraudulent negotiations were detected. If that was the number that was detected, one can imagine the numbers that are not being caught up with. I believe that, if the Ministers do as I suggest, we will catch many more of these people. The other day a bank manager in Brisbane told me that people have come into the bank with their pay cheque in one hand and a social security unemployment cheque in the other and have cashed both cheques at the one time. So it is going on. These are the people with whom we could probably catch up if we were, in co-operation with the Australian Electoral Office, to make more checks and to make sure that recipients of the dole are over 18 years of age and Australian citizens. If so, they should be on the electoral roll. I hope the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs will talk to the Department of Social Security and encourage the Minister for Social Security to take further steps to ensure that what I have been suggesting takes place. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(12.22) —As this debate involves the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health, I wish to address myself to two specific concerns: First, the assets test; and secondly, the affect of Medicare on bush nursing hospitals. I speak on these two matters because the Labor Government's decisions in both these areas show a total absence of prior consultation with interested bodies as well as revealing a very dangerous philosophical approach. I shall examine first the Government's failure to consult relevant bodies, interested persons and the community in regard to the assets tests on eligibility for pensions. I say to the Committee as, no doubt, could other honourable members, that when the announcement was made in the Budget on 23 August a great many pensioners in a terrified state approached my electoral office. They were confused, scared and, quite simply, terrified, of what the future would bring. It is encumbent upon any government, when it makes a decision such as this-a quite radical decision-to consult properly, to inform properly and to prepare the way before announcing it. I and my colleagues say that this Government has failed to do that. It stands condemned for causing a great deal of fear to a great many people. The absurdity of the assets test has already been covered by the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) and the honourable member for Dennison (Mr Hodgman) . I simply say that the stupidity of the assets test can be no better highlighted than by the illustration that a person can receive a pension so long as his capital is invested in one home, one car and antique jewellery or furniture. I can certainly cite examples from my electorate office files of pensioners who have approached me who have one very humble home and possibly at the same time another very humble home, both of very little value. They let the second home or permit their children or relatives to live in it rent free or at a subsidised rent. The situation, which needs to be clarified by the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), is that such a person will have his or her pension reduced or, in some circumstances, denied. That is clearly unjust and discriminatory. I now turn to the Government's lack of consultation in regard to Medicare and bush nursing hospitals. The decisions made in regard to bush nursing hospitals have been of substantial concern to local communities as well as those who work within those hospitals. Again, this Government failed to consult properly or to take advice from the Victorian Bush Nursing Association. Indeed, I am led to understand that the Minister's Department had actually misplaced the submission from the Association. That would be a quite intolerable act of incompetence. The fact that the Minister did not properly consider that submission is reflected in the Medicare legislation. Under that legislation, as most honourable members would realise, any person who wishes to attend a bush nursing hospital and who also wants to avoid high public hospital costs will have to take out private health insurance in addition to the compulsory one per cent levy on his income. The question for bush nursing hospitals is simply this: Will people in rural communities who are unable to travel long distances to public hospitals be able to afford to take out private health insurance as well as paying the one per cent Medicare levy? The answer to that, I suspect, is no. Therefore, the very survival of numerous bush nursing hospitals is at stake. Did this Government properly consult those affected? Did it consult local councils, general practitioners or the Bush Nursing Association? The answer is no. Again, the Government stands condemned for introducing very serious discriminatory legislation without prior and proper consultation. I wish now to address myself to the philo- sophical implications of the Government's action in regard to bush nursing hospitals and Medicare as well as the assets test. I certainly believe, together with my colleagues, that the Government's philosophical approach in these areas has been demonstrated unmistakably to hit at the diligent person, the provident person, who seeks to care for himself and to prepare for his future. It seeks to implement a form of socialism which makes a person dependent on the state to an unnecessary degree. We must consider in addition to those two areas the Government's superannuation decisions and its attacks on the non-government schools. It boils down to simply this: This Government has no understanding-it deliberately has no understanding- of free enterprise and people who seek to care for themselves, to educate their children, to meet their health needs and to prepare for their retirement. This Government is hitting at some very basic foundations of our society. It will reap the anger of the people as the people reject this form of conformity, this brand of socialism. The Opposition stands for a person's right to prepare for his own future, his own retirement and, in whichever part of the country he may live, to receive the appropriate services. The Government has no empathy with people of rural communities, as evidenced by the fact that bush nursing hospitals in numerous rural communities will have to close. That will throw a large number of people out of work and will cause great inconvenience to, as well as create great costs for, people and families who have to travel distances to public hospitals. It is a surprise to me as well as to my National Party and Liberal Party colleagues that those Government members who have bush nursing hospitals within their electorates are silent on this issue. It is quite impossible for honourable members such as the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) to argue that bush nursing hospitals are satisfied with these arrangements. They simply are not, because their very survival is threatened. The Opposition stands for the paramount importance of the individual and his right to determine his life and to prepare properly for his family and for the future. In conclusion, I wish to raise a point which the honourable member for Murray raised and on which he was challenged by the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free). The honourable member for Macquarie stated that he is in favour of the assets test. He said that it will be great for pensioners because pensioners can invest their money at 14 per cent but be calculated at only 10 per cent. This needs to be clarified. What the honourable member for Macquarie failed to take into account is that the Government is claiming that the inflation rate will fall dramatically and that consequently interest rates will also fall below 10 per cent. What then of the pensioner who will receive 8 per cent interest but is calculated at 10 per cent? Mr Lloyd —The argument is not so hot then. Mr McGAURAN —As the honourable member for Murray says, the argument of the honourable member for Macquarie falls down around him. It is simply inaccurate and misleading. I ask the Minister to clarify that point if he is at all able to do so. I very much doubt that he is. Mr WELLS(Petrie)(12.31) —I do not intend to take more than a minute or two of the time of the Committee, nor do I think the Committee would wish me to do so. I refer to some remarks made much earlier in this debate by the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) who referred to the removal from the national health free list of two milk substitutes, pregestimil and glucose nutramigen. The honourable member for Mackellar suggested that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was ill advised when he took this action. I would like to set the record straight on that matter. Bristol Myers Co. Pty Ltd, the company responsible for producing the two milk substitutes pregestimil and glucose nutramigen, which milk substitutes are for babies allergic to ordinary milk, increased the cost of those two products by 59 per cent and 54.7 per cent respectively. This company expected that cost increase to be met by the Australian taxpayers by a direct subsidy through the national health scheme. The Minister was placed in a rather invidious situation. Either he had to accept the situation and allow the Australian taxpayers to subsidise this extra amount or he had to make a stand at that point and say that that was not going to happen. No Australian Minister for Health could reasonably stand back and allow every multinational pharmaceutical corporation which wished, without any notice, to increase the prices of its products by 59 per cent or 54 per cent to do so. If every pharmaceutical company did that, the cost to the Australian taxpayer would be an extra $200m a year. The Australian Government cannot stand back and allow itself to be blackmailed by multinational pharmaceutical corporations. Many people have come to my office to complain about what has happened, and I have explained the situation to them. Many people in my electorate have been affected by this situation. I have suggested to those people that they contact the pharmaceutical corporation directly, and it would be surprising if that company were not prepared to make some allowances for people in genuine need who have suffered as a result of its cost increases. I have been told that the Minister is perfectly happy to talk about any reasonable proposal if the company wishes to talk with the Minister. It just has to come back with a reasonable proposal. What it cannot do to the Australian taxpayers is increase the cost of its products by 59 per cent or 54 per cent and expect the Australian taxpayers simply to cop it. What we need is some indication of its cost of production, for example, that the cost of manufacture has gone up. Mr Carlton —The Government has had it for three years. The company has been giving it for three years. You are talking nonsense. Mr WELLS —The honourable member for Mackellar suggests that the company has been giving that sort of information for three years. The latest information I have received is that the cost of manufacture has gone down. I am willing to be corrected on that subject. If the honourable member for Mackellar would like to produce some statistics, that would be useful. But my information is that they are making this increase at a time their production costs have actually declined . We are saying that any reasonable proposal the company wishes to come back with will be looked at. In the meantime, while we realise that many Australians are being seriously inconvenienced by this action, the action was forced by the company, and it is up to the company to come back with a reasonable proposal. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(12.35) —I will be brief. I will not fall into the temptation of answering the comments made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Wells (Mr Petrie). From my scant current knowledge, I doubt that his figures are right. Some of us in this Parliament have been faced for a very long time with the problem of children who cannot use cows' milk. I suggest to the previous speaker that he go back to his books and look at some of the facts. I was very pleased to hear the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) refuting him and saying something along these lines. I want to raise only two matters in the time alloted to me in this debate. First of all, the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free) quoted the NSW Building Society as saying that the assets test was not sinister or unreasonable , that it was overcoming exploitation of the system and that only a small percentage of people would be worse off. That may well be the eventual situation , but at present the problem is that never before has a government caused such complete distress amongst the elderly in the community because of the uncertainty and confusion it has placed in their minds. As someone who has been very involved with social security matters for the past 20 years, not the last six months, let me assure honourable members that I have never seen as many people come to my Caringbah office in Sydney totally concerned, totally confused and, as a result, totally worried. Mr Lloyd —It is the same all over Australia. Mr DOBIE —I agree with that. Mr White —And in McPherson. Mr DOBIE —I am sure that McPherson is having the same problem, although I expect it is not quite the same as my area. Unlike some previous speakers, I do not single out the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), but the Hawke Labor Government. In its approach to social security, it has singled out-this has to be repeated over and over again-a section of the community which is not capable of changing its incomes, its assets or its lifestyles. These people are in a state of sheer confusion. 'Should we sell the house to our children or should we put money from our bank account into our grandchildren's names?' These things are being said not by very wealthy people who drive limousines and big cars but by the ordinary people in my electorate, those wise people who voted me here in March of this year. They come to me complaining that they do not know which way to turn. What do I say to these dear people? I say: 'Please do not change your asset holdings. Please do not get panicked by this Government. Please do not believe that this Government knows what it is about because it does not'. The Government brought in the appropriations that we are now debating and then said: 'We will do this, we will help these people'. There are some aspects of the Budget of this Government of which I do approve. I am very pleased that the Minister has shown great initiative in the areas of disability and rehabilitation. His wish to get rehabilitation patients involved in the administration of their own affairs is a very good and forward looking move. I congratulate him for that, but that is about the only thing I can congratulate him for when I see the concern that he is causing to the elderly. That applies to not just the elderly but also to the frail who are not elderly. It applies to the infirm. It applies to the ill. It applies to those who are dependent on pensions of any description. The younger a pensioner, the more distressing this becomes. I criticise the Government roundly for having brought in an assets test which will not be promulgated for a year. During that year we will hear people ask whether the beach house will be ignored in the assets test, as the caravan is now ignored. How many people live in caravans when they retire ? Not too many. The measures that the Minister has introduced have no sanity, sense or logic. With regard to this lack of logic, I sincerely hope that the Minister is not being confused by the advice from his departmental officers. I hope this lack of logic is soon cleared up. The Government is playing with people's emotions and not with social justice, which is what it should be trying to introduce. I will pardon the Minister this year because it is his first year as a Minister. But I hope he makes some quick decisions and does not rely on spending his money, as the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) quickly pointed out, in increasing the public relations section of his Department. We cannot blame the Minister for this because every department in the Government has increased its public relations expenditure. How marvellous this is! Have they done so because it will take such an extra effort to stop people from being confused? I suspect that, if the Government implements public relations campaigns as it has implemented its policy statements, there will be more confusion in every honourable member's electorate in this country. I know of the personal concern of some of the Government members who have spoken in this debate. They will find themselves faced with this problem. I say in all fairness to the honourable member for Macquarie that he may regret having said in the House today that there is nothing sinsiter or unreasonable in the Government's policy. The point to be borne in mind is that all his constituents in Macquarie are totally and utterly confused and quite devastated. Mr Free —They understand it. Mr DOBIE —It may be the mountain air. But to use a word, it is one of the obscenities of politics and it should be understood as such. Mr Hand —Ha, ha! Mr DOBIE —The honourable member giggles. Perhaps he should bear in mind that this is not a giggling matter. I conclude by saying that I agree with the remarks of my counterpart and friend, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the Government Whip. I, too, pay tribute to the Department of Social Security staff in my electorate. I pay tribute to the staff of the Caringbah branch, who refused to go on strike when strike action was taken. They did not refuse because they disagreed with the issue of the strike, but because they believed, and said so publicly in my area, that they were more concerned that it would interfere with the people whom they had to deal with. I pay tribute to their humanity and to their deep concern. My secretary, Mrs Ridoutt, and Mr Thomas and his staff have a close relationship. The other matter that the honourable member for Griffith discussed was fraud. We all know it can happen. We know people are guilty of doing it. Proving it, as we saw in the Greek conspiracy case, is impossible. When these matters are pursued, it becomes unfair to some people. I caution the Government to be careful in its investigations in this regard. But I encourage it, to use the positive words that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) dared use, to move into the field of identity cards. In this age of high technology we require proof of identity for almost every second thing that we do. People need an identity card to enter this building. As members of parliament, we need an identity card to enter any government building in this city. Whenever we, as individuals, enter any defence establishment, even thought we are members of the highest forum in the country, we still require an identity card. I believe that in order to solve this grass roots problem of identity, we should bring in an identity card system. It will in one fell swoop help to resolve, if not the problem of unemployment, the constant accusations that are made against the unemployed. I do not believe that as much fraud exists as one would think. If we had introduced an identity card system some years ago, when I tried-I regret to say unsuccessfully-to persuade the previous Government to introduce an identity card system, it would have cost $8m. I suspect it would now cost $10m. But it would be far better spend than that spent on public relations sections. As I say , I grieve for the people in my electorate who are having sleepless nights-this is the truth; it is not political rhetoric-because of the confusion that the present Minister has caused with his Budget statements. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., in accordance with sessional order 101A, I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —The House may, at a later hour this day, again resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance. I ask whether the Minister recalls saying in the House on 6 October, regarding Coomel Pty Ltd: The liquidator has responsibility for the- Mr Beazley —Haven't you got anything else? Mr PEACOCK —We probably have a great deal else, and the honourable member can listen to what comes out. I ask whether the Minister recalls saying: The liquidator has responsibility for the affairs of the company and has had since the company went into voluntary liquidation in 1978. Because neither I nor any of the other former directors have had anything to do with the company or with the decisions that have been taken since that time, I contacted the liquidator and asked him for an up to date report on the circumstances, particularly the circumstances surrounding the claims of improper dealings in land and improper arrangements in relation to the sale of land. Does the Minister still stand by that statement or will he admit that it does not reflect the true circumstances of his involvement in dealings with company assets since it went into liquidation? Mr DAWKINS —Anyone who understands anything about company law will know that when companies go into liquidation the decisions that are taken are purely decisions for the liquidator. Mr BRUMBY —I direct my question to the Prime Minister. First, does the Government stand by the projection in the Budget Papers that employment would grow by about 1 1/2 per cent or about 90,000 people over the course of this financial year? Secondly, how can this be reconciled with today's labour force statistics which show that employment increased by 119,300 in the month of September alone or by 52,000 when seasonally adjusted figures are used? Mr Howard —Don't you trust either of your Ministers on this? Mr HAWKE —I would keep quiet if I were the honourable member because he will get his now. Mr Speaker, the Government, as distinct from the Opposition, is naturally delighted at the strong employment growth shown in September. The figures confirm the increasing signs that the disastrous decline in the economy which my Government inherited-the two-year decline-has now been stopped and that recovery is beginning. Just one month ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition gloated both inside this House and outside it over figures which showed a decline in employment in August. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, dishonestly and opportunistically, used the raw non-seasonally adjusted figures which showed a much larger decline than the seasonally adjusted figures. There is not a person in this House, in the light of events in the last few days, who would not remember the criteria which the pious Deputy Leader of the Opposition sought to impose. He referred to the double standards of another member of this House. We will find out about the standards, the integrity and the honesty or otherwise of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Just one month ago in this House the Deputy Leader of the Opposition set up his standards. He looked at the raw unadjusted figures which showed a decline of over 50,000 and said that they showed the failure of the Government's policies. I want to make it quite clear, using the language of this Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that I am not embracing his standards; I am simply saying that he set the pace and that he is the one who said: 'I am saying that the Minister for Finance set those standards and he has to keep by them'. The Minister has answered that, of course. Let us apply the approach of the pious Deputy Leader of the Opposition. Last month he used the raw figures and said that they showed the failure of the Government's policies. On the standards of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, what has happened-- Mr Howard —You said I was a man of principle the other day. Mr HAWKE —I know the honourable member is worried, but all his interjections-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I invite the Prime Minister not to provoke interjections from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I also ask the Deputy Leader of the Opposition not to continue interjecting. I call the Prime Minister. Mr HAWKE —Okay, Mr Speaker, we will use the approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I emphasise that at this stage I am using the approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition; I will come to the proper approach in a minute. According to the approach of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition we should look at the raw unadjusted figures for the month, draw our conclusions and make our judgments about the efficacy of the Government's economic policy. Last month the figures were down by 50,000. Just this morning the figures for September came out. They show that in September there was the largest increase in employment since the statistics began to be collected in February 1978. The raw employment figures went up by 119,300. According to the standards of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, we should look at those figures and say that last month the Government's economic policies failed. I presume that as a man of honour, decency and integrity he will say: ' According to the standards of a month ago that I impose, and I am not a man who changes my standards, I must, as a man of honesty, decency and integrity, say in the House that that increase of over 119,000 in employment we are witnessing is proof of the overwhelming success of the economic policies of this Government'. I suggest, however, knowing the nature of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that we will wait for a long time to see him apply the same standards that he set a month ago in this House. Those are his standards. Of course, he will not abide by those standards which he set a month ago. We will find, as I will indicate in a moment, that he is a man who slips and slides from one standard to another. Mr Speaker, as distinct from this miserable hypocrite, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that description. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. As distinct from this man of miserable double standards, we on this side of the House believe that the seasonally adjusted figures give a more reliable indicator of the state of the labour market, whether those indicators are of good or of bad news. As the honourable member for Bendigo observed in his question, these seasonally adjusted figures show an increase in employment of 52,000 in September. That is the figure on which I am concentrating, not the increase of 119,000. When we look at that seasonally adjusted figure of 52,000 for September, it represents an increase of 80,000 since we began to change the course of Australian economic policy in April of this year. Unlike the Deputy Leader of the Opposition who opportunistically and dishonestly used one disappointing figure last month to throw doubt on the growing confidence in the economic recovery in this country, I have no intention of extrapolating the September figure into the future and saying therefore that we have completely succeeded in defeating the very significant unemployment problem in this country. Mr Speaker, those who-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Earlier this day I canvassed with you the matter of the total abuse of Question Time. I suggest to you that this is an appropriate matter to be raised by the Prime Minister by way of a statement and not in answer to a question on notice-it is not a question without notice. I suggest that the Prime Minister be called on to bring his answer to an end. Mr SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the National Party knows-he has been reminded- the Standing Orders with respect to this matter. I hope the Prime Minister is near the end of his answer. Mr HAWKE —The unemployment figures and the employment figures vary from month to month. We believed last month that the August figures probably were an aberration and the figures for September show that that is so. Some of the improvement for September we believe takes up part of that aberration. While it may appear on the figures to date that we are running ahead of the 90,000 increase in jobs for the financial year 1983-84 that we indicated in the Budget, it is probably too early yet to revise those figures upwards. I wish to make it clear to all members of this House and to the people of Australia that in the early stages of an economic recovery many people who have been discouraged come back into the work force. One of the features of the statistics for this month is that there has been a huge increase in the participation rate from 60.3 per cent to 60.8 per cent. The dishonesty of the Opposition does not end with the Deputy Leader of the Opposition slipping between the seasonally adjusted and the raw figures. I remind the House, in direct answer to the honourable member's question, of what the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said. I throw his words into his face. When he referred to the loss of jobs in the raw figures in August he said: It is a clear warning to the Government of the consequences of its reckless policy of full wage indexation. Do we find him saying, now that there is an increase of 119,000 in September, that we were not reckless after all? What sort of story will he concoct? The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been revealed as a person who simply cannot be believed when it comes to economic policy. Mr Peacock —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is fundamental to the conduct of this House that your requests, indeed your rulings, be followed. Many minutes ago you asked the Prime Minister to wind up. He not only turned his back on you physically but also he has turned away from your advisings. You sought to sit a member down yesterday who asked a question. The matter was canvassed this morning. You made it clear that you would seek to have succinct questions and answers. The current occupant of the prime ministership completely ignores your request. I ask you to draw him to a close. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Leader of the Opposition that the means by which control of the House is maintained by the Speaker are the Standing Orders that are given to him by the House. Those Standing Orders have accumulated over a number of years. I cannot alter those Standing Orders without the will of the House. I can make a request but I have no power to terminate the answer. I call the Prime Minister in conclusion. Mr HAWKE —The agony of members of the Opposition is coming to an end. I remind the House that one month ago the Deputy Leader of the Opposition told the people of Australia that the decline in the participation rate last month meant that the decline in the unemployment rate was misleading. Today the Leader of the Opposition opportunistically fails even to mention the huge increase in the participation rate when he refers to the increase in unemployment. I come to the conclusion of this answer. There will not be one single person in this House who will be surprised in any way by the opportunism, the cynicism and the dishonesty of both the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It is a matter-- Mr Cowan —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. Mr Howard —Would you like to have a debate on unemployment? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that one of his colleagues is raising a point of order. Mr Cowan —Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that one-third of Question Time has been taken up by the Prime Minister answering one question. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. Mr HAWKE —It was a much greater disappointment to the Government and to me personally to see that the shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has engaged in a massive distortion of the truth. In a Press release today he referred to a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of 9.6 per cent when my Government took office in March. That is an absolute distortion of the truth and I express my great disappointment in the shadow Minister. The Australian Statistician has made it quite clear that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Prime Minister to conclude his answer. Mr Peacock —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I accept what you said about the Standing Orders per se but I have to remind you that you made a request to the Prime Minister. He is consistently ignoring it. Mr SPEAKER —I have now made another request. I suggest the Leader of the Opposition resume his seat. I call the Prime Minister in conclusion. Mr HAWKE —The seasonally adjusted rate in March was not 9.6 per cent; it was 10. 1 per cent. We make no apology-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! When the interjections cease we may get a conclusion to the answer. The House will come to order. I hope the Prime Minister will take notice of my request. Mr HAWKE —I certainly will respect your ruling, Mr Speaker. Everything I have said has been relevant to the question asked by the honourable member. I simply conclude by saying that we on this side of the House regard and have regarded unemployment as the major issue confronting this country. In the period the Government has been in office it is quite clear that its policies have been successfully directed to that issue. Mr TUCKEY —I refer the Minister for Finance to the answer he gave to the previous question to him by the Leader of the Opposition. How does the Minister reconcile his answer with a request from the liquidator of Coomel Pty Ltd, sent to him as a director of that company on about 6 April 1979, seeking his advice on land transfers involving a scheme on capitalisation of interest on the sale of the land, which I henceforth refer to as the Dawkins scheme? Mr DAWKINS —As I have indicated, in these circumstances the liquidators have the responsibility for taking the decisions. Indeed, this is no surprise because two of the documents that I have already tabled indicate in one instance that the liquidator made arrangements for the realisation of certain assets. In a follow- up document I indicated-or the liquidator indicates-- Mr Peacock —You said you had nothing to do with the decision. Mr DAWKINS —In a document which I presented the liquidator indicates the way in which the arrangements were arrived at. Of course, the liquidator has a responsibility to ensure that the interests of the shareholders are met. Mr Tuckey —You said you had nothing to do with it. Mr DAWKINS —I had nothing to do with the decisions that the liquidator took. The liquidator is the one who is responsible for those decisions. It may be-- Mr Howard —You have misled the House again. That is the second time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have shown a lot of tolerence in the last couple of days to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I ask him to show some discretion. Mr DAWKINS —I must say that it does astonish me that the Opposition has taken up the whole of the last week with its preoccupation with my financial affairs. It has yet to make or sustain any allegations of impropriety or illegality. But still it persists. It persists because it knows that this Government is doing such a teriffic job of running the country. It can expose no weaknesses as far as our performance is concerned. I am unaware of what on earth Opposition members are driving at. It may be that in relation to the arrangements for the sale of land it was necessary to make provision for my mother, for instance, who was intending to keep the adjoining land. It was necessary, therefore, to discuss with the intending purchaser certain matters which would ensure that her interests were met. My mother, by the way, is the person to whom the honourable member for O'Connor referred yesterday as being 'a greedy old woman'. I do not care what the honourable member says about me. But I do take enormous exception to the cowardly attack he made first on my late father and now on my mother, not to mention my brothers. But, Mr Speaker-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I indicated yesterday that I will apply the Standing Orders strictly. The position is the same today. I ask the House to come to order so that the Minister for Finance can finish his answer. Mr DAWKINS —Of course-honourable members would know about these matters-the liquidator provides reports to the shareholders. But I repeat that the decisions are entirely the decisions of the liquidator. The liquidator has responsibility for them. That is what I was referring to the other evening. The Opposition can make what it likes of this matter. I suppose it can go through the whole of my affairs which have been completely laid bare. The whole of the Opposition's attention has been directed towards nothing else for the last week. I think it is about time someone asked the simple question: When is the Opposition prepared to allow the same sort of scrutiny of its affairs as it is demanding of me? Whilst Charlie McCarthy's doll is getting his instructions from Charlie McCarthy on how to conduct the affairs of the Opposition, I just want to get a straight answer from him, and from George sitting next to him, as to what exactly the Opposition will do and when it will come clean and allow the people of Australia to look into the business dealings and the private transactions of its members. I said the other day that the Opposition would rue the day that it ever set out on this particular course. There are plenty more days of parliamentary sittings available this year, and the Opposition will live to rue the day. Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table documents. Government members-No! Mr SPEAKER —This is not the appropriate time. I call the honourable member for Leichhardt. Mr GAYLER —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the Minister's recent announcement that the Government proposed to develop in conjunction with South Pacific countries a Pacific patrol boat to assist countries in that region to protect their 200 nautical miles exclusive economic zones. I ask the Minister whether he can provide the House with any further information on developments in this project which will be so significant for our shipbuilding industry. Mr SCHOLES —Since the announcement during the South Pacific Forum of the proposal for a South Pacific patrol boat, a number of Forum countries have expressed support for the project. I am sure that the House will welcome the fact that advertisements will appear in the Press next Saturday, inviting qualified companies to express interest in tendering for the design, construction and supply of Pacific patrol boats. I emphasise that the Government is keen to maximise the contribution of the Australian shipbuilding industry to this important project-a project which will do much to assist our South Pacific friends to meet their surveillance requirements. It is hoped that the tender documents will be available before the end of the year. The Government sees this project as being particularly important because it meets a growing need amongst the South Pacific nations to maintain the security of their economic zones. This project has been talked about by successive governments for a number of years. This government is happy to be able to indicate to the House that the project is now alive and well, and expects that the first supplies of patrol boats under this project will take place next year. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I preface my remarks by saying that, while I do not have the figures with me, if I inadvertently use seasonally adjusted figures which are incorrect, that is a matter I regret. But, even on the figures that the Prime Minister quoted, I put it to the Minister that unemployment, in seasonally adjusted terms, has worsened in the life of the present Government. I ask the Minister: Does he agree that the unemployment rate is particularly bad amongst young people, especially females? Has he looked in particular at table 5 of the Australian Bureau of Statistics seasonally adjusted series of figures? When does he expect unemployment to peak? Does he agree that the Government has no hope of fulfilling its election promise of creating 500,000 jobs in its term of office? What hope of jobs does the Government now offer young people? Mr WILLIS —It is quite clear that the honourable member for Balaclava is concerned about the fact that, unlike his Government, this Government is making great progress in the area of employment. We should bear in mind that, in the last 12 months of the previous Government, there was a decline in employment of well over 100,000. In the period since this Government has been in office, there has been a substantial increase in employment. Let me say, as the Prime Minister has already said, that the monthly figures, of course, cannot be taken as being tremendously reliable. They seem to be very volatile at present. Last month there was a reduction of 52,000 in the raw figures. This month there has been an increase of 119,000. In seasonally adjusted terms, last month there was a reduction of 19,000 and this month an increase of 52,000. Certainly the figures are moving around quite a bit. If one looks at the movement over quarters, it is quite clear that, in the September quarter, there has been a strong growth of 35 ,000 over the June quarter. Looking over the quarters gives us a better picture of what the underlying situation is. There is absolutely no doubt that the employment picture is improving and that the Government's Budget forecasts of growth in employment of 90,000 are pretty much on track. As the Prime Minister indicated, it may well be that those estimates are an under-estimate of what will be achieved. It is also true that there has been some slight increase in the level of unemployment since this Government has been in office. We must bear in mind that as we get into a recovery phase we will certainly have some increase in the work force participation rate. That will come about because people who dropped out of the work force under the previous Government, knowing that there was no possibility of getting a job, will under this Government, realising that there is now employment growth as against employment decline, come back into the work force and therefore be counted as looking for a job. So for some time we are likely to see a concurrence of rising employment and some further increase in the level of unemployment. That is built into our Budget figures in which we forecast growth in employment of 1 1/2 per cent, knowing that the growth in the work force would be of the order of 2 per cent. We cannot be sure about those figures because no one can be sure how the work force participation rate will move. The likelihood is that for the course of this financial year the underlying trend will be growth in employment but, for a while, some growth in unemployment as well. I refer to the plight of the young unemployed. Of course they are the ones who suffer most. We are greatly concerned about them and we are doing everything we can to ensure that the position of young people is improved by various projects and by making the position for school leavers much better. Let us be quite clear about this situation: School leavers this year will certainly have better prospects of getting a job than school leavers had last Christmas because the employment situation will have turned around quite enormously in that time. From a market last year in which there was a massive decline in employment, this year 's school leavers will find a market in which there is employment growth. Certainly they will find a lot of competition from the unemployed, who are the legacy of the previous Government, but that legacy will be gradually pared back in the course of this Government's period of office. Mr STEEDMAN —Is the Minister for Communications able to give any information on the plans of Telecom Australia for its property Bona Vista, which was recently the subject of legal action in connection with squatters? Is the Minister able to comment on what has been depicted as an overreaction by Telecom and other authorities, especially the judiciary? Mr DUFFY —Telecom is the owner of a residential property, referred to by the honourable member, known as Bona Vista, at 59 Kensington Street, South Yarra. Last week Telecom commenced legal proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria to eject from the property a group of persons who had commenced squatting on the property about the beginning of September this year. An injunction was obtained restraining the squatters from remaining in occupation. In Melbourne on 7 October Mr Justice Brooking issued an order for committal of the squatters, and in execution of that order last Friday night a group of persons was arrested and imprisoned. Last Saturday, in the High Court of Australia in Canberra, an order nisi for prohibition was made quashing the original injunction, pending a hearing into the legal issues arising from the making of that order. The Commonwealth and Telecom, as parties to the proceedings, did not oppose that application before the High Court. His Honour Mr Justice Wilson ordered the immediate release of those imprisoned, pending the hearing of an appeal. As that matter is now sub judice it would be inappropriate for me to make comments concerning the facts surrounding the occupation and the injunction proceedings. However, I think some details should be provided to the House regarding Telecom's ownership of the property. The property, I am informed, is valued in excess of $1m, and Telecom obtained it at vesting day in 1975. It was formerly owned by the Postmaster-General's Department. I am informed that Telecom vacated the premises, from an operational viewpoint, in June 1977 and that a caretaker vacated the premises in about December 1978. As part of a review of property holdings, investigations were conducted by Telecom as to possible alternative uses of the property. It was decided to dispose of the property. The Australian Telecommunications Commission agreed to do that in December 1979 and appropriate ministerial approval was subsequently received. Subsequent to that difficulties developed about the sale and Telecom had to deal with Victorian planning authorities. The Federal Department of Administrative Services and the Australian Heritage Commission also became involved. I am informed that the preliminary steps are now completed and that the property will be made available for sale by public auction. Telecom has advised me that it expects a date for that to be set for late November this year. Like many members of the community, I was surprised and disturbed to learn that a property such as this remained unused and vacant for a long period, certainly since 1979. Accordingly, I made clear in a letter of 30 September to all statutory authorities within my portfolio my views regarding that matter, that any residential properties that might be held by any statutory authorities should not remain vacant and that all reasonable steps should be taken to make effective use of the properties, even if that included the need for residential leases where the relevant authority had no current use pending disposal. The present situation, therefore, is that Bona Vista is to be sold. I understand that there are suggestions that the property be made available by Telecom to the Victorian Ministry of Housing for public housing purposes. However, on the face of it, this property does not seem to be an obvious candidate for public housing. I note that Mr Cathie, the Victorian Housing Minister, has said that the proposal for public housing 'does not seem to stand as being feasible'. Be that as it may, I expect that Telecom will consider any serious proposal put to it on behalf of the Victorian Housing Ministry. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. For how long is he prepared to ignore evidence which was collected by the Australian Federal Police in the course of its narcotic inquiries, and apparently not used in the investigation by the New South Wales Commissioner of Police, Mr Abbott, and his officer Mr Loombs, and which involves allegations that a New South Wales Minister was involved in bribery to secure the early release of prisoners? Will the Prime Minister assure the Premier of New South Wales that he is at liberty to make full use of the information, including telephone tapes transmitted by the Australian Federal Police Commissioner to the New South Wales Police Commissioner, for a full and public investigation into the allegations? Mr HAWKE —There seems to be no end to the hypocrisy of the people on the other side of the House. When this matter was first raised, as honourable members will recall, the Opposition quickly dropped it after it was decimated. It was suggested that this Government intervened and improperly attempted to apply pressure on the Australian Federal Police in respect of the re-imposition or lifting of phone taps. It was put by the Opposition in that context that it would be absolutely improper for the Government to intervene and to apply pressure to the Australian Federal Police. We now have a question from the honourable member suggesting that we intervene and tell the Commissioner of the Federal Police how to conduct his affairs. Let me make it clear again, as I did before-it seemed, on the evidence of the Opposition's silence on this matter for some time, that it had learned its lesson-that this Government will not be party to intervening in matters relating to the Australian Federal Police and telling it how to conduct its business. It may be, as it seems it is, the assumption of the people on the other side of the House that that is the role of Government. That may be their standard; it is not the standard of this Government. We will not be intervening through either me or any of my Ministers to try to tell the Federal Police-its Commissioner or other members-how to conduct their affairs. Most particularly, we will not be intervening in any way which may prejudice investigations that the Federal Police are conducting into the tracing of narcotic trading in this country. That is not the sort of conduct in which this Government will indulge, even if, by implication, the Opposition suggests that we should. As far as the affairs of New South Wales are concerned, let me repeat to this House what I made clear before. As soon as evidence was given by the Commissioner of the Federal Police, Major-General Grey, to the Special Minister of State, that information was conveyed to the political level in New South Wales and it was conveyed by Major-General Grey to Commissioner Abbott. As far as this Government is concerned, we have done expeditiously and with absolute propriety what it was proper that we should do. As soon as information became available to us, it was conveyed at the appropriate level politically, and between the two forces. I understand that people on the other side of the House have a great commitment to the question of State rights and the non-intervention of the Federal Government in the affairs of a State. While they talk about it hypocritically, we act according to the proposition that, where there is a clear delineation in the responsibilities between the Federal Government and its authorities and between the State Government and its authorities, the lines of delineation of authority and responsibility will be adhered to. I repeat that this Government has acted expeditiously and with total propriety in doing all that it had to do. Now it is a matter for handling at the level of the police and at the level of the State Government in New South Wales. I would not presume to tell the Premier of New South Wales how to conduct his affairs. I would not do it, on the basis that it would not be proper. In addition, the Premier of New South Wales has demonstrated, over a very long period since 1976, his total competence in these matters and the great support that he receives from the majority of the people of New South Wales. Mr CAMPBELL —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of reports of race riots in Roebourne in Western Australia following the death of Aboriginal youth, John Pat, who was allegedly assaulted by the police? Can the Minister inform the House what steps have been taken in respect of these reports? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his concern about this matter. I am aware of the reports of race riots in Roebourne following the death of an Aboriginal youth, John Pat, who was allegedly assaulted by the police. I am aware of the reports of his death on 28 September. I would like to correct the terminology that has been used. I think the term 'race riot' is inappropriate. Clearly, what has taken place has been a series of confrontations between the Aboriginal community in Roebourne and the police who are stationed there. But certainly the evidence is clear that, in respect of these matters-- Mr Tuckey —They are State police matters. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —Mr Speaker, we all know about the honourable member's consistent concern about Aboriginals. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister not to provoke the honourable member. Mr HOLDING —In this case it is also perfectly clear on the evidence that the Aboriginal community in Roebourne has significant support from sections of the white community who feel that over a period, largely because of the socio- economic situation that prevails at Roebourne, the Aboriginal people there have been, on many occasions, the subject of social disadvantage and, on not a few occasions, possibly the subject of police harassment. This is a matter of concern that has been the subject of continuous discussion between me and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in Western Australia. I am perfectly satisfied, as I believe the Aboriginal people of Western Australia are satisfied, with the actions that have been taken by the Western Australian Government. They are as follows: The State's Senior Coroner has been asked to conduct an inquiry. Mr Henry Wallwork, QC, has been appointed to assist him, which is an unusual step which illustrates the importance the State attaches to the inquiry. Aboriginals are also to be appointed to assist the Coroner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police visited the town last week and held meetings with Aboriginals. The Hon. P . Dowding, Minister for Mines, Fuel and Energy, who is also the local member, played an active part on 7 October last in settling what could have been a very ugly incident. I know that, from time to time, harsh things are said about political people in Australia, but I think all members of the House would applaud the very commendable and courageous action taken by Mr Dowding. He walked into what could have been a very ugly situation and with calmness and, I think, a great deal of physical courage prevented what could have been an unfortunate situation. I have spoken with the representative of the Aboriginal Legal Service in Perth. I have indicated that if it needs any additional facilities or resources they will be supplied immmediately. It has indicated that to date it is fully satisfied with the actions thus far taken by the Western Australian Government. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members I present an interim annual report from the Australian Wool Corporation for 1982-83. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to sub-section 34C (6) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, as amended, I table documents associated with the granting by me of an extension of time to report on its activities for the year ended 30 June 1983 to the Australian Egg Board. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, Minister for Administrative Services and Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce) —For the information of honourable members I present Volumes 1 and 2 of the Review of Customs Administration and Procedures, New South Wales, together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and a document outlining the Government's response to the recommendations of the report. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members I present Interim Report No. 5, Volume 1, of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 20 (1) of the Special Prosecutors Act 1982, I present the annual report of the Special Prosecutor for the period 21 October 1982 to 30 June 1983 together with the text of a statement relating to the report by the Attorney-General. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Spender) adjourned. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Dairy Industry Legislation Amendment Bill 1983 Dairying Industry Research and Promotion Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Dairy Industry Stabilization Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Assent to the following Bills reported. Broadcasting Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Television Stations Licence Fees Amendment Bill 1983 Barley Research Levy Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman Amendment Bill 1983 Ombudsman (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed with a personal explanation. Mr MILTON —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I claim to have been misrepresented in two respects. Firstly, I was misrepresented in a speech made by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) in the adjournment debate last night. Secondly, I was misrepresented in an article appearing in the Age of today which compounded the gross inaccuracies contained in the honourable member's speech. In the first place, the honourable member is so lacking in knowledge of the members of the House that at the beginning of his speech he mistook the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) for me. However, that is not a mistake that causes the honourable member for Casey or me any problems at all. It causes no concern whatsoever. The inaccuracies, however, are more serious. I have made inquiries and it would appear that the honourable member for Bruce was purportedly quoting from a copy of the Higgins Australian Labor Party federal electorate assembly newsletter which contained a report of the meeting of the Camberwell ALP branch on 2 August . By quoting the selected extracts of what was, in any case, a precis of what I had to say at the meeting, the honourable member has grossly misrepresented the substance of my talk. The opening comment of my talk was not: I have not come along to support the Government. In fact it was: I have not been invited tonight to necessarily support the Government but to talk about Federal policies and the implementation of those policies by the Government. Secondly, I did not say, as the honourable member said I did, that I: . . . could not understand why the terms of reference for the Hope Royal Commission were not extended by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) with a view to getting rid of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation completely, as that was ALP policy. To get rid of ASIO is not ALP policy. What I did say was that I would have liked to have seen the terms of reference extended so that the incompetence of ASIO could be revealed with a view to changing ALP policy in relation to it. I did not say that the Prime Minister-to quote the honourable member again-'was applauding the military dictatorship'. But I did say that the Government by not strongly expressing its abhorrence of Indonesian occupation of East Timor was indicating support for a military dictatorship. The whole tenor of the honourable member's speech is totally inaccurate in the attempt to portray me as a Government member attacking the Prime Minister. The final and most gross of the misrepresentations of what I had to say was this comment: He told people at the meeting that they should stay and fight the Prime Minister because the members in Caucus who were against the Prime Minister needed the support of the rank and file. If that comment actually appears in the report of the meeting, it is inaccurate. In fact, I urged the members to stay and fight for the implementation of ALP policies. I did not urge them to fight the Prime Minister. Obviously, the Opposition is very worried about the popularity of the Prime Minister in the broad electorate and it has to stoop to allowing the honourable member for Bruce - Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member will comply with the Standing Orders and simply deal with the matters which he claims have been the subject of misrepresentation. Mr MILTON —I am endeavouring to do that, but I have to put up with this nonentity of the lowest order. I turn to the article appearing in the Age which was even more inaccurate. Firstly, it describes me as the honourable member for Hotham. Again, I do not mind being mistaken for an esteemed and distinguished friend. However, the Age article not only compounds the inaccuracies of the honourable member's speech but also adds its own flavour. Thus, the heading read : 'Labor MP told ALP meeting of disillusionment with Hawke'. That is totally inaccurate. The article goes on to ascribe to the honourable member the comment 'that Mr Milton had spoken for the Socialist Left at a meeting of the Camberwell Branch'. In fact, I was invited to the meeting as the Federal member for La Trobe to talk abut the implementation of ALP policy by the Government. The article then quotes the honourable member as saying: . . . the reason that Mr Milton had given for the necessity of staying and fighting despite disillusionment with Mr Hawke must have been to replace him with Mr Hayden. I did not make such a statement. In view of the high popularity of the Prime Minister in the electorate it is obviously a figment of the distorted and convoluted imagination of the honourable member for Bruce. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr MACPHEE —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MACPHEE —I could not improve on the last personal explanation but I do seek to make one. In Question Time the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) accused me of misquoting seasonally adjusted figures. I said that if I had, it would have been inadvertent. But, of course, the Prime Minister was wrong and I was right. The statement related to my Press release which I did not have with me. I said in the Press release: Unemployment was running at 9.6 per cent when the Hawke Government took office in early March. The Hawke Government took office on 5 March and the February figures were released after the election. The February figures, seasonally adjusted, as produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that the unemployment rate was 9.6 per cent. So, I was in fact correct. Mr ALDRED(Bruce) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Does the honourable member wish to make a personal explanation? Mr ALDRED —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr ALDRED —In relation to the Age article concerning my comments in the adjournment debate last night it is stated that Mr Aldred tabled the minutes relating to the comments by the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) at the Camberwell Australian Labor Party meeting. I was not given leave to table those minutes. I will now seek leave to table the minutes so that the honourable member can be absolutely sure of what he said. I seek leave to table the minutes . Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Is leave granted? Mr Dawkins —The normal courtesy is to allow us to have a look at them before leave is sought. Mr Peacock —There are the branch minutes of the Camberwell ALP meeting. Mr Dawkins —Yes, leave is granted. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HOWARD —Yes. During a very long answer in Question Time today the Prime Minister made a number of quite inaccurate statements. One of them was the claim -a quite dishonest claim by him-that I made no reference in my Press release today to the participation rate. That was quite untrue. I not only seek leave to have my Press release on the record unemployment rate incorporated into Hansard, I also call upon the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in accordance with his self- professed standards of decency to come into the House and apologise to me for dishonestly representing my position today. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member seeking to have that document incorporated in Hansard? Mr HOWARD —Yes, I am seeking leave to have it incorporated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Dawkins —I will permit the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to have the document tabled, but not incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted to have the document tabled? Leave granted. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I seek leave to table documents in regard to the Dawkins tax scheme. I offer them to the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) to look at. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Dawkins —No. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Leave is not granted. Mr Dawkins —Mr Deputy Speaker, if the Opposition wants to provide us with an opportunity to see the documents I am perfectly happy to look at them and consider the matter. I will not provide an opportunity for someone like the honourable member for O'Connor simply to table anything he likes. I do not know where the documents have come from. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has made his point. He has the prerogative and he has exercised it. Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order. I refer to the reality that I passed these documents over to the Minister. I wish him to have a look at them. After all, he allowed documents concerning allegations against the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) to be tabled. They were Labor Party documents bearing testimony to the disquiet the honourable member has with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I think these documents should be tabled also. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Are there any ministerial statements? Mr TUCKEY —We are waiting for the Minister's approval. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the Minister for Finance still contemplating the request? Mr Dawkins —Yes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Could I have the Minister's response? Mr Dawkins —Yes. When I have finished contemplating I will certainly respond. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The House will proceed with its business and the Minister can inform the House of his decision subsequently. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your indulgence for a moment. Would it be in order for us to ask from time to time how the Minister's contemplation is going? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, it would not. Mr Peacock —Is there a time limit on this? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister has the right to study the documents and make his decision. It is his prerogative to indicate when he is prepared to do so. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Anthony) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's shameful attitude to the Australian sugar industry. 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 ANTHONY(Richmond-Leader of the National Party)(3.07) —The sugar industry is probably the most important industry in Queensland in terms of social and economic impact. The dollars earned from the sugar industry are spread widely throughout the community. Most of the coastal communities of Queensland in particular are highly dependent upon the industry's future. Yet the industry is in the grips of the greatest crisis of confidence that we have seen. There is great uncertainty because of the low international price which has prevailed for the last two years and which still-despite some increase-falls short of what is required for the industry to break even. From less than #100 sterling a tonne the price has now risen to #150 to #170 a tonne over the past four or five months. The prospects are not encouraging for the immediate improvement necessary for the industry to be considered viable. The uncertainty exists because of doubts about the International Sugar Agreement, the erosion of our traditional markets and the growth of demand for alternatives to sugar such as fructose, glucose and artificial sweeteners. There is growing international protectionism and less and less freedom in overseas markets for the sale of Australian sugar. The cloud that hangs over the industry is made worse by seasonal conditions. This year, the prospects are that returns to the grower could be even lower than the disastrous returns for 1982. We could see the lowest level ever experienced in cane quality terms. That means less sugar per tonne of sugar cane and higher harvesting and manufacturing costs. The total sugar cane production in fact looks like being down by about two million tonnes of cane this year. The expected return this season from the No. 1 pool is estimated at $270 a tonne, compared with $228 a tonne last year. When adjustment is made for the lower commercial cane sugar-it could be 13 per cent instead of 14 per cent last year- we finish up with a return this year of probably $21.80 a tonne of sugar cane compared with $22 last year. The price for sugar cane looks like being even less than last year. But, with the reduced crop and the higher costs the industry is suffering overall, the position looks considerably worse. For many producers and for many areas of Queensland the situation is grim indeed. When this happens for two years in succession I cannot over-emphasise the seriousness of the situation for the Queensland sugar industry. Our industry depends very heavily on the world market prices. This places it in a considerably difficult competitive position. The European Economic Community has its large domestic market and support arrangements, Cuba has its five million tonnes a year contract with the Soviet Union, Brazil has a huge domestic market and also the alcohol industry. But the Australian industry is told to look after itself. It sees the sugar industries around the world receiving assistance while its own Government not only offers derisory help, but also adds impost after impost on the industry and dishonours its promises. The most shameful aspect of this disgraceful performance by the Government, I regret to say, has been the attitude of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). He has tried to weasel out of clear, concrete commitments which were given during the election campaign. He has tried to avoid the blame for the Government decisions by flying out of the country as fast as he can every time one is made. He hopes that by his silence he can pretend he has nothing to do with them. He has compounded this catalogue of deceitfulness and neglect by attacks on three parliamentarians who are most concerned about the situation in the sugar industry: the Minister for Primary Industries in Queensland, Mr Ahern, the shadow Minister for Primary Industry in this House, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh), and the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). I regard his claims last Tuesday about these men with utter contempt. I know that anybody in the sugar industry would consider them likewise . What I want to do today, in contrast to the Minister's empty blathering on Tuesday, is to put on record the full and dismal story of the Government's contemptuous treatment of the sugar industry. The sugar industry today really needs the help and the encouragement of the Government. There could be no better illustration of the Government's contempt for the industry than its most important promise to the industry in the election campaign, the promise of an underwriting scheme. That is something which the industry desperately needs and which the Opposition parties promised during the election campaign. Government members went around the country trumpeting their support for the proposal that we put forward. I refer not only to the Minister for Primary Industry but also to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and others. The Minister was quoted in the Cairns Post of 28 February as saying: Labor will sympathetically consider any request for an industry loan and/or an underwriting scheme, to include the 1982 crop. While many aspects must yet be sorted out, we believe any underwriting scheme should be based on industry returns over the previous five years. That is what the Minister said. The Minister now quibbles about the words ' sympathetically consider'. But the sugar industry was under no misapprehension. Labor was matching the commitment of the Liberal and National parties during the election campaign. When members of the sugar industry read the statement by the then shadow Minister for Primary Industry they took it as Labor policy. They saw any qualifications that the Minister might have been using as merely a nod and a wink. The Minister could not commit the Labor Party to those funds at the time, so he told the industry. What impression could the industry have other than the Labor Party was to introduce an underwriting scheme? The man who is now the Minister made the commitment and went on to describe how the underwriting scheme was actually to work. I know that the Minister will reply that the Government has provided, on a dollar for dollar basis, $11m in rural adjustment for the industry-$10m for Queensland and $1m for New South Wales-but we also promised that during the campaign; there is nothing new about it. Although the money is welcome, it is not nearly enough, nor does it get to the root of the industry's problem. The Minister has talked about this funding as if cane growers were the only ones affected by the current depressed conditions in the industry. The industry is very much a community industry. It involves growers, millers, all the people they employ and the whole community in sugar growing areas. The rural adjustment scheme which we promised during the election campaign-and our proposal was picked up by honourable members opposite-has been made a reality but only after prodding by the Queensland Government, and it took some time before this Government agreed to it. The rural adjustment scheme does not really answer all of the problems. The Queensland Sugar Board recently had to provide an increased advance to try to help the industry. But that will mean an additional commitment of about $2m by way of interest to the Sugar Board. Who will pay for that? The Queensland Labor Party now says that it will pick up the cost. Will it pick up the cost for the New South Wales industry too? This is a federal industry. It is the Federal Government which should be responsible. How can we believe the Queensland Labor party? Its promises will be as shallow as the present Government's promises are. This issue is a Federal responsibility. The Minister has weaselled out of it just as he weaselled out of the underwriting itself. A further key element of Labor's commitment to the sugar industry was a review of the domestic price formula. There was no 'sympathetic consideration' about this. The present Minister for Primary Industry was reported, in the same article in the Cairns Post, that I quoted earlier as having said: Labor is committed to re-negotiating the domestic price formula. But what happened? Absolutely nothing. I might mention some other failures, such as the fact that the Commonwealth is providing less money now for the Sugar Research Institute. Funding for that Institute has fallen from the $550,000 that the previous Government provided last year to $485,000 this year. That is a massive fall in real terms. I might mention the Minister's backtracking on his condemnation of the Industries Assistance Commission report as reported in the Mackay Daily Mercury only the other day. I stress, however, that the Government, as well as not backing its commitment to the sugar industry, has loaded the industry with additional costs. Far from cutting the price of petrol, it has increased the price. It has also indexed the excise on diesel while freezing the rebate for on-farm use. This measure will cost primary industries in this country something like $32m this year and, as the price will be indexed every six months, primary producers can look forward to a further increase every six months. The accelerated depreciation provisions for primary producers have been changed for the worse. The tax deductions for land clearing and swamp drainage have been abolished. That is of critical importance to the sugar industry. The bicentennial water resources program has been abolished. The income equalisation deposits scheme has been gutted. Sales taxes have been placed on the use of lubricating oils for farm use, which are so essential for an industry which is so highly mechanised. Most disturbingly, in recent days we have seen the Government steadily force up the exchange rate. This will cost the sugar industry about $30m if the full year 's income is affected. The Government has a deliberate policy of pushing up the exchange rate. It is trying to fund its massive deficit by keeping up interest rates on its own bonds. As a result, the high general interest rate structure is bringing money flooding into this country. The exchange rate is the only tool available to the Government to keep the money supply under control and fund the deficit at the same time; and exporters are paying the price. It should be noted also that because of the lift in the exchange rate the International Monetary Fund will not refinance the loans to the sugar industry to meet its commitments under the International Sugar Agreement. This will cost the industry about $5m in that it will have to buy more expensive money. The Labor Party has left only one claim to support itself, that is, the funding of the Burdekin Dam. What a claim that is. It is as empty as all of the other claims. The Prime Minister, desperate in his hopeless task of trying to persuade the Queensland people to accept a socialist government, is now trying to take the credit for the Burdekin Dam. Quite deliberately, without any regard for the truth, he has tried to persuade Queenslanders that it is his Government that has been involved in getting this dam started. That is not true, and the Prime Minister knows it. Yet this self-styled man of integrity deliberately peddles this misinformation in a shabby attempt to try to win votes. It was the previous Government that negotiated in 1980 with the Queensland Government. It was that Government which last year provided $6.5m for the commencement of the Commonwealth commitment. This Government, during the campaign, peddled and trumpeted its concern for the sugar industry. All I can say is that its performance up to date has been shameful. Mr Tuckey —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek your guidance. Will you advise me whether the papers I gave to the Minister for Finance and the Leader of the House are still in the House? He has left. I saw him leaving with papers. I would like an assurance from the Minister for Primary Industry that the papers are still in the House. Mr Howard —That is appalling. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will show sufficient respect to the Chair to enable the Chair to hear the point of order. Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek an assurance from the Minister for Primary Industry, who is at the table, that the papers which I handed in good faith to the Minister for Finance are still there. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has drawn attention to the fact that he had made documents available to the Leader of the House. That is a personal matter betweeen the honourable member and the Leader of the House. I understand that, when the honourable gentleman made the documents available, he was seeking leave to table them. It is not just the Minister's prerogative to give leave, it is the prerogative of the House. Only one honourable member needs to disagree to avoid a document being tabled. The fact is that the honourable member has made the documents available to the Minister. That is not the responsibility of the House. Mr Peacock —Mr Deputy Speaker, I really-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the Leader of the Opposition speaking on the point of order? Mr Peacock —Yes, on the point of order. The matter of tabling of documents in this chamber is covered by a well established convention of showing the documents to the Minister. Those documents are, in our view, still before the House while the Minister is 'contemplating' whether they can be tabled. In nearly 18 years as a member of this Parliament I have never known a Minister to take documents from a member and take them outside, without the member knowing whether they will ever return. He had no authority to take the documents from the House while they were 'under contemplation'. He had no authority to take the documents from the precincts of the House. Whilst this is straying from the point of order, it is consistent with his deceit that he would do so. It is wrong in terms of the convention of this Parliament that, in response to a request for documents to be tabled, the Minister says 'I will contemplate the matter' and scuttles out of the chamber with the documents. What has happened to them? I believe that the authority of the House ought to be exerted to ensure a full explanation from the Minister as to what he has been doing with those documents which should never have been removed from the precincts of this chamber. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —From the standpoint of the Chair, I would say that the documents are still in the possession of the Minister. They are certainly not in the possession of the House until leave is given. Does the Minister for Finance wish to comment on the point of order? Mr Dawkins —I am not sure whether the Leader of the Opposition expected me to interrupt the speech of the Leader of the National Party. What had been understood was that I was examining the documents. I have examined the documents . I am happy to give leave for them to be tabled. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the honourable member for O'Connor now seeking leave to have the documents tabled? Mr Tuckey —I am. I would like to make sure they are the same documents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is granted. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.22) —It is pretty obvious that the National Party of Australia no longer has any faith in its spokesman on primary industry, the honourable member for Darling Downs (Mr McVeigh). I expected some sort of sense in the debate today from the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony), a man who has held ministerial posts over many years. I expected him to contribute to a debate on the sugar industry, an element of concern for the sugar industry. The National Party is so debasing debate in this Parliament on the sugar industry and on other matters, particularly through the mouths of its spokesman and other members, that we can no longer really take seriously or credibly anything that it puts forward. The Leader of the National Party today tried to defend the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries. We know what this is all about. It is about the sugar industry because there is to be an election in Queensland. The National Party would do today exactly what it did about the sugar industry when it was in government, except that there is to be an election. Let us get to some basic and fundamental truths. The latest Press release from the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries is with me now. It says: I challenge Mr Kerin to come to north Queensland and repeat his treachery against the Queensland sugar industry that he espoused in the Parliament last night. I did not even speak about the sugar industry in the Parliament last night! I really ask honourable members: How can people react to this basic and absolute distortion of the truth? Members of the National Party misquoted the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and they are putting words into people's mouths. I challenge the National Party to go through the Hansard record of last night's debates to find out what I said about the Industries Assistance Commission or the sugar industry. This is the sort of nonsense that they raise. They do not say that there is a problem with timing. There was no spirited defence of the IAC. These are absolutely shameful lies. The only shameful thing is that the snivelling Leader of the National Party comes in here whining and whingeing. He does that because he is full of remorse for what his supposedly specialist rural Party did not do when in government. After all, the Queensland National Party has been in government since 1957. There are big problems with the sugar industry, and it has done nothing about them. The Australian Labor Party has been in office for 3 1/2 years federally since 1949 and suddenly it has to fix up the problems which are the legacy of the National Party and of the conservatives over all these years! This debate today exhibits the born to rule mentality of the National Party. Recently I was in Innisfail. What did people say to me there? It was the first time they had seen a Minister for Primary Industry. That is said to me at every cane growers executive and sugar meeting I attend. The Leader of the National Party came in here with his tail between his legs, ashamed because the National Party did nothing when it was in government. This is all political because members of the National Party are panicking. They are panicking about losing office in Queensland. This tired, old, flabby Government in Queensland is a gaggle of yesterday's men calling upon yesterday's men to try to help them in their hour of crisis. They called on Sir Henry Bolte. The only reason Mr Gray is going there is that Tasmania was left off the map. He wants to identify who did it. If the Queensland Nationals could have got Dame Patti Menzies to go to Queensland Joh would have her up there campaigning. This is the whole problem. There is record and increasing unemployment in that State. As any sensible person knows, the Queensland National Party is the wart on the posterior of any democratic government. This minority Government in Queensland is panicking. I have been there twice in the last 10 days. The Government there is perverting every principle of decent political behaviour. It is using public funds for its television advertisements, and the people of Queensland are sick to death of it. What are the people in sugar areas in Queensland saying to me? They are saying: 'Goodness gracious me, golly gosh, Russ Hinze is heir apparent to Joh'. All the National Party is promising is instability. The Premier of Queensland will not wear the Leader of the Liberal Party in Queensland. How the heck could the Liberal Party wear Russ Hinze? What did the National Party do for the sugar industry when it was in government ? In January 1981 representatives of the sugar industry came to Canberra, came to the then Government, to the then Leader of the National Party and to the Minister of the day, Mr Nixon, and said: 'The domestic formula is a bit crook'. They felt they were getting into trouble with international trade. They asked: ' Can you do something?' What did the National Party do? Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. This misrepresentation has been perpetuated over the last six months. Mr Nixon was the man who suggested to the industry that it should seek the review. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —The honourable member for Dawson knows that that is not a point of order. Mr KERIN —I am relying here on Roy Deicke of Bundaberg Sugar Co. Ltd. If honourable members look at the Queensland Cane Growers Journal they will see that it sets out that rejection after rejection by the previous Government cost the industry some $79m. The Government rejected and rejected again every approach from the sugar industry. Then eventually, in September 1982, it had a brainwave and said: 'We will have an IAC reference'. So in about October or November two references were made to the IAC. Knowing full well that it wanted another early election, the previous Government thought it would have to do something. Although the references to the IAC are important, all the previous Government did was to ask for two references, one for short term assistance and one for long term assistance. It did absolutely nothing else. Yet the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) jumps up and down because we quoted from a newspaper report of what he said in Western Australia. It was the old conservative line. No one denies that the Liberal Party says that it wants sugar grown on the Ord. No one says that the Federal Liberal Party does not want that. Yet because there is a coalitition honourable members opposite are jumping up and down like cats on a hot tin roof because they really do want sugar on the Ord. That newspaper report appeared on 3 August and, of course, the honourable member for Dawson did not deny it in the Parliament nor seek to make a personal explanation until we twitted him about it. Let us look at what Mr Ahern said about the Ord. Mr Bjelke-Petersen set the whole deal up with his mate, Sir Charles Court. Sir Charles has gone now. They had a bit of a falling out, admittedly, but they set it all up. Of course, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier, said that the Commonwealth should not interfere in State matters. So when Mr Ahern wants to say something about the Ord, Mr Bjelke- Petersen puts the finger in and says: 'You cannot say anything about that. We do not want the Commonwealth to interfere or say anything'. The only party that has been consistent about the Ord is the Australian Labor Party. Members of other parties say one thing in Western Australia and another thing somewhere else. But let us return to the terms of reference of the IAC. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is a deliberate misrepresentation and should not be tolerated. It was the subject of a personal explanation last Thursday. The Minister is lying deliberately. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —(Hon. Les Johnson)-Order! I will no longer tolerate such frivolous points of order. The honourable gentleman has been here long enough to know that that was not a point of order. The Minister is entitled to put his point of view, whether or not the honourable member for Dawson agrees with it. There is no point of order. Mr Braithwaite —I prefer to hear the truth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr KERIN —The Queensland Minister for Primary Industries, as the honourable member well knows, has told lie after lie on this question. He has misquoted. He has taken articles out of context. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I take this opportunity to remind the Minister and, indeed, the honourable member for Dawson that use of the word 'lie' in the debate from one member to another is out of order. Mr KERIN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I simply put on record that the Queensland Minister for Primary Industries in case after case has misquoted and distorted the truth so much that the situation has now been reached where a member of this House has had to take legal action against the Queensland Minister, on the advice from a Queen's Counsel. What he has said is defamatory. The tactics of the National Party in this case are absolutely disgusting. I have here the telexes from the Queensland Minister. Let us look at the source document and see what the Queensland Minister said. For example, he said that the three Ministers he has attacked-the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden)-are in favour of protectionism; therefore ipso facto, they are in favour of the IAC draft recommendations. The IAC draft recommendations did not say anything about protectionism. They said something about deregulation. They said that we should deregulate the lot. He did not even get the words or the meaning right. It is gobbledegook. I put on the record exactly what the Queensland Minister has been saying because he is running scared and he is frightened, as are all the other Queensland members of the National Party. The coalition has fallen to bits and there is political instability in Queensland. Let us look at the terms of reference of the IAC which the previous Government drew up: The terms of the Sugar Agreement 1979 between the Commonwealth and Queensland, which terminates on 30 June 1984; the domestic price of sugar and the method of determining that price; the export sugar rebate arrangements; and the operation of the embargo on the importation of sugar into Australia. It would not be possible to concoct or compile a set of four terms of reference in respect of the long term interests of the sugar industry that could do more to destroy the very basis of the structures of the sugar industry and its regulation in Queensland and northern New South Wales. The previous Government drew up those terms of reference. The Leader of the National Party referred to the election promises. To his credit, his quotations were relatively accurate. It is absolutely amazing that he at least can read. Two documents were referred to. We said we would renegotiate a fairer domestic price formula. We did say that in the current crisis we would give sympathetic consideration to a loan to the established Queensland and New South Wales industries. I will not read all of our promises. We said there would be no export licence for the Ord-- Mr Anthony —And underwriting. Do not forget the underwriting. Mr KERIN —The then Leader of the Labor Party, now the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), said in Townsville at my behest that we would also give consideration to underwriting. I do not reject that at all. Let us look at assistance to the sugar industry. When we came into Government we faced a disastrous economic situation. The IAC report on short term assistance to the sugar industry stated that no assistance should be given. We rejected that report, too. We had three or four meetings with the sugar industry leadership. We worked out a range of figures that would provide some sort of assistance to the industry. The figure on which we negotiated at the time, given the international price, was between $ 47m and $50m. So a submission was put to the Cabinet on that basis. The industry produces about 25 million tonnes of sugar, so with a total figure of $50m we can work out the price per tonne. It is $2 a tonne, for the sake of the National Party. The industry insists that it go into the No. 1 pool. That is the traditional way of assisting the industry. About 33 per cent to 37 per cent of the money goes to the mills. Which gives a net figure of roughly $34m that would have gone to the sugar industry. If we look at the situation of the sugar industry in northern Queensland, where it is most affected and most disadvantaged economically, we can work out that not much money would have flowed through. It would have been less than $2,000 for many people. As I have already said in this House, it would have been of no long term assistance. We set up the rural adjustment scheme and offered $11m. We negotiated the figure with the States and negotiated a lower rate of interest that generally applies to part B of the RAS. What has happened to that money that we made available under the administration of the Queensland National Party Government? So far $1,471,000 has been paid out to fewer than 69 producers. It cannot even interpret the scheme sufficiently to get the money through to the producers. So we have offered $10m to Queensland and $1m to New South Wales. We have provided to Queensland for debt reconstruction purposes $5.5m which can be drawn on by sugar producers. Open-ended household support is available to cane growers contemplating leaving the industry. We have paid $30m to Queensland for disbursement as flood and drought relief in 1982-83. In 1982-83 national disaster relief fund loans to the sugar industry totalled $4m and assisted 147 growers. From 1 July to 31 August $2.25m was advanced to 93 growers. An amount of $280,000 has been paid to 19 growers for flood relief. We increased the domestic price of sugar by the formula on 1 July 1983 in accordance with the agreement with Queensland, that is, by another $48.93 a tonne. The new price is $480.37 a tonne. Because of interruptions of honourable members opposite, who are scared of what will happen on 22 October, I have not had time to address myself to most of the comments. The Opposition is distorting this debate for the most venal political purposes because of the Queensland election. The only shameful thing is that the Leader of the National Party raised the matter in the way that he did. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for O'Connor has indicated that he would like to make a personal explanation. Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) in answer to my question this afternoon said that yesterday I called his mother a 'greedy old woman'. I have a copy of Hansard. On page 1654 I am recorded as saying: The Minister, his greedy brothers and their greedy mother . . . There is a difference. I respect both motherhood and age. I am deeply sorry and regret that I made that reference to his mother, and I apologise. Consideration resumed. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(3.39) —I will not delay the Committee, but there are a number of matters that I should take up. Throughout the debate members of the Opposition have expressed their concern at what was described by one of their number as being the total confusion and worry that has allegedly been caused to elderly citizens as a result of the proposed assets test. The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGaurin) indicated that in his view-he was supported by some of his colleagues-there should have been prior consultation by members of the Government, presumably the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes), before any announcement was made in respect of this assets test. I think a number of points can be made. The first point is this: the honourable member for Gippsland is a relatively new member. I do not know how in respect of preparing what is essentially a statement of principle which is relevant to the Budget, the Treasurer or a senior Minister could involve himself in in-principle discussions prior to the presentation of the Budget without being subjected to accusations that he had made available information which was relevant to the formulation of the Budget. It is an extraordinary aspect of this debate that much of the time was taken up by honourable members not so much in dealing with the actual Estimates but in expressing concern in respect of the assets test. I think it is true that at various levels all honourable members have had representations and all honourable members are in the process of making representations to the Minister and to the Government on this issue. This is the important aspect, and it is the aspect which, for somewhat cynical and calculated political reasons, members of the Opposition have chosen to ignore; that is, it is not possible as yet for me or for any honourable member to go into the final details of the assets test. The Minister for Social Security, having outlined the basic approach of the Government and the basic principles that are involved, has fully and publicly conceded that certain stituations will be anomalous. He has indicated that in respect of those matters there will be full and open discussions with individual pensioners through their local members and with pensioner organisatons. That process is going on now. Neither I nor any other member of the Government, or any other honourable member for that matter, can say what the final outcome of those discussions in regard to the resolution of those anomalies will be. That is the position. If members of the Opposition were genuinely worried about the concern that many elderly pensioners have they would say to the pensioners of our community and to those who are concerned: 'This matter is not finally resolved. Ongoing discussions are taking place and the Government and the Minister have indicated that they wish to produce a just result for all pensioners. In accordance with the concern that the Government has expressed and has been prepared to face, by assets testing those people who do not need pensions, who have considerable assets and who can live without pensions, there will be more funds available to meet the needs of many of those pensioners who are living below the poverty line . In pursuing those discussions full regard will be had not merely to the views of pensioner organisations but also to the views of honourable members. I ask the Committee to contrast that factual situation with the kind of hysterical utterances made today by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) and supported by the honourable member for Gippsland but put more moderately by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) because he is a more sensible gentleman. In this situation if there is anything that I deplore, and which any honourable member should deplore, it is the calculated and cynical exercise engaged in by the honourable member for Denison and some of his colleagues. They used the most exaggerated, false and pernicious arguments which , by their very nature, are calculated and designed to promote fear and anguish in the heart and mind of any pensioner who happens to be listening. Having performed that very cynical act, honourable members then said that of course it is terrible that the Government has produced all this anxiety and fear. Members of the Opposition are like the arsonist who goes willy-nilly through a country town and lights fires. When the country fire brigade arrives and finds itself confronted with fires buring all around the place and perhaps cannot deal with them as adequately as they might, the arsonist sits back and says: 'Look at that. I think we ought to condemn the country fire brigade for its incapacity to deal with this fire'. That is exactly the kind of despicable political position that certain members of the Opposition have been prepared to adopt in order to promote fear and concern in the desperate hope that in that fear and concern pensioners may turn to them and they might be able to curry some kind of political favour and win a vote or two. To exploit old people in that way deserves the fullest condemnation of the Parliament and it will ultimately receive the condemnation of the electorate. I have no doubt about that. There are a number of other points I should like to deal with very quickly. The honourable member for Gippsland suggested that the operation of Medicare would force the closure of bush nursing hospitals. I think he should recognise the fact that bush nursing hospitals are part of the total public and private hospital system of Victoria. Bush nursing hospitals are private hospitals within that framework, and always have been. Private hospital insurance is required to obtain accommodation in bush nursing hospitals. Basic private and supplementary hospital insurance will continue to be available under Medicare. Private insurance will be available at a greatly reduced cost than under the current arrangements. When this is considered along with the very generous income contributions before the one per cent levy is payable it can be seen that bush nursing hospitals should continue. I hope, having some regard for the work that they do, that they continue to have a very substantial role to play as part of the total health care system provided by the Government of Victoria. The Government has consulted very widely in developing its arrangements for private hospitals. If the honourable member for Gippsland considers those matters in that light he will have much less concern about this matter. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) took the Government to task on what he regarded as pharmaceutical pricing. Some points ought to go on the record on behalf of my colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett). Despite the Government's decision to seek an early rationalisation of the differences in pharmaceutical prices, at the request of the industry it delayed the introduction for some months. That is hardly ignoring the viewpoint of the industry. In that intervening period there was regular consultation with the pharmaceutical industry. Despite the opportunity to propose alternative strategies the industry failed to do so. The withdrawal of certain milk substitutes from the pharmaceutical benefits list is a specific issue created by the manufacturer seeking to force a very large price increase. While I have no doubt of the genuineness and concern of the honourable member for Mackellar at the difficulties that that creates for those families that require this form of pharmaceutical aid-I think all honourable gentlemen would share that concern-and while we can all be sympathetic to the small number of families with children for whom this product is essential, if the Government were to give in in this instance other manufacturers could be expected to seek similar rises for other pharmaceutical products at an estimated cost of $200m. The honourable member for Mackellar, as a former Minister for Health, said that he had been aware of the supposed problems of manufacture for three years. If he was aware of them for three years and he was the Minister for Health, how come he did not solve them? Mr Spender —He was not there for three years. Mr HOLDING —He was certainly there for longer than the present Minister for Health who has been taken to task. The present Minister for Health has been the Minister since March. He has had the enormous responsibility of getting the Medicare package off the ground and negotiating these and other matters with the pharmaceutical industry. I believe that to take him to task in this situation is , again, a fairly cynical political exercise. Of course there is concern. No one is more concerned than the Minister for Health. I hope that this matter will be resolved but it cannot be resolved by allowing multinational pharmaceutical companies to hold the Government and the revenues of the country to ransom. I think we should be entitled to receive the support of the Opposition on that very basic principle. Mr McGauran —That is an ideological statement. It is not a practical one. Mr HOLDING —It is also a factual one. I realise that the honourable gentleman, coming from his somewhat closeted background where he has never had to worry whether there was money to pay for medical care, can reject the kind of proposition I put to him as some kind of ideological position, but it is not an ideological position; it is a factual one. We are facing an economic situation of some difficulty. Simply to concede, as the honourable gentleman would have us do, to the proposition of every multinational drug company would cost the revenue enormously. There has to be a balance in this matter and I say to the honourable gentleman and other honourable members opposite, including the honourable member for Mackellar, that this is the sort of issue on which the Opposition does not win any points for itself by taking the Government to task in this way. If ever there was an area in which there ought to be some consensus this is certainly it. The burdens in the Instant case, whatever decision is made -I honestly do not believe that a different Minister would have made a decision any different from that made by the Minister for Health-have to be of continuing concern, and continuing approaches must be made towards the resolution of the problems of those individual families which, through no fault of their own, will be caught in this situation. The Government, would be aided, in dealing with some of the drug companies, if it could speak not merely with the voice and the authority of the Government but also with the voice and the authority of the Parliament. I will touch on matters that were taken up by the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). The honourable gentleman expressed concern-very proper concern in my view-about people who have encephalitis. His concern for the services available for the hard of hearing are noted. I certainly undertake to pass them on to the Minister for Health. I am informed that staff relief will be provided in this area in 1983-84. It is hoped that this will assist the situation. Certainly the very serious concerns expressed by the honourable member will be brought to the attention of the Minister, and I believe they will be responded to in a sympathetic manner. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $208,671,000. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(3.55) —In the brief time allotted to me I wish to say something on the subject of law reform. Members of the House will be aware that within the expenditures of the Attorney-General's Department an amount of $1.66m is set aside in the 1983-84 financial year for the purposes of the Law Reform Commission. The reports which have been prepared by that Commission under its terms of reference have been of a very high quality. One can only commend the work done by the Commission and support the increase in expenditure of $287,000- odd for this financial year. It is convenient, dangerous and simplistic to equate change with progress. I believe deeply in the need to reform the law where the need is demonstrated but in practising law one becomes very conscious of the deficiencies and the limitations within the system. Some of these are capable of remedy; some of them are not. The reason they cannot be remedied is the inherent imperfections of all human systems. The criteria which guide the Law Reform Commission essentially get down to the weighing of competing public interests. The function of the Commission is to review laws with a view to their systematic development and reform, including modernisation, elimination of defects, the simplification of law, the adoption of more effective methods for its administration and the dispensing of justice. All these get back to weighing competing interests and the difficulties that are faced may be illustrated by looking at the reports the Commission presented on defamation and public and private interests. The defamation report was of very high quality. It made certain recommendations in respect of defamation laws. Honourable members will know that there are separate defamation laws in this country for each of the States and the Australian Capital Territory. To have uniform defamation laws would seem to be common sense. The absurdity of the proposition that different rules should apply to the same statement, depending on whether one brings proceedings in, say, New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory or Victoria, has only to be stated to be revealed. The Government has come forward with some proposals. It is one of the ironies of law reform that all attempts to reform the law, to change it in contentious and important areas, provoke criticism from people who will be affected. I am not here to make any comments upon the Government's proposals but those proposals and the work done by the Law Reform Commission illustrate the difficulty of the work. Another glamorous area in which law reform proposals have been considered-not, I believe, by the Commission-is that of compensation for accident cases, be they industrial or traffic. Two major problems are presented by the present system; first of all, the fault system-a person must prove that there was some negligence on the part of the person who injured him-and, secondly, the fact that a person is given an award which is once and for all. Anybody who has appeared in industrial accident cases or motor traffic cases before juries will recall the summing up by the judge. He tells the jury that it must make a decision once and for all as to what the compensation will be. This means that the jury not only has to look at the past, but also has to look into the future and try to make an assessment of the extent to which one's future will be affected by pain and suffering attributable to the damage that was caused to one in an accident, the extent to which one's earning capacity may be affected and factors of that kind-imponderables. So, some would say that a different system should be put in place-a compensation system-and that there should be an assessment on the same lines as the workers compensation system. Of course, the problem about that kind of system is that it can produce a sort of compensation neurosis. Again, anybody who has anything to with that area of law knows that some people who get on to compensation have a great desire to stay on compensation. I say, 'some'; but certainly it is the case. Some other areas of law reform have not been considered thus far. Perhaps this Government could give some attention to them. I would like to refer briefly to two of them. The first is magistrates courts and the second is costs. For the average citizen, the magistrates courts are the place where he comes into contact with justice in action, be it for a minor traffic matter, a backyard assault case, a claim for a small amount of money by him or against him. The vast majority of Australian citizens who come into contact with the courts do so at the level of the magistrates courts. It seems to me that all courts are intimidating. That, I suppose, is inevitable because of the issues that courts deal with and the functions they have to discharge. But I think that much could be done to improve the practice and procedures of magistrates courts, to streamline those procedures and to make the courts less intimidating and more intelligible to the ordinary citizen. I realise, of course, that in a federal system what one can do is limited. That is a matter to which the Attorney- General (Senator Gareth Evans) could give some consideration and which I hope he will refer to the Law Reform Commission within the constitutional powers, of course, of the Commonwealth. The second area about which I would like to say something is that of the costs of legal services. This is an intractable problem. The high cost of legal services is illustrated by the figures which the Attorney-General brought before the Parliament when tabling the Family Law Amendment (Legal Aid) Costs Bill 1983 and by the figures which appear in the estimates of the Attorney-General's Department in respect of legal aid. I cite a few figures. In a difficult case- and a difficult case may take three, four or five days; it may take very much longer-one will need a Queen's Counsel. At present, on New South Wales scales, I think that the charge is about $1,200 a day for a good Queen's Counsel, for a good junior, about $600 a day and for a solicitor, $100 or $120 an hour or perhaps more, depending upon his firm and his seniority. One's own cost, therefore, could involve a bill of about $2,500 to $3,000 a day. That is for one 's own side only. If, in fact, one is unsuccessful and has to pay a good part of the costs of the other side, the bill, of course, is very much higher. As I pointed out earlier, this means that, for many citizens, the prospect of going to court is simply too risky a business. If an amount of $2,000 is at stake, which to many citizens is a large amount of money-the cost of contesting small cases, be it for work which was done by an electrician or a plumber, or for the supply of goods, can make doing so not worthwhile. If defences are put up to a perfectly just claim there is a great impetus to effect settlement. I do not for a moment criticise the legal profession for its costs. Of course, costs are built into its structure. The fees charged by those at the very height of the profession are justified as those people are not there for very long. Their time at the top is limited. I wonder when we can get some information from the Law Reform Commission as to the fundamental causes of the spiralling of legal costs and the reasons for those causes so that we can at least understand the dimensions of the problem. I believe that the Commonwealth and the Attorney- General could well consider that reference for the purposes of the information of us all. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(4.05) —In the few minutes that are available to me, I too, wish to comment on the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department. I will first mention the Australian Legal Aid Office and the excellent job done by the employees, lawyers and legal clerks in this important Office. The Government is increasing the appropriation to that Office to $57.4m in the current financial year. In the previous year, $47.5m was actually spent. The dedicated work of the government lawyers is well known. Of course, this work supplements the work of chamber magistrates, community legal aid centres and the various State legal aid bodies. The Australian Legal Aid Office has a duty to give legal aid and assistance to service personnel, returned servicemen, recipients of social security and unemployment benefits and, I believe, to people who want advice about Commonwealth legislation. The previous speaker has outlined some of the problems of legal aid. Australians face a very serious difficulty when they are confronted with legal proceedings, either of a civil or a criminal nature. They are genuinely worried about the cost of going to court. Many of us see people in these situations. They are very reluctant to get involved in legal proceedings. I believe that the Government is aware of this concern. The reason why there has been an enormous increase in the allocation to the Australian Legal Aid Office is to make more facilities available for legal advice and, I trust, for actually acting for people in litigation and for people who are charged with criminal offences. I mention also the allocation to the Institute of Family Studies, which is $1. 7m. This Institute recently co-operated with Ashfield Council in my electorate and conducted a community survey in the suburb of Haberfield. I was concerned that the questions asked did not include any reference to the work of the aldermen or to the State member who interviews there every week. I have drawn that to the attention of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). I am still waiting on a reply. Parliament pays and authorises the salaries and administrative expenses of the Institute of Family Studies. I would have though that the local member of parliament and the hard-working aldermen in the area at least deserved inclusion in a survey because the survey wanted to know where the people received legal and other advice, whether they went to court houses or approached the Ombudsman. None of these people or institutions is local, whereas the aldermen are very much in contact with the local community and are the people to whom citizens turn when they need advice. The same applies to the State member who interviews there every week. I was interested to note that the Human Rights Commission has been allocated nearly $2.3m in the Budget. I comment briefly also on the allocation of $28.3m to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. Of course, ASIO, as it is known in Australia, has come under a lot of scrutiny. Regrettably, in trying to regulate ASIO and make sure that it is completely accountable, Labor governments sometimes fumble the pass. I am sure that the present Government will not do so. The Liberal and National Parties and the conservative forces in Australia have traditionally given ASIO and the other intelligence organisations in Australia an open hand. I have had my attention drawn to a recommendation in a pamphlet by Dick Hall, a well known author. He recommended that security services in Australia be subject to the scrutiny of a joint standing parliamentary committee . I think that is an excellent idea. Members and senators should have surveillance over the security agencies in our nation. Cabinet and the appropriate Minister-in this case the Attorney-do not have the time to supervise and scrutinise the work of these agencies. Mr Hall's comments have much to commend them; they certainly appeal to me. I have heard him speak on his ideas, and I draw his remarks to the attention of the Attorney. There is a need for security services. We all remember some of the appalling incidents that happened recently in our nation, from the Hilton bombing to the murder of the Turkish consul and even more recently the explosion in the Israeli consulate in Sydney. With much regret we recognise that terrorism and terrorist activities have visited our land. I pay tribute to the people who work for the security services. They do what they can to protect our nation and keep it secure. Nevertheless, we must maintain scrutiny and public confidence in our security and secret services, our special branches in the State police forces and in all the organisations which spend public money-taxpayers' money-to maintain security intelligence. I refer the Attorney to Mr Hall's comments. The other area that I want to touch on is the important work of the Law Reform Commission. This year $1.6m has been allocated to funding the Law Reform Commission's office. The first matter to which I refer is the need for law reform in the area of spent convictions. I was pleased that in one of the papers in 1979 dealing with unfair publication the Law Reform Commission briefly mentioned spent convictions and expunging past criminal records. Many of us, as members of Parliament, meet constituents who may have had a brief encounter with the law, who may have had a petty matter-they may not have had a radio licence- heard by a magistrate. A young man may have failed to attend a National Service parade years ago or a person may have committed some offence against the Social Services Act. These records should not have to be revealed years afterwards. If one is applying for a passport one should not have to reveal a petty indicent that happened years ago or a student peccadillo. A friend of mine, when he was admitted to practise as a solicitor, had to reveal that he had been convicted of being drunk in Hyde Park. He was terribly ashamed of this. I am sure that it caused a lot of mirth at the Solicitors Admission Board. People should be able to forget the past. They should not have to keep revealing these transgressions and minor problems. Our society believes that an offender should be able to live down his or her past. It is incumbent on the Government to deal with this problem. I know there are difficulties. The police invariably require a full and complete disclosure of a person's past record when he is applying for a truck driver's licence or any government licence. In New Zealand a considerable amount of work has been done on what is described as burying the past and expunging criminal records. There is a proposal in New Zealand that five years after the passing of a non-custodial sentence no one can publish the fact that a person was convicted. If a person is imprisoned, five years after his release no one can mention that he was imprisoned. That is another proposal. It is a somewhat different problem. My point is that a person should not have to reveal something that happened in his past. I encourage the Government to act in this area, to seek a full report from the Law Reform Commission and to legislate. There will be difficulties. Someone who has been convicted of a sexual offence against children and is now seeking employment in a field dealing with children, which is a very sensitive area, is one case. I am sure that such a case involving children would be an exception. However, leaving sexual convictions aside, many citizens who are embarrassed by what has happened in the past and who wish to live it down have contacted members of parliament. Perhaps such people are married; they have certainly grown up and are mature. I draw this important area of law reform to the attention of the Attorney-General. I trust that the Government, if it receives an appropriate report, will legislate in this field and certainly clarify a difficult area that creates many problems for a wide range of Australians. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(4.15) —I take the opportunity of debating the estimates of the Attorney-General's Department to refer particularly to that part of the estimates that deal with royal commissions and commissions of inquiry. Of late there have been a number of inquiries. Of course important royal commissions have been established in relation to a number of questions. Those that have been more topical include the ones related to organised crime. We also have a royal commission in relation to security matters-the Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies-chaired by His Honour Mr Justice Hope. It is known as the Hope Royal Commission, or in some quarters the Coombe royal commission. The Royal Commission which deals with security matters, is an important one. In a sense it has been subsumed by the sorts of comments of a more glamorous nature that have been made from day to day and the real reasons for establishing this Royal Commission have, in part, been ignored. The reasons have become very much more clouded by what I describe as the revealed worst aspects of Australian Labor Party cronyism and incestuous Labor Party opportunism. This has been demonstrated by much of the evidence that has been given to that inquiry. The first and most important reason for the establishment of that Royal Commission was to establish whether our nation's security had been placed at risk. The secrecy that has surrounded much of the evidence that has been given to the inquiry has obscured the issue of Australia's security simply because so much of the evidence has been given in camera. The second issue that the Commission was asked to inquire into was leaks from the Cabinet Committee on National and International Security. One might be surprised to learn that that was its purpose. It was suggested in the early days when this inquiry was established that it may have another purpose. I think it was very clear that the Government, in establishing its terms of reference, had in mind that this question of leaks from the National Security Committee was of the utmost importance, notwithstanding the fact that the Government sought to fit the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with the blame for information that was leaked all around this city-Canberra-about links between David Combe and the expelled KGB agent, First Secretary, Ivanov. The sinister purpose that the Government had when it established this Royal Commission has almost been forgotten, but I do not think one should allow that to happen. I remind honourable members of a debate that took place in the House of Representatives on 17 May last. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) made it clear that the actions not only of the Government but also of the Opposition were to be reviewed. He asserted that the Leader of the Opposition had been briefed on the affair and asked who he had talked to after the matter first arose. He asserted that that in some way linked the Leader of the Opposition with the leaks from the Security Committee of Cabinet. The Deputy Prime Minister said that strong evidence would be given to the Commission that perhaps the damage came from the Opposition. He said that simply because Mr Combe's name was mentioned in Parliament by the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) who else but the Leader of the Opposition could be involved? Mr Duffy —This does not have much to do with the Attorney-General's Department. Mr RUDDOCK —It is responsible for royal commissions. The Deputy Prime Minister said: Are we to suggest that there was no discussion at all with the Leader of the Opposition . . . Do honourable members honestly think we can accept that situation. When matters were raised about our national security and about Mr Combe, the Deputy Prime Minister wanted the Opposition blamed. He was hopeful that the Opposition would be fitted with the blame by the Commission. The Government was in such a hurry to do this that it failed to ask whether any of its members were involved. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who set up the Royal Commission, was the source of some information which was given to his friends and acquaintances. He failed to recognise that they might, as they now claim was the case, naturally have concluded that Mr Combe's being banned from contact with Ministers must have arisen from his association with Ivanov and Ivanov's expulsion. The Commission was established without inquiry of a mere six members of the National and International Security Committee of Cabinet as to whether any information they had given friends-or dare I say cronies?-might have been the source of what was widely known and leaked security information. Clearly, on the evidence submitted to date to the inquiry, Labor members have been found wanting. The Labor Party has suggested that there ought to be discussion of these matters. On many occasions Government counsel before the Commission has attempted to stop the discussion of some of these questions by claiming privilege. The Opposition has been largely silenced but people such as Mr Duncan of Adelaide and Senator Bolkus have continued to discuss these matters in public . Discussion has also taken place in the Australian Capital Territory in relation to one of the subject matters we were discussing-that is, the question of Australian security and the future of the Australian Security Inteligence Organisation. As reported in the Canberra Times of 10 October 1983: The ACT branch of the ALP wants the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation disbanded and the Federal Government to convene a special national conference- Presumably of Labor Party members- to consider the future of Australia's security and intelligence. The report then stated: The president, Mr Marc Robinson, said later that a branch meeting, held at the Canberra College of Technical and Further Education, had been called in response to a similar resolution recently by the South Australian branch. About 50 members attended. Mr Robinson said reports that the branch was to undertake its own investigation into ASIO were incorrect. Rank and file support was needed for a special national conference. A majority of State branches need to agree to the resolution before a national conference can be called. The ACT and South Australian branches are the only ones to do so. The reason I raise this matter in relation to Australia's security organisation is that the Royal Commission, about which I have spoken, clearly has before it this question of whether or not there has been a leak in relation to Australia's security and whether Australia's security had been placed at risk. Yet we have in the ALP, at a time when the Opposition is being called upon not to discuss these matters, not only considerable discussion about security in general but also very considerable discussion about the future of Australia's national security organisation, ASIO. Of course, many people in the ALP are seeking to have the Organisation disbanded. I find it alarming that the Prime Minister and members of the Government have not called upon those members of the ALP who have been anxious to discuss this question of ASIO's future to await the outcome of the inquiry of the Royal Commission. I would have thought it would be most appropriate for this matter to be put aside, as the Opposition has been asked to put aside its criticisms and comments about aspects arising out of this inquiry. I want also to raise in discussion this afternoon the future of the National Crimes Commission. We have had tabled in the Parliament only this week the annual report of the Special Prosecutor Mr Robert Frank Redlich. That report is another document that calls upon the Government to establish what Mr Redlich calls a robust, independent, national authority to meet a national crisis. Yet we know that the Labor Party is dithering about this matter. It has committees that are considering the matter. The Labor Party Caucus has put aside the request of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) for the establishment of a national crimes commission. Notwithstanding the urgent need for a national authority to investigate organised crime, this matter is being put to one side. It should not be forgotten that the proposal for a national crimes commission was before this Parliament last year. Certain legislation was passed through this chamber. Yet this Government, since it came into office, has organised a conference in an attempt to try to get some agreement, admittedly about important questions such as the sort of capacity that a national crimes commission ought to have to inquire into organised crime, its powers and the like. But I do not think it is fair, when there is this urgent need, to have discussion going on interminably as it has and this urgent task put to one side. I think the delay is unconscionable. Daily, matters are raised which ought to be within the purview of a national crimes commission. Questions have been raised in relation to organised crime in New South Wales. It has been brought to our notice that the Commonwealth has sought to convey certain information about organised crime to authorities in New South Wales and that the New South Wales Government appears to be unwilling to set up its own inquiry. I think it is important that the Commonwealth have an inquiry of its own to investigate some of these matters. There are important Commonwealth aspects to the matters that have been raised. The question of taxation is one such matter-the taxation of those who were bribed in the context of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Bribes are regarded as income. There are other important questions that ought to be raised also. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(4.25) — Today I wish to address my remarks to that part of the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department that relates to the provision of legal aid. Before doing so I wish to make just a couple of comments with respect to the matters raised by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock). He quite clearly implied that matters that go to the very core of our democratic system ought not to be discussed in political parties and decried the debate that is going on, not only in the Australian Labor Party but in the wider community about the Hope Royal Commission on Australian's Security and Intelligence Agencies. I personally attended a seminar some two weeks ago at Melbourne University where many aspects of the Hope Royal Commission were discussed. I would have thought that it was quite proper to do so. Having decried that sort of debate, the honourable member for Dundas spent most of his 10 minutes canvassing the very issues that are very much before the Hope Royal Commission. There was some degree of flexibility in his outrage. I come to the legal aid aspects of the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department. It goes without saying that equal access to the law should be a fundamental tenet of any democratic society. Sorry to say, that is certainly not the case in Australia today. This Government has taken a number of initiatives to bring that goal closer to reality. Initiatives have been taken in a whole range of areas under the auspices of the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans) . But, to a large extent the delivery of legal aid has been and will be frustrated by the combination of financial stringencies that currently confront the Government and the corresponding fairly significant explosion in demand for the provision of legal aid. Thus it becomes essential to ensure that the legal aid dollar goes further. To this end the Government has taken a number of quite specific initiatives. For example, in the provision of legal aid in family law matters it became obvious that a considerable disparity existed between what it was costing the taxpayer in those States and Territories not embracing the Australian Legal Aid Office fee scales and those that were. In the latter case fees were significantly less, thus allowing more Australians to obtain legal aid than was the case in the higher fee structure States and Territories. As a result of the initiative of the Government the ALAO scale will be adhered to throughout Australia, with the result that many more deserving Australians will have legal aid in family law matters. The Government is of the view that, having regard to the massive infusions of taxpayers' money into the private legal profession via legal aid, it is not asking too much of some practitioners to moderate their fee structure to the level their colleagues have adopted. The brutal alternative, given existing financial constraints combined with the explosion in demand to which I have adverted, is quite simply that the Government will be unable to assist many Australians at a time of extreme emotional and finanical hardship. In any event this Government is firmly of the view that whatever legal aid may be about it is certainly not a form of industry assistance to the legal profession. The objective of legal aid is to fulfil the fundamental democratic principles to which I have adverted. The Attorney-General recently announced a major increase in moneys made available to the States and Territories for legal aid. The allocation represents an increase on last year's allocation of 23.5 per cent in money terms and 15 per cent in real terms. The Attorney-General's Department will disburse $60.1m throughout the ALAO and the State legal aid commissions. The remaining $11.3m will be disbursed through the Aboriginal legal services. The Fraser Government made available to community legal centres a meagre $450, 000 during 1982-83. Thus, community legal centres under the Fraser Government became very much the Cinderellas of the legal profession in terms of government assistance. Their limited resources were and still are stretched to the limit because of restrictive legal aid guidelines forcing many people to turn to these centres for advice. Without the significant support of these centres the conventional method of delivery of legal aid would simply break down. The 100 per cent increase by this Government on the 1982-83 allocation will provide much needed assistance to community legal centres throughout Australia. These centres, on the cost- effective criteria I have mentioned, have much to commend them. A recent report by Susan Armstrong entitled 'Can Legal Aid Afford Private Lawyers' drew a most favourable comparison between the cost of delivery of legal aid through salaried lawyers as compared with the traditional private profession. I certainly endorse the view that community legal centres are a most cost-effective, innovative and professional medium by which a whole range of legal problems may be addressed. I have had the good fortune to particate in a project that is very much a further development of the concept of community legal centres-centres that have flourished throughout Australia in little over a decade. I bring to the attention of the House the recently commenced Western Region Community Legal Centre operating from Footscray in Victoria. The object of this pioneering practice is to become a self-funding legal practice specialising in the delivery of legal services to the disadvantaged. Whilst other unique aspects of the practice should be of more significance to those genuinely interested in providing all Australians with appropriate access to the law, I am sure this self-funding objective will strike a particularly responsive chord in honourable members opposite. That is, should the centre prove successful, as I am sure it will, those opposite will have another supporting argument for their traditional abdication of responsibility in this area. Initially, the practice was subject to immense hostility from within the legal profession, as was very much the case with the Australian Legal Aid Office when it was initially set up. I must say that the practice, via its elected management committee, now enjoys a great degree of co-operation with the private profession, that profession's representatives and, indeed, the wider community. Its charter includes the primary objects of active pursuit of law reform, legal education, community participation and control and the development of specialist knowledge in areas of the law not hitherto attracting a great deal of attention from lawyers. It is worth saying that there are a range of areas of law which, because of their lack of return in terms of remuneration to practitioners, simply have not been able to build up the body of case work that is often the mechanism by which law reform comes about in our system. Because there has not been a lot of involvement by practitioners we have many Acts such as, for example, in the Victorian jurisdiction the old Landlord and Tenant Act which were simply Dickensian in terms of their content. In any event, the law reform activism that is proposed to be engaged in by this sort of practice I hope will go some way towards remedying that fact. The concept represents a totally different contribution to the resolution of, in my view, the major problem confronting any government in terms of delivery of legal aid. That is, it represents a significant opportunity to stretch our legal aid resources further and, as such, should be supported by this House. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.35) —I want to speak in this debate on a matter of grave concern which has the most profound implications for our democratic society. I refer to the proposed uniform law of defamation, an outline of which has recently been circulated by the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). It is my view on studying that precis-I might say that it is a view shared by a number of journalists-that the proposed uniform law may cause severe restrictions to the existing freedoms of the Press and speech in Australia. The proposed law requires careful consideration by all sections of the community before any step is taken by the Government to implement its provisions. In particular, there are three areas of potential risk to those freedoms. First , the existing defence of qualified privilege will no longer be available to the Press or other media. This appears to be an extraordinary development in the law . The Press may be liable in defamation for reports published in good faith upon matters that it considers, upon reasonable grounds, the Public has an interest in knowing. Secondly, it would no longer be a defence to defamation to prove that the report was true, or true and published in the public interest. According to the precis circulated by the Attorney-General it will be necessary to establish that the report was true and for the public benefit. In practice, public benefit has proved impossible to prove. Under New South Wales legislation which contained a similar public benefit provision it was held that a true report exposing racketeering in the greyhound racing industry was defamatory. A newspaper can often prove that the publication of a controversial matter was in the public interest but cannot prove it benefited the public. Again, one has the undemocratic situation in which a newspaper, quite properly, might expose racketeering and it cannot establish that the public benefited from it. Therefore, it has no defence in a defamation action. Thirdly, at present reports by the media of statements made in parliament or in a court of law are immune from a suit for defamation. Under the proposed uniform law that defence will continue except that, if a person allegedly defamed seeks a statement in reply, the newspaper will be required to publish the reply or else lose the right to utilise the defence. One pragmatic result of this proposal, which the Attorney-General terms 'fair report', may be that the media will stop publishing reports of parliamentary and court proceedings rather than risk being forced to publish statements in reply. The public may be deprived of its principal source-if not its only source-of knowing what its elected representatives and the judiciary are doing. I do not for one moment believe that Australians will tolerate this Government interfering with the freedom of the Press in this Orwellian manner. Never before, to my knowledge, has a government in this country sought to compel newspapers to publish, or other media to broadcast, statements or other material. The absurdity of the requirement of the media to publish a reply by a person allegedly defamed is highlighted by the fact that if that reply is defamatory in itself the newspaper which must publish that reply appears to have no defence whatever. Let me illustrate this stupidity by way of a simple example. During the course of a speech in the Parliament an honourable member accused Mr X of a wrong-doing and a newspaper publishes that report. The newspaper does not have a complete defence to a defamation action by Mr X unless it publishes his reply. In the course of his reply Mr X states that it is not he who is guilty of wrong-doing but the honourable member. The newspaper must publish that reply. If the allegation is totally false, the honourable member will sue the newspaper and under the proposed uniform law I do not see it having any defence. It may also be the case that a published reply may place a newspaper in contempt of court. In such circumstances the newspaper is condemned if it does not publish the reply and condemned if it does. It needs to be said that the Fraser Government commenced the movement seeking consensus upon a uniform defamation law. It is notable and praiseworthy that a government seeks to bring some uniformity in regard to this difficult and complicated area of law. However, the present Government's proposal will not be acceptable to the community as an alternative to the existing defamation law. The Press not only has a commercial interest in publishing news but it also accepts a duty to publish much which is of no commercial advantage to it but is on matters of public concern. The public perceives the Press as having such a duty and expects it to perform this duty. If the Government, by the proposed uniform law, interferes with the freedom of the Press with respect to reporting of such matters, it does so at grave risk to the form of democracy we enjoy. This potential is particularly sinister when the legislation is being proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and a government which have already manifested their willingness during the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies to use the laws of defamation and contempt to suppress criticisms by the Press of their policies and actions. Honourable members will recall that in the South Australian Parliament on 17 August Mr Peter Duncan attacked Mr Laurie Matheson's role in the Combe-Ivanov affair and referred to Mr Matheson's evidence given in camera. The Attorney- General sought an opinion from his Solicitor-General, Sir Maurice Byers, as to whether Mr Duncan was protected by parliamentary privilege and whether his speech constituted contempt of the Hope Royal Commission. The Attorney-General released a legal opinion which concluded that, whilst Mr Duncan was protected by parliamentary privilege, the media could be prosecuted for publishing reports of his speech. The freedom to report parliament is unmistakably threatened by the advice obtained by the Attorney-General. Honourable members will also recall that the Prime Minister sought to muzzle and intimidate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) on 3 August after the Leader of the Opposition commented on the Prime Minister's admission to the Hope Royal Commission that it was he who leaked Mr Combe's name to Mr Richard Farmer. The Prime Minister sought to instruct counsel for the Commonwealth to submit to the Royal Commission that the Leader of the Opposition was in contempt and ought to be dealt with accordingly. This was despite the fact that counsel for the Commonwealth, Mr McHugh, QC, on 18 July in a statement to the Commission on the circumstances surrounding Mr Young's resignation inter alia said: Your Honour will appreciate that during the course of the royal commission there are ongoing matters of government which have to be dealt with notwithstanding your Honour's inquiry. The resignation of Mr Young has been such a matter. Mr McHugh continued: Your Honour, the Government does not claim that the appointment of a royal commission suspends the discussion of any matters of public interest. By the very own criteria of the Government's counsel, the Leader of the Opposition properly commented on a matter of public interest. Yet the Prime Minister sought to intimidate and muzzle him. To his credit, the Leader of the Opposition was not so intimidated. The Prime Minister has shown a propensity for the use of defamation actions to stifle criticism. In answer to a question from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) on 15 September the Prime Minister informed the House that he had three defamation actions on foot arising out of media reports to the Hope Royal Commission. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, I am led to understand, is the first Western leader to sue Time magazine. Unlike his predecessors in the office of Prime Minister, this Prime Minister is not able to take vigorous and often penetrating criticism on the chin. He seeks to influence the freedom of the Press. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(4.45) —There are a few matters that I would like to raise on some of the comments that have been put forward by honourable members in the discussion on the estimates of the Department of the Attorney-General. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) in contrast to the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) referred to the need for defamation laws which were, in fact, uniform. He indicated the absurdity of the existing situation where there are different laws for all States and the Australian Capital Territory. He then referred to the magistrate' s court and correctly indicated that for the average citizen-in fact, he referred to the vast majority of Australians-the magistrate's court is the area where most people have contact with the law. As he indicated, the practices and procedures are such that they are somewhat inhibiting to many people. He suggested that that was a matter which should be referred to the Law Reform Commission. In fairness to the honourable member for North Sydney, he indicated the constitutional limitations with the Commonwealth Government on that matter. The views of the honourable member for North Sydney will be passed on to the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). But it must be reinforced that there are limited Commonwealth constitutional powers. The matter could be referred to the Law Reform Commission but would require considerable co-operation and assistance from the State attorneys. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) dealt mainly with matters relating to royal commissions and organised crime. The matters which were directly related to the estimates of the Attorney-General's Department were associated with the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. He spent a lot of time on matters which were really the responsibility of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Department of the Special Minister of State. Nevertheless, we were not concerned about his expressing those views today. One matter has cropped up which I think deserves to be answered. In referring to the annual report of the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, the honourable member mentioned how the Australian Labor Party was dithering on the question of a National Crimes Commission. He said that he had not forgotten that legislation was before the Parliament last year. I can assure the honourable member for Dundas that none of us have forgotten that the legislation for a Crimes Commission was before this Parliament last year. The fact of the matter is that we are not likely to forget it because of the climate and hysteria at the time when the Government was facing an election. It is not that the Government at the moment is dithering about a Crimes Commission, but the Government is concerned about the establishment of a Crimes Commission which will adequately protect civil liberties and significantly will have the co- operation of the States. That is why at the moment further consideration is being given to that matter. It is not a matter of dithering, it is a matter of establishing a Crimes Commission which will, in fact, work. There has been no suggestion from honourable members opposite that unless we have the co-operation of the States a Crimes Commission would work in the way people wanted, having regard to the concerns that honourable members on this side of the House have, and should have, regarding civil liberties aspects. The honourable member for Gippsland referred mainly to the question of defamation. He was concerned that some defences of defamation would no longer be available. I think that he is jumping the gun, to say the least. The proposed defamation Bill came from the Law Reform Commission and discussions by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Arising out of that, a precis of those proposals has been issued for circulation. This is what the honourable member for Gippsland was referring to in his speech. I assure the honourable member for Gippsland that there will be adequate opportunity for public comment when the Bill is introduced. The matters raised by him today are the sorts of matters which many people will put forward in the public discussion that will arise in respect of the proposed Bill. At this stage the Government considers that legislation to be extremely important. There will be no rush with the legislation and, after it is introduced, there will be adequate time for consideration of the sorts of matters of concern put forward by the honourable member and of other issues. I think it should be said in respect of the other matters raised by the honourable member for Gippsland that the subject of contempt of court has recently been referred to the Law Reform Commission for a complete review. I would have thought, having regard to the issues raised by the honourable member, that he would support that matter. Nevertheless, I again reinforce the fact that nobody is proposing to rush through any Bill on that matter without taking into account public comment, which will certainly embrace, among others, the matters which were referred to by the honourable member for Gippsland. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $153,455,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $185,775,000. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.53) —As shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the year 1983-84. I welcome, as one would have expected, the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). I note that this year the total amount to be appropriated for his Department is a record $153,455,000. It is fair, therefore, to say that, in the context of government expenditure, immigration and ethnic affairs is a quite significant item. I congratulate the Minister from the outset on some progressive aspects which I note in the estimates for the Department. The only mention of immigration and ethnic affairs in the Budget Speech of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) occurred on page 11 of the distributed copy of that Speech when the Treasurer, in reference to assistance to migrants, stated: In 1983-84 an additional 60 grants at a cost of $778,000 will be provided under the Grant-in-Aid Scheme to assist ethnic and other community organisations to employ social welfare workers to provide services to migrants. The additional grants will bring the total number of grants under the scheme to 200 by June 1984. On behalf of the Opposition, I congratulate the Government and the Minister on that initiative. I have pointed out on a previous occasion that, following the election of the Hawke socialist Government, we have seen a radical and dangerous change in immigration and ethnic affairs policies, and that these changes are causing widespread concern throughout the entire Australian community and not just the ethnic communities. As I said on an earlier occasion, to put it bluntly , Australia's immigration and ethnic affairs policies under the new Minister have taken a radical turn to the Left. I give the Minister full marks for the fact that he has never concealed his ideological commitment to the Left and I acknowledge the fact that he is the senior member of the socialist Left in the Hawke socialist Cabinet. The Minister is taking advantage of the opportunity which has fallen into his lap, but I make the point that down the track Australia will suffer as the result of the new radical and dangerous turn to the Left which has come into our immigration and ethnic affairs policies. I suggest that an electoral backlash is already building up throughout ethnic communities right around Australia. We cannot appease the Soviet Union, as the Hawke socialist Government has done consistently since 5 March, without upsetting a significant-- Mr Punch —I raise a point of order, Mr Chairman. To the best of my knowledge, we do not have a large intake of migrants from the Soviet Union. I expect that that remark is out of order. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I do not know on whose instructions my friend interposed. I am not talking about the Soviet Union. As my colleague will concede, I am certainly not a friend of the Soviet Union. I am saying that the Government has upset a very significant group in the ethnic communities of this country by its attitude towards the Soviet Union and a consistent policy of appeasement. As a matter of interest, I am pleased that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is in the chamber. He and I share a common and long standing position in relation to Israel. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is about to upset the entire Jewish community by granting approval for the establishment in this country of an office representing forces which are, in every sense of the word, inimical to Israel. Mr Chairman, I did not wish to go into these matters in detail. The public is following carefully what the Government is doing. I wish to deal with a few constructive aspects, hoping that the Minister may be prepared, before it is too late, to take up one or two points from the Opposition and to look at how his policies are working in practice. I have complained, and I will continue to complain, about the harsh and arbitrary line which the Minister takes in refusing to exercise his discretion in relation to persons who are in Australia on a visa and who wish to convert to permanent resident status. Mr Chairman, you, as a former senior and highly respected Minister in the Whitlam Government, will know that 98 per cent of a Minister's duty is routine. The Minister is called upon in about two per cent of cases to exercise his ministerial discretion, to represent fairly, balancing the interests of both sides, the will of the people. There are cases in which a person in Australia on a visa should be able to convert to permanent resident status, not as the rule but as the exception. The only exception that the Minister has conceded is marriage to an Australian citizen. With the greatest of respect, I have to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that last year some 15,000 applications were made to his predecessor Ministers, about 1,000 of which were approved. Only yesterday I was again in the situation of an employer ringing me from Sydney and saying that one of his workers, a highly valued member of his staff, had been picked up, was in detention and was being sent back to England. As it turns out, that young man and his wife, through the co-operation of the Minister's office, which was most helpful, have indicated that they will go voluntarily. When they get back to the United Kingdom, they will have to apply to come back to Australia as permanent residents. They could be confronted with a waiting delay, even with the employer 's sponsorship. In the meantime, that business will be disrupted. I ask the Minister to exercise his discretion-to use it-instead of simply applying what I regard as an arbitrary and, quite frankly, too strict rule which is causing considerable hardship. I ask the Minister to look again at the ceiling he has placed on family reunions for this year. The Minister will tell me if I am wrong, but the figures that I have indicate that he will be allowing into this country only about 57, 000- Mr West —It is double what you did. Mr HODGMAN —I ask the Minister to be good enough to hear me. Otherwise he will do as he has done in the past. He is very good in this respect; it is probably his long years of training in the socialist Left which gave him this skill. He interjects; he endeavours to sidetrack; and then he says: 'What happened? You finished your speech and you did not mention this, that or the other'. An intake of 57,000 people is an increase on the intake under the previous Government. But I must say to the Minister-he will hear this with his own ears next Saturday night when he and I will both be in Sydney-that there is concern in relation to family reunions. Is the Minister prepared to look at that matter and also at the provisions which apply? I specifically mention three matters before the forces of the socialist republican elements of the Hawke Government really descend on the people of Australia and do some horrible things to us. There are persistent rumours-the Minister himself has indicated this-that the Government is going to do something in relation to the oath of allegiance prescribed under the Citizenship Act. I do not want to anticipate a debate in the Parliament and I am not so doing, but I urge the Minister to think very carefully before he answers the pleadings of the Hon. Franca Arena, MLC, and others and falls for the trap of taking out of the oath of allegiance a reference to the Queen of Australia which finds its way into the oath of allegiance not as the result of legislation introduced by a Liberal-National Party government but as a result of legislation brought into this Parliament in 1973 when Mr E. G. Whitlam was Prime Minister of Australia, a piece of legislation called the Royal Style and Titles Act. One of the Minister's colleagues-I do not name him-has indicated that if he had his way, because he does not conceal his socialist republican ambitions, he would cut out not only the reference to the Queen but also the reference to God. I point out to him that he does not have to do that because the Citizenship Act provides for an oath and for an affirmation. Mr Hand —What about- Mr HODGMAN —I will not embarrass the honourable member. The people of Australia can hear with their own ears that there is at least one in the chamber who would like to see the citizenship oath amended by deleting reference to the Queen and any reference to God. Where is the Government's mandate to do this? Is it correct that it is the first of a trilogy of amendments which the Minister, along with his colleagues, intends to introduce to destroy the oath of allegiance, to cut out any reference at all to the Queen of Australia, to destroy the flag and to move eventually to a republican Australia? The Government has no mandate to do this and the reaction that it will bring out amongst the Australian community will be enormous. Those colleagues of the Minister who attend citizenship ceremonies will know that very few people have any problem at all with the oath of allegiance. I appeal to the Minister not to take any action and not to pander to the socialist republicans but to do what I have put to him on a number of occasions-to issue every brand new Australian citizen with an Australian flag and with an Australian flag lapel badge, one of which I am wearing, so that they may have something as a memento of the finest flag in the world and of the finest country in the world. Do not get trapped by these socialist republicans. Stand up for Australia. Stand up for our traditional values. I urge the Minister to reconsider. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr PUNCH(Barton)(5.03) —It is always nice to speak after the honouable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He is always entertaining; there is no doubt about that. Sometimes it is a little hot, but I think the last speech from the honourable member for Denison was enough to wilt the carnation in his lapel. The best the honourable gentleman could do to criticise the Government's Budget allocations for immigration and ethnic affairs was to raise some specious arguments about socialist republicanism. We have gone from socialism to socialist republicanism now. That is a marked shift to the Left for the honourable member for Denison. He also raised some specious arguments about Russians, the Arab office and visitors visas. That is all he could say in criticism of the Government's Budget allocations for immigration and ethnic affairs. That, it goes without saying, shows the people of Australia, particularly the ethnic communities of this country, that this Government is on their side and is doing a good job because that man, hard as he may try, could find nothing of any great concern wrong with what we have done. This Budget package is part of a broader package of schemes that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has already brought down in the early life of this Government. It includes amendments to the Migration Act to end discrimination against non-Commonwealth migrants. We heard from those opposite opposition to those amendments on specious grounds of spys, spooks and other concerns arrived at only by drawing the longest of bows. We have also seen a necessary reconsideration by the Minister and the Government of the points system to allow better access on family reunion grounds for those who most need help, including the many thousands of migrant families who live in my electorate of Barton. We have also seen compassionate adjustments to cater for the areas of need in the world by allowing the red tape to be cut so that many worthwhile people from far-off lands such as Sri Lanka and the Lebanon who need help immediately can come here. In the Budget allocation we are discussing here-I remind honourable members that we are discussing Budget allocations and not some specious foreign relation matters that the honourable member for Denison spoke about-there is a 14 per cent increase, despite the drastic fiscal overhaul that this Government had to undertake when it came into office because of the near bankruptcy that those opposite left this country in. That 14 per cent increase in the allocation for immigration and ethnic affairs has gone to the real areas of real priority and need in which migrant communities of this country needed help most. Let me give a few examples. Every major inquiry in the area of ethnic affairs, from Henderson to Galbally, has shown that lack of English and impairment in English language speaking has been a major barrier to migrants in this country, impeding sociability and the ability to gain a better education or to update education to Australian standards. Both of these in turn seriously impair access to and knowledge of support services, legal standing and medical services. Above all, they impair the ability to find and maintain employment. What has our Government done to this end? It has directed its energies in the first year towards those very real needs and priorities. A sum of $800,000 has been allocated to establish permanent teaching positions in the adult migrant education program. I heard nothing from the honourable member for Denison about that. We have allocated $100,000 for the establishment of a materials and syllabus development centre for the adult migrant education program. An additional $200,000 has been allocated for English language learning arrangements for migrants in the work place. We have provided $550,000 for child care in the adult migrant education program to give migrant women a fighting chance of getting and maintaining employment. We have allocated an additional $ 600,000 for the expansion of the translating and interpreting services. All of those things were long overdue and much needed. This Government is providing and expanding direct services to the migrant community outside education and English language learning. For instance, migrant resource centres have received a massive 43 per cent increase in this Budget combined with the mini-Budget in May. The sum of $255,000 was the priority that this Minister, on assuming office, gave to this much needed area. That was followed by another $199,000 in the Budget. One of the many migrant resource centres in Australia which benefited from that was the St George Migrant Resources Centre in my electorate which alone in the six months of this Government has received $54,299 to enable it to employ for 39 and 26 weeks an information and administrative officer, two assistants in that area, one child care co-ordinator and three child care assistants. That is a real priority. That is answering real needs amongst the ethnic communities in my part of Sydney. We have heard nothing from the Opposition about that. Of course, the number of grants-in-aid has been boosted to 200, an increase of 60, representing an expansion of $1.6m. All of that has been done in the short period the Hawke Government has been in control. The best the honourable member for Denison can berate the Minister for is something about the socialist Left. Let us compare the record of the Liberal Party for a few moments to seee how strong its case is. It might do the honourable member for Denison some good to take out some figures concerning the Budget outlays in immigration and ethnic affairs over the last decade. If he did that, I am sure that he would remain silent on the issue in this chamber because those figures are very interesting. As a percentage of Budget outlays, the average that the portfolio of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs achieved in the seven years of Fraser Budget was 0.223 per cent. Already in the first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government that has gone up to 0.281 per cent, a not insignificant amount in the overall strategy and size of Budget allocations in this nation. After less than eight months in government and after cleaning up the economic and fiscal mess that we inherited from the previous Government, we have already made a significant impact in terms of Budget outlay. That reflects the priority that Labor gives to immigration and ethnic affairs. It is interesting-- Mr Lusher —Are you going to stop blaming us now? Mr PUNCH —The honourable member should not interrupt too much or he will be suspended again. It is interesting to note the years in which the previous Government's Budget allocations in this area increased disproportionately. It might be of interest for the Committee to know that just before the last three elections won by the Liberal and National parties there just happened to be- nothing planned, of course-a huge increase in expenditure for immigration and ethnic affairs that was present in the Budget neither the year before the election nor the year after. In the Budget immediately prior to the 1977 election there was a massive 73 per cent increase in expenditure in this area. What was it the year before? It was three per cent. What was it the year after? It was twenty-seven per cent. In case honourable members think that that was an isolated case, I refer to the 1980 election. In the Budget immediately prior to that election the Liberal Government increased expenditure by 30 per cent. What was it the year before? It was nineteen per cent. The year after? It was fifteen per cent. Again, the same thing happened before the last election-an increase of 24 per cent, whereas in the previous year there had been only a 15 per cent increase. It is an interesting and shameful record. It was a blatant attempt by honourable members opposite when they were in government to buy votes of the ethnic communities rather than meet their real priorities and needs. Of course, the same thing is happening again in New South Wales. The New South Wales Leader of the Opposition, Mr Greiner, is attempting to buy votes by mischievously promising to set up a ministry of ethnic affairs, which is something that the former State Liberal Government introduced in 1975. It managed to have three Ministers in charge of that portfolio in no less than 18 months. I wonder what sort of priority ethnic communities in New South Wales would have under a State Liberal government, other than window dressing by people such as Mr Greiner. It is interesting to note, therefore, that the original claim made by the Labor Party about the Liberal and National Country Party many years ago, that it was only concerned with migrants for two puroses- as cheap factory and industrial fodder and to buy votes-still stands today. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(5.13) —I will answer several points made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) during his contribution, which was marked by erratic language about my alleged political background rather than concentrating on the facts and figures that he has been given concerning the estimates of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I particularly want to address the point that he raised about family reunion under this Government. I make it perfectly clear that there is no reduction in family reunion; on the contrary, there is a major increase. We have not turned down immigration as compared with last year, because in 1982-83-that is, under policies initiated by the previous Government-there were 82,899 visaed arrivals. We expect under my policies in 1983-84 an intake of between 80,000 and 90,000; so there is every likelihood there will be slightly more migrants this year. The major difference is in the family reunion category. In 1982-83, according to my Department, there were 26,952 people in all categories of family reunion. In the areas of labour shortage and business migration, that is, new starters- many of them come here for jobs that do not exist, as manufacturing industry collapsed last year under the previous Government's policies-there was an intake of 31,836. So there were more new starters without family in Australia under the previous Government than there were family reunions. This year under our policies there will be up to 57,000 family reunions and the intake under the labour shortage category will be reduced to a maximum of about 11,000 and only 2 ,500-odd workers. We will still be able to cater for those jobs that really exist with regard to employer nomination. But I found that under the previous Government a list was being prepared by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which supposedly listed job shortages. Stenographers, pastry cooks and boilermakers were all on that list. People in those categories would have come here only to join the unemployment queues. We have instigated a review-this is already in train and I inform the House that I expect the report to go before Cabinet shortly-between the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations and my Department to identify a new procedure by which we can identify those areas of skill shortages that really exist in Australia. The other thing we achieved was to alter the points system to make it easier for family reunion, particularly in the brothers, sisters, and non-dependent children category. The migrant communities were telling me that it was easier for some people to have family reunions than others. Some people were more entitled to it. The case for family reunion in a time of recession is a humane case and is really not based on bringing in people because they may have particular employment skills even though there may be no job on offer or sponsorship. The Opposition criticised us because we deleted the points for English language capacity. That was not done to discriminate against the English speakers; it was to remove discrimination against the non-English speakers. We then gave slightly more points for sponsorship of intending family reunion migrants to people who were semi-skilled. We gave more points, though, for arranged employment and we gave more points for sponsorship by an Australian citizen. Mr Hodgman —I supported that. Mr WEST —Yes, and that is all very good. The end result is that we are producing more than twice as many family reunions this year for people who desire family reunion than the previous Government produced the previous year. We are continuing two refugee programs because we think they are important. We are continuing the United Nations assisted passage program and the special humanitarian program to help those people who have human rights difficulties in their own country, or who may have escaped from a country and have family in Australia. The possible total number of migrants under those programs is about 20,000. But the difference between our policy and the previous Government's policy is that we are diversifying the sources. We will continue the programs. I have recently given an assurance to the Association of South East Asian Nations- including Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand-that we will continue with our resettlement programs. They will be slightly moderated, but they will continue. They gave the assurance that they will continue with their policies of first refuge. But we have diversified. The previous Government concentrated almost completely on Indo-Chinese refugees. We are continuing that program, but we are diversifying the intake. I have already announced intakes of people who have fled Iraq and Syria. They are conservative people. I have announced special humanitarian policies for the Sri Lankans and to a certain extent for Lebanese- although they do not, strictly speaking, come under the special humanitarian program; they come under the category of extended family reunion-and also for the Chilians and those from El Salvador. There are many problems involved in making selection, particularly in countries where there is civil turbulence. But we are doing our best. The final point I want to answer is the accusation that somehow our immigration and refugee policies are slanted towards revolutionary or socialist countries. You talk about our connection with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Let me tell you this-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! I suggest that the Minister should not directly address the honourable member, but should speak through the Chair. Mr WEST —I am sorry. Let me inform you, Mr Deputy Chairman, that the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is dead wrong. When I was looking only yesterday at the lists of the current roll-over of refugees for the quarter , I saw that we would be taking up to 300 White Russians from China as part of an ongoing program. You criticise me because I dared to take 300 Chileans and 100 El Salvadoreans, yet you are perfectly happy to endorse a program to take 300 White Russians. You have the audacity to attack the Government for its migration and refugee policies and say that somehow it is unduly slanted towards the Soviet Union. Quite frankly, you are mad if you say that. It is just not right. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The Chair rather hopes that the Minister was not still addressing the Chair when he speaks like that. Mr WEST —No, Mr Deputy Chairman. Finally, we have provision for some 2,500 East European refugees. Many of them are from Poland, but some are from other countries and are currently in Europe outside their own countries. We have diversified: we have increased family reunions. I am sure that, unlike what the honourable member says, we have the full support of the Australian people and, more importantly in this sense, the support of the migrant communities of Australia for what we are doing. Mr PORTER(Barker)(5.21) —I wish to discuss the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and I want to review both the financial commitment of this Government to the Aboriginal community and the performance of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). As we all know, the Minister is not one to sell himself short. He is not known for his modesty and, unfortunately for the Aboriginal community, he has raised expectations and given undertakings which any responsible, competent government administrator would know could not be kept . The Minister has made the claim on several occasions that this Government gives Aboriginal affairs a high priority and he has stated that the share of funds allocated to Aboriginal affairs demonstrates this so-called high priority. In reality, bearing in mind that this was an expansionary Budget with a very high deficit and an increase in overall government spending, the Minister has in fact managed merely to maintain the proportion or share of funds going to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio. The Minister has disguised the fact that under the previous coalition Government, 0.4 per cent of the Budget was allocated to Aboriginal affairs, and under this Government the allocation is almost exactly the same. Another misrepresentation by the Minister was made with regard to the allocation of funds for Aboriginal housing. He claimed the amount allocated had demonstrated the high priority the Government gave to Aboriginal housing. However, the proportion of funds going to Aboriginal housing under the Commonwealth-State housing agreement, of which the Minister seems so proud, is almost exactly the same as was allocated to Aboriginal housing in the last Fraser Budget. Let me make it clear that I do not in any way criticise the Minister for maintaining his share of the Budget, but I do suggest that the true story is somewhat short of the exaggerated claims made by the Minister. Finally on this issue, let me say that I will address the way in which the quantum of money is being spent on a later occasion. I said earlier that the Minister has not only been making exaggerated claims but also giving undertakings and breaking them. He has been raising the expectations of the Aboriginal people, only to let them down subsequently. The Aboriginal people are sick and tired of people promising the world and falling to deliver. The Minister, soon after his appointment, started to talk about how he would introduce uniform land rights legislation and impose it on the States using the full extent of the Commonwealth's power. Now land rights is one of the issues closest to the hearts of the Aboriginal people, and the Minister no doubt thought that this was just what the Aboriginal people wanted to hear. He disclosed these plans in a number of closed and selected Press briefings. Then, in the Northern Territory when he was asked when all this was going to happen, as reported by the Centralian Advocate on 20 April , the Minister said: Land rights was a Commonwealth responsibility and by the end of this year, new legislation to cover common ground between states and the Commonwealth should be ready. That was in April. As this year draws to an end we ask: Where is this legislation? It seems that the Minister has changed his mind about the year in which we will see this land rights legislation. Australian Broadcasting Corporation news reports now indicate that the legislation is not due until the end of next year. But this is only one example of the Minister giving undertakings which he has failed to live up to. Let me give another example. The Minister pretends to believe in consultation with the Aboriginal community. Shortly after his appointment he went up to the Northern Territory to discuss the future of the Koongarra uranium deposit with the traditional owners. The Minister was told by the Aboriginal people that they wanted the mine to go ahead. According to a report in the Sydney Morning Herald on 20 April he said: I have listened carefully to your argument and I disagree with it. So we now know that the Minister's definition of consultation is to listen to the Aboriginal people and then press on regardless with his own firmly held views. The Koongarra people were anxious for the mine to go ahead because of the financial benefits which the Aboriginal community will receive and the jobs which will be created. The Minister pressed them not to finalise their negotiations with the mining company until the Government had made a decision on whether any new mines could go ahead. When pressed on the issue, according to the Sydney Morning Herald the Minister stated: . . . that the Federal Government would make a decision within 10 weeks on whether the new mines would go ahead. In April he told the traditional owners he would give them a decision within 10 weeks as to whether they could proceed with an agreement to mine uranium at Koongarra. In fact, when uranium mining was debated in Caucus in July, this very same Minister moved that a decision should not be taken and that the issue should be referred to another committee for further consideration. How on earth the Minister, in all conscience, could move such a motion in July when he had given an undertaking in April to the Northern Territory people that the Federal Government would make a decision within 10 weeks, I just do not know. One would think he would go to Caucus and say: 'Look, I have given an undertaking to the Northern Territory people; we need to make a decision'. Instead he moved a motion further to delay the decision. I am sure the Committee will understand that the Aboriginal people became sick and tired of this Minister and his false undertakings. Eventually, in the absence of any positive response by the Minister, the Northern Land Council sent a telex informing him that it was to give a message stick expressing its concern about this whole issue. The message stick, according to the telex, was to be conveyed to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for the people of Australia. The Minister, who pretends to want to uphold Aboriginal culture, again displayed his double standards when, instead of conveying the message stick to the Prime Minister as requested, he in fact pocketed it and remarked to the Press that he though it was a clothes peg. As if this action was not contemptible enough-- Mr Holding —That is untrue; completely untrue. Mr PORTER —The Minister said that it is untrue. He should come up to my office and listen to the recording of his interview. Mr Holding —You are a liar. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Barker will address his remarks through the Chair and the Minister will restrain himself. Mr PORTER —I can understand the Minister's concern. He may come and listen to a recording of the interview where those words were used. His comments are on tape ; they are in my office and he may come and listen to them. As I said, if that action was not contemptible enough, when the matter was raised by the Opposition , despite the telex, he attempted to bluff his way out of it, as he is now, saying that he did not realise the message stick was meant for the Prime Minister. It seems that the Dawkins disease of selective amnesia is catching. But it is not only when the Minister is out amongst the Aboriginal communities that he has this tendency to exaggerate and mislead. On 19 May, I asked him a question in the House. The question was a genuine one seeking information on the very serious problem of Aboriginal unemployment. Unfortunately the Minister totally failed to answer the question. Instead, being a very political animal, he tried to deflect the question by attacking me personaly. He said that all would be made clear to us in time. He said that I need to have no fear that 'the neglect which characterised the policies of the previous Government' would be remedied and attended to. That is another fabrication. As I have already explained, this Government has allocated exactly the same proportion of funds to Aboriginal Affairs as did the previous Government; so his bluff and filibuster are again without substance. Finally, in answer to a question I raised with him in this House, he said: At the first available parliamentary opportunity, I will make a much fuller statement on all the objectives of this Government in terms of the needs of Aboriginal people. Having misled the Aboriginal people all around Australia he informed the House on 19 May that at the first available opportunity he would tell us all. Yet, nearly five months later, no such statement has been made. The making of a statement to this House is totally within the Minister's own control. He has had five months to prepare a statement, seven weeks of parliamentary sittings in which to give it, and yet again he has failed to live up to his commitment- another promise given and a total failure to deliver. The silence is deafening. I simply ask the Minister: Why does he continue to adopt this course of action- giving undertakings and promises and failing to deliver? I have mentioned only three or four cases; there are many more. The Minister must lift his game. The Aboriginal people want a man of his word, not a man who plays politics for politics sake. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(5.31) —I would have chosen to answer these allegations later if the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) had raised a series of substantial attacks upon Government policy. He chose not to do that because he knows, as do the Aboriginal people, that this Government has not only seriously considered the hopes and aspirations of the Aboriginal people but also indicated its concern to use the constitutional powers of the Commonwealth to see that they are delivered. Because the honourable gentleman's attack was really personal and directed to me I believe it is appropriate that I deal with it now. He said that I am not known for my modesty. That might be true. Having listened to the honourable gentleman, I say that he has plenty to be modest about. It is time that he learnt to count. He has continued throughout Australia to misrepresent the Budget allocation for Aboriginal people. The honourable gentleman's problem is this: If he is short of a fact he will invent one. We understand that that is a general practice opposite. Having invented his fact he then believes it. Let me deal with his attack. First of all, the shadow Minister criticised me and said that I had raised expectations which I could not meet, that I had promised to introduce uniform land rights legislation in closed and selected briefings and that I had not delivered. Let me deal with that allegation. I have said, not in closed and selected briefings but to gatherings of Aboriginal people, to audiences publicly and at public functions in the presence of representatives of other States, that this Government is committed to the implementation of a uniform package of land rights. I have indicated the processes by which that will take place. Tomorrow, the first meeting will take place of a steering committee which has been drawn up by the National Aboriginal Conference and with which we have been involved. The timetable has been set, not as a result of any whim or fancy of mine but as a result of many consultations with the NAC and Aboriginal people. The timetable has been drawn up specifically in order to meet the demands of Aboriginal communities around Australia and to give them adequate time to consult and involve themselves in the whole decision making process. That is the reason for the timetable we have set ourselves. It is a proper and responsible timetable because land rights legislation is complex. It involves discussion with all the States and we are about to commence that process. It takes time. The timetable has been approved by the Aboriginal people themselves. It might not have been approved by the honourable gentleman opposite. At a Press conference he criticised our approach on land rights. The honourable member for Barker nods his head. The Press could not take this honourable gentleman seriously. Any journalist, any Aboriginal community, any member of the Liberal Party can obtain a copy of the policy document which sets out the principles that we will adopt in terms of land rights. It is there for all to see. When this shadow Minister held his Press conference the Press, for the first five minutes, took him seriously. Then they said to him: 'By the way, Mr Porter, what is the policy of the Liberal Party on land rights?' He said: 'As a matter of fact we haven't got ours in place yet.' The Liberals were in power for seven years. On every single occasion when their backwoods red necked political leaders, the Courts and the Bjelke-Petersens, ran roughshod over the hopes and aspirations of Aboriginal people, every single Liberal Minister-some of them, I believe, were committed to the principle of land rights; I do not have any doubt about the integrity of people like Fred Chaney or Peter Baume on this issue-was run over because the then Prime Minister and the Government were not prepared to stand up to the Bjelke-Petersens and the Courts of the world. This political limpet has the gall to talk about a policy which has been publicly talked about and discussed in Aboriginal communities throughout Australia. When the honourable member is asked where is the policy of the Liberal Party on land rights he says: 'We have not got ourselves into position yet.' He sounds like a schoolboy outside a massage parlour. What kind of answer is that? Mr Porter —Good stuff; keep on the personal stuff. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member is the one who wants to come into the House and talk about misleading people. Let him stand up here and tell us now the basic principles of the Liberal Party on land rights. Does he support our policies? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Does the honourable member for Barker wish to take a point of order? Mr Porter —Oh no, I am accepting the invitation. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Minister does not dictate the course of business. The honourable member will resume his seat. The Minister will address the Chair. Mr HOLDING —The honourable member can have another opportunity; there is no problem. What has this shadow Minister said when given the opportunity to put forward a case for and on behalf of the Aboriginal people of Australia? He has been taken around the Northern Territory. Mr Everingham has put him in the back of a plane, pulled him out with the baggage occasionally and said: 'Here is an Aboriginal, meet one.' He has been around. Mr Fisher —No wonder they kicked you out of Victoria. Mr HOLDING —If honourable members opposite want to dish it out at a personal level they will cop it at a personal level. Mr Porter —Even if it is rubbish. Mr HOLDING —It is true and the honourable member knows it. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the Minister to ignore interjections and address the Chair. The honourable member for Barker will remain silent. I remind honourable members that interjections are out of order. Mr HOLDING —Given the opportunity to come into the House to put a case for an Aboriginal community, perhaps in Western Australia or in his own State, which needs attention, or to raise legitimate concerns about the plight of Aboriginals on reserves in Queensland, the appalling conditions in the Torres Strait Islands or the appalling conditions that many Aboriginal communities live in around Australia, what does the shadow Minister say? Was there a single expression of a viewpoint for or on behalf of one Aboriginal community? Can he point to a single resolution from one Aboriginal community to justify his allegations? Of course not. He comes into this chamber saying: 'This Minister went to the Northern Territory and met with the people of Koongarra. They said they wanted uranium mining. This Minister has not delivered a uranium mine for them.' That is the allegation. The second allegation is that I received a message stick-- Mr Lusher —Where is your decision? You are the Minister. Mr HOLDING —I went to the people of Koongarra because I was invited-- Mr Porter —If you could not do it, why did you say you would give them a decision in 10 weeks? Mr HOLDING —The trouble with the honourable member for Barker is that, like most of the people opposite, he deals in half-truths. He cannot tell the difference between a half-truth and a deliberate lie. I was invited to the Northern Territory by Mr Blitner to get the viewpoints of the traditional owners because there were two viewpoints- Mr Porter —And you got it all right. Mr HOLDING —Yes. I was told that one group of traditional owners wanted uranium mining. They were one group- Mr Porter —It was four. Mr HOLDING —It is more than four. The honourable gentleman now has to admit it is not the unanimous view of all traditional owners. I went to the Northern Territory to meet- Mr Porter —Did I say it was? Mr HOLDING —The honourable member implied it was. Mr Porter —Rubbish. Mr HOLDING —Let him look at what he said as reported in Hansard. I went to the Northern Territory to get what I was told was the majority view of traditional owners. I received it. I told them that their view would be put. I advised them that in my view-in view of the fact that the Government had to get its policy in place in respect of uranium mining-they should not proceed. I advised them that it was a matter entirely for them but in my view, they should not proceed to reach any agreements with Denison Mining Ltd until such time as government policy was formulated. I was asked how long I thought that would take. I answered: 'About 12 weeks'. It is certainly true that that period was exceeded. I told them that it was a matter for them-as it always was-whether they signed. They chose to sign an agreement. If the honourable gentleman had been seeking the truth, he would have read what Mr Blitner said about this visit and how pleased he was with my response to the questions put to me by the Aboriginal people at Koongarra. He did not bother to quote that from the Northern Territory news. Then, of course, there is the subject of the message stick. What happened in regard to the message stick is as follows: An agreement was signed. I received word that the Chairman of the Northern Land Council wanted to present me with a message stick. I was, in fact, at Elcho Island. I was involved in discussions with the community there. I was told that Mr Blitner had arrived. He was standing to one side at the meeting. I suggested to the Chairman that, having regard to his position as Chairman of the Northern Land Council, he ought to be formally welcomed and brought into the meeting. He was. He then gave me a message stick which he asked me to take up with the Government. I gave him an assurance that the position of the Koongarra people would be made known to the Government. It was. It has been. He gave me that message stick courteously and graciously. I received it courteously and graciously. After I had been to the Northern Territory on another occasion, I was asked by a television journalist what the message stick looked like. I said-because it happens to be true-that it looks something like a clothes peg. Mr Reeves —That is right. Mr HOLDING —That is completely accurate. What happened then? Was there a complaint from Mr Blitner? Was there a complaint from the Northern Territory Land Council that I had- Mr Porter —Certainly there was. Mr HOLDING —I really feel sorry for the honourable gentleman. He said: ' Certainly there was'. I assure him that there was not and has not been any complaint. I have seen Mr Blitner on one occasion since then. He did not even raise the matter. However it was raised, not by any Aboriginal spokesman but by Senator Kilgariff, that great exponent of Aboriginal art and culture in the Senate. He suddenly became terribly excited because the message stick had not been given to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). There was still no comment from Mr Blitner. The Leader of the Liberal Party-the Gucci blue leader of the Liberal Party-suddenly discovered that there was not only such a thing as an Aboriginal but also God help us, such a thing as Aboriginal culture and that there was a message stick. So he got into the act too. He was terribly concerned I explained the position. I thought the matter was finished. But this desperate shadow is so bereft of anything to say on behalf of the Aboriginal people, in his first statement in the Parliament on Aboriginal affairs, that when given the opportunity to speak about the pressing needs and the desperate plight of the Aboriginal people what is he recounting? He is recounting all the old Press clippings to Senator Kilgariff and the Gucci blue leader, who is trying to keep off the old dries and the new wets. It is a bit hard to straddle that division. He has to pretend he is partly an old dry when everybody knows that he is a little bit wet. So it is a perfect position for a leader of the Liberal Party. I conclude on the basis that there are many problems facing Aboriginal communities right around Australia. This Government is the first government that I believe-and I believe that the Aboriginal people recognise it-is making a real attempt to deal with those problems. I am honestly disappointed in the shadow Minister's performance on the first occasion on which he has had the opportunity to speak in this Parliament. He could have pointed out the inadequacy of housing in many areas, the lack of water facilities and basic hygiene and what passes for education on some of the reserves in Queensland. He could have done all that and he would have been right. But what did he do? I think he deliberately misunderstands the budget figures. I will have to take him through them again. I will do it privately and spend an afternoon on it. Given this opportunity to speak, he trips out all the old Press cuttings and all the old nonsense to make a personal attack on me. I am not worried about that because I will be judged by the Aboriginal people. I will leave it to them. I am confident of the result. I regret that the so-called shadow cannot be equally as confident. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —For the benefit of the Committee, I draw its attention to the arrangements that normally attach in the Committee of the Whole . The Minister, as a servant of the Committee, is free to rise at any time during the proceedings to respond immediately to points that have been raised by honourable members. It is desirable that any Minister do that with despatch, otherwise prolonged interventions by the Minister may invite the Chair to depart from the system of alternating the call from side to side. I just offer that for the guidance of the Committee. The call now rests on my right. I call the honourable member for Melbourne. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(5.49) —In the last 20 minutes we have heard comments from the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). I think it is important to return to the estimates of the Department and to examine what this Government has, in fact, done for the Aboriginal community in this Budget. The Australian Labor Party has allocated a total of $ 207m to the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio for Aboriginal advancement in the years 1983-84. This is, in fact, a 27.7 per cent increase over last year's expenditure . We heard rantings and ravings from the shadow Minister, but no comments at all about what his Government did for the Aboriginal community. I want to examine certain areas of expenditure. This year, the National Aboriginal Conference had its allocation almost doubled when compared with the figure given by the Liberals in the last Budget. It is now $7.3m which is a 93 per cent increase on the allocation provided by the Liberals. The NAC, as honourable members know, enables the Aboriginal communities to consult with one another and to bring forward their views to the Government. The Aboriginal Development Commission has been allocated $57.3m for its general fund. This is a 13.8 per cent increase on what the Liberals provided in 1982-83. In recognition of the important part played by Aboriginal Hostels Ltd in the provision of temporary accommodation for Aboriginal people the company has been allocated $ 13m this year, an inrease of 26.7 per cent over the Liberal's expenditure last year. The Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies has been allocated $3.2m to enable it to continue and expand its valuable work in researching, preserving and promoting Aboriginal culture. The allocation is a 13.5 per cent increase on the Liberal's expenditure last year. I would have thought that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal affairs would have talked about the high unemployment rate among Aboriginals, given that he has been travelling around the country with me on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. However, we have not heard a word from him on what his Government did for the Aboriginal communities over the last seven years. He did not mention a word about the plight of their unemployed. In this year's Budget there is an 87.2 per cent increase over the Liberals expenditure last year. It is now $19.5m. The special work program will receive over $5m, an increase of 64.7 per cent over the Liberal Government's expenditure last year. Funds for the community development employment program have been almost doubled to $14.5m in 1983-84. The Government gives a high priority to improving Aboriginal health, and this year has allocated $27.146m to health programs. This represents a 14 per cent increase over the Liberal Government's expenditure last year. Of the $27.146m allocated for Aboriginal health, $11.3m will be provided directly to Aboriginal controlled health services, an increase of 35.3 per cent on what the Liberals allocated last year. The balance of $15.8m will be provided to the States for a continuation of the programs they provide to Aboriginals. I hope this trend continues in the next two years, until we reach a point at which the Aboriginal people are completely controlling their own health services and the States hand over those rights to the Aboriginal communities. I hope that that is achieved by the end of the three-year term of this Government. The community management services program, which supports essential and municipal-type services to Aboriginal communites, will receive a 41 per cent increase in funds this year, a 41 per cent increase on what the Liberals allocated last year. The town campers program is a new initiative to provide greater emphasis on addressing the problems of Aboriginal town campers. It is a response to the report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs which has been tabled in this place. The allocation for that program is $3m. All of that money is expected to be spent by the Government. The increase in legal aid funding was also made available as a result of the Standing Committee report. A total of $11.2m has been provided to the 17 independent Aboriginal legal services. This is an increase of 42 per cent on what the Liberals made available last year. A total of $14.3m has been allocated for education programs this financial year. This is an 18 per cent increase on expenditure allocated last year. Spending by the Government on social support programs will increase by 17.2 per cent over what the Liberals allocated last year. Honourable members can see that in every area this Government has increased dramatically the amount of money that is being made available to the Aboriginal community. Funds for Aboriginal training programs have been increased by just over 20 per cent on what the Liberal Party made available in its last Budget. Funds for culture and recreation total $2.9m, an increase of 66.2 per cent over the Liberal's expenditure last year. I did plan to spend most of my ten minutes talking about land rights, but because of the reluctance of the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and honourable members on the other side to talk about the allocations in the Budget I had to mention what the Government was doing. Some $4.6m has been made available for the land program, which is a 143 per cent increase on what the Liberals made available last year for land rights. That is the commitment that this Government has. That money will be made available to organisations and land trusts that acquire an interest in land to enable their members to occupy it. Is the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) trying to suggest that we took money from other areas? What other area in this country needs more assistance than the Aboriginal people? The honourable member's attitude is typical of that of the National Party of Australia. For God's sake, listen! The Opposition is begrudging the Aboriginals an increase in their allocations. In the last hour we heard a double header from the Opposition spokesman on ethnic affairs and the Opposition spokesman on Aboriginal affairs. Both of their comments were off target about what such people require. Let me say a few words about land rights. To Aboriginal people in Australia, today whether they be from the urban dispossessed or the endangered tribe, the basic importance of spiritual and cultural ties to the land are, at best, ignored and, at worst, dismissed by Europeans. Mr Hodgman —Ha, ha! Mr HAND —The honourable member for Denison laughs at that. The denial of cultural and spiritual heritage and the lack of recognition- Mr Hodgman —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is totally deceiving the House. I was engaged in a conversation with the shadow Minister. It is most unfair. He misleads the House. He is like Mr Dawkins. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr HAND —The denial of cultural and spiritual heritage and the lack of recognition of relationship to the land are the root cause of the loss of identity, the loss of health and the subsequent degradation. Restoration of the opportunity to determine the future for themselves, thus re-establishing their relationship with creation, is fundamental to the regeneration and good health of the individual, the family and the community. Aboriginal people view life in its entirety and resist categorisation, the breaking into parts, which seems to predominate European thinking about approaches to life. For this reason, in examining the question of the place of Aboriginal art and its relationship to the land and Aboriginal culture, it is essential to begin with the Aboriginal Dreamtime. The Aboriginal people say: The Dreamtime is very important to the Aboriginal people. It is the basis of our culture. Aboriginal Dreamtime is the explanation of their existence, indeed the existence of all creation. The vital significance of land becomes apparent when examining these beliefs which form the basis of the Aboriginal religion. Too often in the past-particularly in the last seven years-interpretations of Aboriginal life and culture have been foisted upon Aboriginals by non-Aboriginal people, causing misunderstanding and misrepresentation. I conclude by reciting the words of the South Eastern Land Council: Return to me my Land My Land weeps Return to me my Spirit My Spirit weeps! Until we begin to think about Aboriginals and Aboriginal land issues in that way we are failing the Aboriginal people. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(5.57) —I commence by referring to the remarks made by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). Money alone will not solve the Aboriginal problem. Most socialists seem to think that it will. This Australian Labor Party Government certainly has that idea. The honourable member skites about the extra funds that have been allocated to Aboriginal projects. I am very proud to be a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I take a keen interest in it. The electorate of Maranoa covers the bottom third of Queensland, and I have quite a number of people of Aboriginal descent in my electorate. Mr Robert Brown —They all vote Labor. Mr IAN CAMERON —Unfortunately they do not vote because most of them are not on the electoral roll. I notice that the Labor Party will establish mobile polling booths to try to get Aboriginals to vote. Labor is hoping for their votes. I can assure the Government that that will not happen. Most Aborigines are not enrolled. I point out to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) that it is not compulsory for all Aborigines to vote for members of the National Aboriginal Conference. It should be compulsory for all Aborigines to vote for that Conference. Surely if it is good enough for it to be compulsory for them to vote for me as their representative in this Parliament, they should be compelled to vote for their own representatives. The Minister, in his usual waterside fashion, raved and ranted about-- Honourable members-Ha, ha! Mr IAN CAMERON —The Minister is the member for Melbourne Ports. As a poor old bushman I guess that has something to do with the Melbourne waterside. He raved and ranted and spent at least half an hour of our time saying absolutely nothing . These estimates are very important. We are allocating $330m of Australian taxpayers' funds to 72,215 Aborigines over the age of 20 years. The 1981 census figures reveal that there are a total of 159,897 people of Aboriginal descent in Australia. Roughly 75,000 of them would be over 20 or of voting age. I always use this figure because that is the number of people who vote for me in Maranoa. We are spending today roughly half a billion dollars on Aborigines in one electorate in Australia. We Federal parliamentarians have allocated $330m to them. Queensland is the only State in Australia that has a separate ministry for Aboriginal Affairs. The people of Queensland spend $50m a year on Aborigines in that State. This increases the overall amount that all Australians are spending on Aborigines. I include amongst those spending this money Aborigines because some of them pay tax. Actually, some of them receive royalties. This Federal Government is paying $14m in royalties to Aborigines in the Northern Territory. I have spoken out very strongly. I believe that all these handouts should be means tested. If one gets down on the ground and talks to these people one finds that most of them think the same way. People of the Aboriginal race want to share things amongst themselves and with other people. They do not want to be treated as people with a separate identity. That is the way in which we are treating them now. We are treating them as a separate race of people. They do not want to be treated in that way; they want to be treated as a part of the whole Australian community. Therefore, I believe that any handouts that are available to them ought to be means tested. We have a problem starting right from the time Aborigines go to kindergarten. They have special grants for education and sport. We are completely segregating them. Of course, Aborigines in the Northern Territory have special land rights. I assure the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that while the National Party is in office in Queensland-the National Party will stay in office there after 22 October-we will not be implementing the type of land rights legislation that previous governments including those of which I was a supporter, established in the Northern Territory. We are totally opposed to separate development and we believe in-- Mr Reeves —You are opposed to land rights, too. Mr IAN CAMERON —No, we are not. We believe in assimilated development. There are four tiers of government: Commonwealth, State, local and Aboriginal. There has been a tremendous increase in the Budget allocation to the National Aboriginal Conference. It has practically doubled. We taxpayers of Australia are now spending over $7m to put 27 candidates into this Conference. Sugar Ray Robinson, who is a part Negro, represents the Aborigines in my electorate. At a guess Aborigines in my electorate total 3,000 to 4,000. But look at what we have in the estimates. I had a go at Malcolm Fraser when he was the Prime Minister. I said: 'What about a telex machine in my electorate?' We see in the estimates a provision for telex machines for all Conference members to meet increased charges, et cetera. This means that all members of the National Aboriginal Conference will get telex machines, all State offices will get word processors and all Conference members will be supplied with a motor vehicle. There is a provision of $360,000 in the estimates for motor vehicles for members of the Conference. If the Minister expects Aborigines to become self -sufficient and look after themselves-surely it ought to be good enough for a member of this Conference, who is paid a salary of $27,000-it could even be more but it is at least $27,000-- Mr Hand —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. Given that the honourable member is undermining and criticising his Party's program, should not the shadow Minister be present in the chamber to hear this? The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr IAN CAMERON —There is an allocation in the estimates of $360,000 for motor cars for these members. People who are on a salary of approximately $30,000 and looking after 2,000 to 3,000 constituents ought to be able to buy their own motor cars. Taxpayers should not have to supply these people with motor cars. People in this place will get up and argue that, if it is good enough for Aborigines to have motor cars, telexes and vocadex machines, it is good enough for members in the House of Representatives to have the same sorts of things. I do not believe that that is the sort of aid and support that those people want or need. I think they ought at least to be self-sufficient and in a position to purchase their own motor cars. Surely they can do that on $30,000 a year. I mention also that the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil) and I visited Mimili. This Government is allocating more funds for health in that area. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government ought to get into the health area. That is a State matter and that is the way it should stay. The Government is spending thousands of dollars on health programs in that area; yet the dogs there are the most disease ridden things that one could ever see. It always amazes me that we spend $20m or $30m a year on eradicating brucellosis in cattle ; yet the dogs that live with the Aborigines are disease ridden. I cannot see how we can ever improve the health of Aborigines unless we replace their dogs. I know that honourable members would be against the killing of these dogs but surely to goodness we could bring a fresh lot of dogs into Mimili? Eight hundred and one thousand dollars has been allocated to improving the health of these people in this part of South Australia. Our Committee is also conducting a special health inquiry into asbestos mining at Baryulgil. I look forward to the outcome of that inquiry. The Budget allocation for Aboriginal legal aid has increased. I think this is a great pity because this is one of those things about which we should not skite. As time goes on, instead of legal aid becoming less, instead of us improving the problems of these people so that they do not have to go to the socialist lawyers , the situation becomes worse. The amount of funds needed to help these people grows with every Budget allocation. Mr Robert Brown —You are not doing it in Queensland. Mr IAN CAMERON —That is not true. I would like to refer to some of the problems in the Budget allocations for my own electorate. We have an allocation of $80 000 to set up an Aboriginal museum in the Carnarvon Gorge area. Although most of those honourable members from the south who take an interest in Aborigines do not think Queenslanders can co-operate with Aborigines, land holders in that area are co-operating with them. It is intended that a museum be set up in that area as a part of the Bicentenary program. The cost of the whole concept is estimated to be $1.3m. Honourable members might remember that there was quite a controversy about a person there who had some relics, a fellow called Peter Keegan. He and another chap, Graham Walsh, an honorary ranger in that area, are both prepared to help the Aboriginal people. Sugar Ray Robinson and some of his boys, for example Steve Man, who is the State Chairman, have talked with these people. The State Government too will help. The State puts in half of the funds. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs is really down on Queensland the whole time. But in all my travels around Australia with the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I still have not seen conditions in any other State that compare with those in Queensland overall. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(6.07) —I want quickly to correct a few points that were made. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) is in error when he says that the only State that has a Minister for aboriginal affairs is Queensland. In fact, thankfully, all States now have Ministers for aboriginal affairs. I accept the fact that he is speaking on behalf of the National Party in opposing land rights. I understand that that is the position of members of the National Party. That being the position I would be very interested to know the position of the coalition shadow Minister on land rights. If the perception of the honourable member for Maranoa that things are all right in Queensland and that his Government stands for integrated development is correct, why is it that Aboriginals on Queensland reserves and Torres Strait Islanders do not have the same access to other government departments as the average Queenslander has? I was in the Torres Strait islands the week before last and I saw a building which purported to be a classroom for over 100 children. No professional educationist in Australia would go near it or even allow it to be used as a kennel for his dog. The problem in Queensland is that the Department of Aboriginal and Islander Affairs controls education, housing and health services. Mr Ian Cameron —What do you want-another set of controls? You want Commonwealth control. Mr HOLDING —No. I think the honourable gentleman was misleading the chamber when he suggested that Aborigines in Queensland are equally treated. If all Queenslanders have their educational policy determined by professional educationists-there are some excellent educationists in the Queensland education system; I would be the last to deny that-why is it that the quality and standard of education on Aboriginal reserves are determined not by the professionals in the Queensland Education Department but by Mr Killoran? Why is it, because there are a lot of skills in the relevant Department in Queensland, that the quality of the housing on Aboriginal reserves is determined not by those people who provide that service to every other section of the Queensland community, but by Mr Killoran? Why is that the case? The honourable member cannot have it both ways. In Queensland we have a situation where officers of the Health Department- - Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —I would like to point out to the Minister that the Aboriginal housing in Queensland is better than in any other State in Australia. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I say to the honourable member for Maranoa that he will pay respect to the Chair and not address the Chair until he is called upon. Does the honourable member wish to raise a point of order? Mr Ian Cameron —Yes, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to put it properly to the Committee. Mr Ian Cameron —I would like to point out to the Minister that it is a fact that the Queensland Aborigines are better housed than they are in any other State in Australia. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will please resume his seat. The honourable member should read the Standing Orders in which event he will establish that a point of view does not represent a point of order. I call the Minister. Mr HOLDING —I do not have any doubt at all about the skills and the capacities of those who make up the professional staff of the Health Department and the Queensland health service. I want to know why, when they are concerned-as they have a duty to be concerned-about Aboriginal health, they are prevented from going into Aboriginal reserves by Mr Killyoran. That is what has occurred. Why is that? As the honourable member has talked about equal treatment, why is that the Aboriginal and Islander people of Queensland are subject to an administration-- Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I would like to point out to the Minister that Queensland-- Mr CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the honourable member to ensure that he is not taking a frivolous point of order. Mr Ian Cameron —I want to point out to the Minister that Queensland is the only State in Australia that has a free hospital system for Aborigines-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —along with all other Queenslanders, are able to get free hospital treatment. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member will now resume his seat. Mr Ian Cameron —No other State in Australia has that system. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member and make it perfectly clear that if the Committee is subjected to another frivolous point of order or unreasonable interruption the honourable member will be named. I call the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr HOLDING —I want to point out that the honourable gentleman is in error when he claims that Aboriginal people are treated equally with every other Queenslander when, in fact, they are subjected to a bureaucratic dictatorship which has to be eliminated if Aboriginal and Islander people are to have any of the rights of other Australian citizens. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(6.13) —I was appalled by the comments of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). I was particularly distressed by his comments that money is made available for kindergartens for Aborigines when it should not be, that too much money is spent on Aboriginal health and all these other ridiculous comments he made. Last year I, in company with other members of the Australian Labor Party's Caucus committee on education visited the electorate of Kalgoorlie in the Kimberleys of the north-west of Western Australia. The honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), Senator Coleman and other people were with us. We spent a week visiting Aboriginal settlements around the Great Sandy Desert and other very isolated parts of Western Australia including Broome. I did not believe what I saw. I have never come face to face with leprosy in this country. I was amazed to see enormous numbers of people afflicted by this disease which I did not believe existed here. The honourable member for Maranoa has today criticised the expenditure on Aboriginal health. It is almost unbelievable that in a rich country such as Australia an honourable member from a very fortunate area of Australia should criticise the Aborigines for the expenditure that this sensitive and caring Government is making available for Aboriginal health, let alone schooling and things such as kindergartens. I could not tell honourable members what I saw in some of the places that passed as schools in Western Australia under the previous non-Labor Government. We went to settlements that brought tears to my eyes. We visited the big Christian Brothers school in Broome which is run for Aboriginal boarders. An adjoining school for Aboriginal girls is run by an order of nuns. The brothers told us that every child comes from a family whose members are on the dole. There are no jobs. All the Aboriginals leave school in Year 10, several years before matriculation. They go back to settlements where there are no jobs and no future. Yet these young people fortunately have some stimulation at these schools. As we got away from Broome, the biggest centre of settlement, we found that there was no such thing as a kindergarten in most places. At one settlement we went to-Louisa Downs out of Halls Creek-there was one teacher, a young woman from Melbourne, trying to teach a small group of Aborigines. The school was so poor and so run down that it had not even got registration from the Western Australian Government. The honourable member for Maranoa talked about the waste of money on education and Aboriginal health. We went to Turkey Creek which is the nearest centre to the CRA Argyle diamond mine which we read so much about now. This diamond mine, right in the middle of an Aboriginal sacred site has kimberlite pipes going into the centre of the earth. I was interested in what the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) said about land rights for Aborigines. I was appalled at how little compensation CRA is giving to the people of Turkey Creek. Leprosy was a terrible problem at Turkey Creek. All the Aborigines at Turkey Creek asked for was half a million dollars to buy a neighbouring station property so that the people could have somewhere to raise cattle. Instead of giving them that, what did the paternalistic people running this diamond mine do? They said: 'No, we will not give you half a million dollars, but each year we will give you $100,000 and that has to be spent in the way we direct'. The Aboriginal elders asked why they could not commute five year 's worth of this $100,000 payment. They still would not agree to that. These Aboriginal people were not able to buy the property they wanted on which they could have had their own land rights and on which they could have combated some of the alcoholism and some of the other problems of Aboriginal communities. As I went around with the honourable member for Fremantle, Senator Coleman, our guides and the other people who were with us I was delighted to see the work that is being done to combat alcoholism amongst Aboriginal communities to give them heart and a spirit of their own. I was most disappointed when I returned and found that the Western Australian Government at that time had prohibited the Benedictines from selling Kalumbura, a big and very old mission station in the most isolated part of the Kimberleys. There was a proposal to sell this station to the community. These Benedictines had been there since 1900 when they came up from New Norcia. When they wanted to withdraw the then Western Australian Government intervened and stopped the sale to the community so that the community did not get its land rights. I trust that the Burke Government has undone some of these appalling acts by the previous Administration in Western Australia. In the few minutes left to me I want to touch on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I was very disappointed in the comments of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). All I can say is that Franca Arena MLC, a member of the New South Wales Legislative Council, must be really putting the fear of the Lord into the honourable member for Denison. He attacked this sensitive woman who has enormous contacts throughout the ethnic community and who is not just an Australian of Italian extraction. She is a real ethnic. For the honourable member to attack her tonight for her comments on various matters was very poor. His Government, the Government of the Liberal- National Party, allowed the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to degenerate so that hundreds of applications for naturalisation and residency were found on a dump in Sydney about a year ago. Now we have a very compassionate Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West) who is doing everything possible to help people from Sri Lanka. He is helping the Tamils and the Sinhalese to come to Australia. He is doing everything he can to help the Australians who have families in Lebanon. I know he is because I send him quite a lot of work and quite a number of representations. He has already done a lot to help the people who have come to Australia from Poland under refugee schemes. I have had people in my office crying with thanks, they are so pleased that their families have got to Australia from Poland or from Poland via Austria. It is very sad that people are separated from their families. They worry if there is civil strife and unrest in the countries they are from. Any of us who talk to Australians who were born overseas know their sadness at Christmas time or at times of national holidays or holy days in their country of origin when they are separated from their parents, their brothers and sisters and their kith and kin. I want to praise the work of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is a very difficult department to run. It is a very difficult department to work in because all of the matters are potentially politically sensitive. They always have been that way. I believe the Department is doing its best. I believe the review tribunals under the previous Government which were filled with members of the theatrical profession could perhaps be re-examined. It is very good to have our actors and actresses in work. It probably pays much better than reading for the talking books at the Royal Blind Society of New South Wales. Nevertheless, I think there are other people in the community who are also expert at weighing evidence, in a compassionate way, at appeals. The Citizenship Branch has a very difficult problem in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. We all know that it has been overloaded with work by the demands of the armed forces that all New Zealanders and all British take out citizenship. I feel that much of the delay is caused by unnecessary police screening. We have people here who are screened to enter this country. If they are here, why is their citizenship delayed if they committed an offence some years ago? They are here; they are in some sort of hiatus. I feel nothing is gained by stopping permanent residents from becoming citizens because they had some minor offence recorded against them some years ago. I am sure the Minister will very sympathetically expedite these applications for citizenship. I know the Minister is doing everything possible with adult migrant classes which are essentially designed for Australians who are of ethnic background or permanent residents who have an education. What I find difficult are people who, through no fault of their own, had no education at home. Perhaps they grew up during the war, recession or world depression. These people are the despair of the migrant English teachers. They have had no formal studies and they are very hard to teach English. I feel that that is an expensive area. It is an area I know the Minister will consider. But many of these people miss out on job opportunities and miss out on the quality of life. There are matters that we take for granted. I feel a lot more could be done for them. In speaking on the Budget estimates tonight, I encourage the Minister to look at this important area. We all take for granted our ability to read and to speak English, but vast numbers of people in my electorate and in the electorate of many honourable members on both sides of the House cannot read English, will never read English and need assistance. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(6.23) —I want to speak on the estimates of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I doubt that I have sat in this chamber in the years I have been here-since 1966-and, to quote an old cliche, heard so much heat and seen so little light shed upon any of the subjects from both sides of the House. If honourable members of this chamber cannot reach a maturity to discuss all these matters in a compassionate, quite way, I think it is time they learnt how to do it. I point out the immigration policy we have had in this House for a long time, starting with the most venerable of members of the Australian Labor Party in this chamber, the late Arthur Calwell, when he stated the- Government members interjecting- Mr DOBIE —I wish some of these new snivelly members would realise there are traditions in this place that are worth keeping. This time I am paying tribute to one of their own members. Let them work that out. Arthur Calwell brought in, with great courage politically, a migration policy which remained current in this country through all forms of government for generations. I am most disturbed to think that with the discussions that have gone on in this debate we are moving away from the bipartisan approach we have taken towards migration in this country. I am disappointed-- Mr West —The Opposition is doing it. Mr DOBIE —Not at all. In listening to the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher), I was appalled to hear him even imply-and I was most disappointed to hear the honourable member for Lowe say this because I hold him in great personal respect and regard-that the previous Minister may, in some way , have been connected with the dumping of files. There is no way on God's earth that this could happen with the present Minister or previous Ministers. I am sure he regrets having said that. The second point I want to make is that we do have in the Immigration Department a bipartisan history of support of members in this place with their representations irrespective of who is in government, who the Minister is and whether the challenge or representation come from either side. The honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) in his first term in this place mentioned something about being statesmanlike. Perhaps we should get back to realities in this chamber and start looking at migration and what it is all about. I speak from some knowledge because I happen to be one of those people the honourable member for Lowe referred to as one of the Australians who was not born here. I too came out as a babe in arms of Scottish migrants. To that extent-- Mr Ian Cameron —Ah! Mr DOBIE —That is right. We have to bear in mind that we have to be careful when we are looking at the migration policy. I want to put on record that the Government members at this time seem to find the whole matter of immigration a matter for hilarity. Only Israel has more of its citizens born outside its borders than Australia. The reality of this is that immigration is of major concern to a very large percentage of our population. The Minister knows that. It is a pity some of the people behind him were not aware of it as well. Let us not have any implied bigotry against people who were not born in Australia. Let us get back to the reality of what migration is all about. Having praised the departmental officers for many years in this place in estimates debates-fortunately we were on the other side in those days-I was most alarmed when I was in England a couple of years ago, having spoken to many of the migration officers, to find that a real problem of an anti-British feeling was developing within the Department. I do not want to follow this theme too long, but I raise it and make specific mention of the fact that this took place two or three years ago. I am very concerned with movements such as the Big Brother Movement, a movement that has contributed greatly to this country over the last 50-odd years. I point out to the House and to the members of the Department that-I have a certain conflict of interests-my own uncle came out to the country under the Big Brother Movement. With the people who are migrating we are now getting a situation of departmental obstruction in Britain. It happened when I was there two years ago. It was obvious last year with the previous Minister. I regret to say the same advice is coming forward from the Department on this very issue right now. I say to the Minister: 'Take some caution when dealing with your Department on matters of migration from Britain'. It is something we have to be very careful of because, whether we like it or not, a very large number of people in Australia who vote for that side perhaps more than this side were born out of the country and were born in Great Britain. So let us start looking very closely at some of the things that are happening within the Department. I caution the Minister in his negotiations with his officers in this regard because it is serious. Let us not fall into the trap of thinking of other ethnic groups. We can forget about family reunion, family concern and family compassion with the massive number of British migrants who live in this country. I am sorry I have had to shake a finger at the Department, but it is about time that someone did in this place. It has taken me a long time to get around to it. I see the Minister waving his finger at his advisers. I point out to him that they are not the people I had in mind. If he wishes to come to me within the next few days I will acquaint him as to who the people actually are. The shadow Minister-I inform honourable members-has taken a very compassionate view in this regard, as indeed did Clyde Cameron, the sacked Minister for Immigration in the last Labor Government. He was a most distinguished person. Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8 p.m. Mr DOBIE —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was mentioning the fact that there had been a change of attitude within the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I am most concerned that negotiations over the last two or three years with the Big Brother Movement have, it seems, been doomed to departmental destruction. For those in the chamber who are not aware of the Big Brother Movement, it is a movement that started after World War I. It was concerned with bringing young men to Australia for employment across the whole spectrum of career opportunities. It was created to give to those who were not in a position to come to Australia on their own resources the opportunity to do so. When I was on the Government benches, the then Government also made some decisions which did not help. In 1981, we decided to abolish fare subsidies to all classes of migrants. Of course, this was a body blow to the Big Brother Movement. But such is the spirit of this organisation that it continued to work and to work well. I think that should be borne in mind and recorded in this chamber because, if things continue as they are and if the Movement continues to be obstructed by officialdom, there will be no Big Brother Movement within 12 months. As I mentioned earlier, the Movement has brought out over 10,000 young men who have made a remarkable achievement for this country. What they have achieved for underprivileged young people in this country is remarkable and perhaps second only to an organisation such as Legacy. I believe that it would be the height of stupidity if we as a Parliament were to let this organisation run down into nothing. The Movement was all the idea of a Richard Linton in Britain in the 1920s. Its anniversary brochure goes through its history. It reads dramatically as it details the young men involved; what they achieved from the beginning; and what they achieved for Australia. The organisation's 1981 report stated: The satisfactory settlement of the lads is the Movement's primary function. It starts with the study of applications received from London . . . Then it makes contact with Australian employers who act as Big Brothers. It has, indeed, been successful. I know that the Minister has a sympathy for people with this socio-economic problem. I hope that when this debate is over he will, with more time at his disposal, look more favourably into the continued operation of this magnificent organisation which has worked without fear or favour, as I said , from as early as 1925. I am in Australia because an uncle migrated here and my family followed to be with him. I confess to having an emotional regard with respect to the matter. I place that fact on the record. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.03) —I notice that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, has been present during only a fraction of this debate on the appropriation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Finally he comes into the chamber now, in complete contrast, I might add, to the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who has been here during the whole of the debate on the appropriations of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. The honourable member for Barker was, of course, in the Northern Territory in June 1983 with Mr Tuxworth, one of those great fighters for Aboriginal rights in the Northern Territory, when they tried to railroad a takeover of the Aboriginal Land Council at Borroloola. That is the level of his commitment to Aboriginal affairs in the Norther Territory. He would do much more for the Aboriginal people if he had a word with some of his political pals in the Northern Territory and tried to soften some of their hard, racist attitudes. He has a lot to do with them, so I suggest that he tells them that next time he is in the Northern Territory. The performance of the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory in relation to Aboriginal affairs and other matters is a scandal in public administration. Yesterday I pointed to the waste in the Northern Territory 1983-84 Budget. The six Ministers in the Northern Territory will spend $2.5m on travel and entertainment this year. The CLP has decided to increase the size of the Legislative Assembly from 19 to 25 seats at a time when the Northern Territory's per capita expenditure on its legislature is already ten times that of New South Wales, and the Everingham Government is wasting $150,000 on employing David Combe as a lobbyist. We all know how little lobbying David Combe has done in the past six months! Anyone who has seen the conditions of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory will realise that this waste is a scandal. If the Northern Territory Government spent this money on Aboriginal settlements and communities those conditions might improve. It is all right for the honourable member for Barker to laugh and smile. He has seen some of the conditions. If he supports that waste, that extravagance on the part of the Northern Territory Government when those conditions afflict Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory, he should be ashamed of himself as shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. I wish to raise a very serious matter in relation to the conduct of the Northern Territory Government. I believe that there is evidence to suspect that the Northern Territory Government is not spending the specific purpose grants made to it for certain specified purposes and, in particular, for Aboriginal purposes. It is such a serious matter that I believe it requires urgent and serious investigation by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and all other Ministers involved in the allocation funds to the Northern Territory Government for specific purposes. The Commonwealth Government's Budget Paper No. 7 discloses that allocations have been made in the Aboriginal affairs area in the 1983-84 Budget for recurrent purposes in Aboriginal education assistance in the sum of $277,000, for capital purposes for Aboriginal housing in the sum of $ 9,584,000, and again for capital purposes for Aboriginal and environmental assistance in the sum of $1.8m. Those allocations total $11.66m. About six weeks ago, I wrote to the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory seeking details of the Northern Territory Government's expenditure of funds allocated to it for Aboriginal affairs. His reply was very short on detail. It contained no figures, despite the fact that I asked for those details. The Chief Minister said: The Northern Territory receives only modest funding from the Commonwealth specifically for the provision of services to Aboriginal people, with the bulk of expenditure on Aboriginal people being funded, from the Territory's internal revenues and the general purpose funding from the Commonwealth. These two sources of course are not tied to any particular area. It is those revenue areas and the general purpose funding area from the Commonwealth from which the Northern Territory Government manages to find $2.5m to spend on ministerial travel and entertainment, I might add. I suppose that, when it is spending $2.5m on ministerial travel and entertainment, $11.6m is really only a comparatively modest amount. The lack of detail in the Chief Minister's reply aroused my curiousity. I wondered what he was hiding. My suspicions were confirmed when I read the recent report of the Commonwealth Grants Commission. The report is dated 29 September 1983. At paragraph 1.9, the Grants Commission makes the following observations: These difficulties have been exacerbated by the second of the two problems referred to above. This relates to the structure of the Territory accounts, which make no accounting distinction between transactions by source of funds. There is therefore no distiction between recurrent revenue sources and loan funds or other sources earmarked for capital purposes. In other words, all moneys-specific, general or capital-are put into the same money bin. With some luck at some stage, the money might just be taken out and spent on the purpose for which it was specifically allocated. As the Grants Commission points out, it is very difficult to trace the money in and out of the Northern Territory's money bin. No one can say with any certainty that the Northern Territory Government is spending the money allocated to it for specific purposes on that purpose. This applies specifically to Aboriginal affairs. That is why I believe that the Chief Minister gave me no figures; in effect there were none. The Territory Government's accounting system is so bad that it does not know. How can the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs be sure that the $9.584m allocated in this year's Budget for Aboriginal housing in the Northern Territory will actually be spent on Aboriginal housing? That is a specific purpose capital grant. I am suggesting that the evidence indicates that it will not be spent on Aboriginal housing in the Northern Territory. There is no certainty of that. That $9.584m is a massive increase of 118 per cent on last year's allocation. I must ask whether the Federal Labor Government's desire to provide basic facilities to Aborigines in the Northern Territory is to be frustrated by this unsympathetic Country-Liberal Party Government, that Government whose Deputy Leader is currently on a charge before the magistrate's court in the Northern Territory for authorising the bulldozing of a registered sacred site in Alice Springs? I ask whether the Grants Commission will continue to conclude in future reports , as it did in this most recent report: . . . that the level of service provided in the Territory was below standard or that standard services were not provided to some sections of the Territory's population, particularly some Aboriginal communities. Will the Grants Commission be saying that next year, the year after and the year after that because the Northern Territory Government is not spending money that was specifically allocated to it for Aboriginal affairs? I can tell honourable members that a number of communities in the Northern Territory are forced to cart their basic water supplies in 44-gallon drums from water sources many kilometres from their communities. While that is going on Northern Territory Ministers are spending $2 1/2m on their own travel and entertainment. It is an absolute scandal. To give honourable members an insight into the way in which this Country-Liberal Party Government is likely to handle these Aboriginal housing funds, let me quote from another letter I received from the Chief Minister. In referring to the Northern Territory Housing Commission he said: The Commission provides housing for Aboriginals in the main urban centres, off Aboriginal land, using a mix of loan and earmarked grant funds received under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and funds provided or generated from sources quite outside the Agreement. After referring to the fact that the Commission does not specifically identify whether funds will go to Aboriginals or to non-Aboriginals, he said: Nonetheless the Northern Territory, in line with a recent decision of the Australian Aboriginal Affairs Ministers Council, will begin to collect statistics on a racial basis. We see this as a backward step, but are prepared to following the majority view. The Commission-- that is, the Housing Commission-- estimates that up to 30 per cent of its tenants in major urban centres are Aboriginals . . . A joint Commonwealth/NT Working Party is currently in the process of identifying and assessing the overall extent of Aboriginal housing needs in the Northern Territory, and, when it completes its work, will recommend a program which might overcome the backlog within a reasonable time. In other words, these Aboriginal housing funds will all go into one pool. No specific Aboriginal program is operating in the Northern Territory, and it is only since recent pressure from the Commonwealth Government and the very responsible Minister for Aboriginal Affairs that the Northern Territory has finally agreed to keep statistics on its spending on Aboriginal housing. One must wonder why it has been so reluctant to do so unless it has something to hide. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(8.13) —I intervene at this stage of the debate to answer a couple of points made by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie). He said that he deplored the fact that under this Government and my administration we were coming to the end of bipartisanship. Quite frankly, I am sorry that he feels like that because I believe that changes were needed. If honourable members opposite do not accept that changes to policies were needed in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs, quite frankly it is just bad luck that they deplore the end of bipartisanship. We felt that changes were needed in the intake provisions to stress family reunion and in the diversification of refugees and that new policies which I hope to address later in this debate were required. We felt that legislation to amend the Migration Act and the Citizenship Act was required because the former Government did not address the problems of discrimination in both those Acts for many years when it had the opportunity to do so, particularly in the area of deportation, which we addressed in amendments to the Migration Act. Mr Dobie —I agree with you on that. Mr WEST —Yes. We have addressed them in the sense that we have put more consistency into the Act. We have laid down the criteria, amended the Act, so that cases on appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal can be expedited and we have still left a discretion with the Minister. If we have digressed from bipartisanship in some of those areas, I make no apology. I am only sorry that honourable members opposite cannot support us. I very much doubt that all these matters mean that we have suddenly effected a radical swing to the left. As a politician I might have wished that we had gone further, but I dispute that there is anything extremely radical in what we have done. All I have done is address many of the anomalies in the system and in the policies which the previous Government did not address when it had the opportunity. I think the speech made by the honourable member for Cook was a fairly reasonable speech. Apart from the matters I have just addressed, the honourable member said that we were guilty of anti-British feeling and that there was anti- British feeling at the Department. I dispute that. I do not think there is any anti-British feeling in the Department. There might be some areas of conservatism which I have tried to address, but I am sure that there is no anti- British feeling there. The honourable member referred to the Big Brother Movement. He said that he hoped we would reverse our stand on the Big Brother Movement. I will tell him why I agree with the Department on that matter and why I will not be reversing it. We stand for a non-discriminatory, non-preferential policy on the intake of migrants and the general sponsorship program and the points system. The Big Brother Movement existed in the United Kingdom virtually under Australian Government subsidy. It had free facilities inside Australia House and in that sense was subsidised. Its role and responsibility were to select British youths and to resettle them in Australia. It was an abrogation of Australian government responsibility to allow that to go on while we were running a firm but fair and strict migration program. As we are running a migration program, laying down what the points system and the sponsorship system should be and administering a general policy of who is acceptable in a fair and non-discriminatory way, it is not right to let the last remaining organisation with a special responsibility under the Australian migration program to select migrants and to present them to the Australian Minister, to the Australian Government and the Australian Department and say: 'These are the people we have selected and these are the people that you will take into Australia'. The policy under the previous Government was supposed to be and certainly is under this Government that only the Australian Government would decide who comes into Australia under a set, fair and firm program-not some outside organisation that picks 50 or 60 people a year, presents them to the Minister and says 'Come what may, you will take these people and resettle them', when we are knocking back people who have been fairly sponsored under the family reunion program because we cannot take them all. That is all I want to say. There was no future for the Big Brother Movement and the system it propagated in the migration program. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(8.20) —I take a moment of the Committee's time to say I believe that the advice that has been given to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) in this regard is wrong. The Big Brother Movement, of course, made the decision, as do many of the other welfare organisations throughout the world. But the final decision as to who is coming here from the Big Brother Movement has always been approved by the departmental officers in London before they came here and were approved out here. They only went through an additional sorting process. I am aggrieved to hear that the decision will not be reversed. I make two points. Firstly, I was not one of those members who mentioned politics in my speech about the present Minister. I hope that his speech as recorded in Hansard will not reflect that. Secondly, I am not relating the anti- British attitude I have personally come across in London and in Australia to the Big Brother Movement. I referred to other incidents altogether. I will not detail them-I am not so stupid-but the Committee must take my word for it that I have documented evidence from my representations, which have been firm, regular and strong since 1966. I am sorry that the BBM is being moved out. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(8.21) —I make several further comments in the debate tonight on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. I want to set the record straight, at the request of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), concerning the previous Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, who was a friend of mine, a man I did admire. He was a kindly man who tried his hardest in a difficult portfolio. He was always a gentleman. The only criticism I have of the Department under his jurisdiction is really a criticism of the previous Government as a whole. The previous Government placed staff ceilings on the Department and on every other department. It was a disastrous move because that Department must personally handle every application. It is not a department in which a computer can run through the files. Every file must be personally considered. Everyone has compelling reasons, such as compassionate grounds, for acceptance for immigration. As I said earlier, every application is a political issue. I certainly meant no personal criticism of the former Minister. I was sad when I found that he was campaigning against me in my electorate in the last election because I knew his own seat was very shaky. I knew he would be beaten, and he was beaten. Nevertheless, I wish him well in his retirement. We must not forget that the previous Government not only imposed staff ceilings which destroyed the Department and destroyed the will of the staff in that Department to do its job, but also imposed charges on the processing of applications which had previously been processed free of charge, as were all other applications in government departments. I have many personal contacts with migrants-people from overseas, Australians of ethnic background-possibly more than any other member. At least half of my work load relates to migration matters and representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs ( Mr West), who is sitting at the table. Every one of us wants to see the new settlers from overseas, be they from Great Britain, Chile, Vietnam or anywhere else, settle in our land and understand our great traditions and history. We all love Australia, are proud of our nation and we want our new settlers to love our country as we do. But they must also know the traditions of the early Australians, the Aborigines. I know that the Minister, through the various organisations and bodies that are being funded in the estimates, will ensure that our traditions, our love of country and our Aboriginal history will be encouraged and that the teaching of these things will be fostered in the schools . I mention also the difficulties I have in face to face contact with constituents who want to bring people here from overseas. Perhaps in some cases, as happened with Australians of Italian background, some brothers came here with their families while others unfortunately, as they say in the bush, drew the crow and went to Argentina or somewhere in South America, where there are now no or few civil liberties. These people understandably want their brothers and their brothers' families to come here because of their close family bond. I know the Minister will consider all of the cases that I refer to him. The same situation exists with the Australians who have come here from Vietnam and who naturally want to bring to Australia all their brothers and sisters. In some cases they have large families. They struggle and work hard to make a home here, hoping that their parents and in many cases half a dozen or more brothers and sisters and perhaps grandparents can come here. One almost cries when one hears the problems of people who have come here from the Lebanon. Every night when watching television they are regaled with stories of bombs landing on Beirut, on their home cities in the north or in other parts of the Lebanon. They see the destruction and devastation, knowing that their mothers, fathers or grandparents may be hurt. They may even see a film of the death of their family and loved ones. I have nothing but sympathy and understanding for those people. I know that we have an understanding Minister, a Minister who weighs up the economic situation, the lack of jobs which is of great concern to our nation, but who appreciates that a great deal of compassion is needed in administering his Department. I know that his officers are similarly inspired. In the few minutes remaining to me I will touch again on the matter of the estimates of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) reminded me of some of the experiences I had last year when travelling with the then Opposition's education committee in the Kimberleys . My first contact with Aborigines was in the by-election in New South Wales for the seat of Castlereagh, when the Hon. Jack Renshaw retired after a lifetime of service in the State Parliament. I worked in Bourke and Brewarrina in the north- west of New South Wales and for the first time I came into contact with the problem of Aboriginal alcoholism. I happened to be in Brewarrina on a night when the unemployment benefit was paid. It was a very sad scene in the hotel where I was staying. It was something that upset me greatly. I found that Mother Theresa from India had brought her nuns to Bourke to work among the Aborigines. She had schemes for feeding the children after school and getting them to do their homework. The nuns ran an old men's home for homeless men. I was most impressed by what I saw. I but I had never really appreciated the solution to alcoholism and the other problems in the community that so beset and strike down the Aboriginal people, who are such a wonderful people with their own history, traditions and culture, until I went to the Kimberleys and saw what was being done in the communities, in what was perhaps a very strict or Sabbatarian way, by banning alcohol completely from the settlements. If workmen who go on to the stations to work or carry out repairs bring grog with them- alcohol of any sort-they are sacked. The people are strict and serious in their endeavours to make sure that the communities remain dry. I was overwhelmed by what I saw of the work being done in the Kimberleys. I mentioned earlier some of the health problems I saw. But I believe the educational and health problems I saw can be largely overcome. These areas are extremely isolated and many Australian Aboriginals live in those areas. They are people who essentially work in a primitive fashion because there are no jobs. There may be some seasonal work on nearby grazing properties. Those are some of the additional matters I wanted to put before the Committee tonight. I felt that the honourable member for Maranoa could not really have meant the things he said in criticising the Government's outstanding efforts on behalf of Aborigines and in improving their health. I referred earlier to leprosy. I could have talked at length about some of the eye problems and some of the work of Professor Hollows in regard to trachoma and some of the other eye diseases that inflict the Aboriginal community. But I will not delay the Committee further. I commend the estimates to the Committee. I congratulate the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs on a very sensitive interpretation of the tasks that are set before him and the legislation which is within his care. I congratulate the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) because I believe he will make his mark on the nation not only as a Minister in the Hawke Labor Government, but also as a Minister who really did something in this portfolio. At long last we have a Minister who will do something for the Aboriginal people of Australia. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(8.30) —I rejoin the debate to comment on one or two matters that have arisen since I spoke earlier this afternoon. I say at the outset that nothing the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said in his reply to the remarks I addressed to the chamber caused me any upset or concern whatsoever. The Minister and I in political terms are probably as far apart as any two members of this chamber, but one thing I have appreciated with respect to this Minister is that our debates in this chamber-to date we have successfully done this-have not been on a personal basis. As far as I am concerned, the Minister's remarks in response to what I said were perfectly proper and I have no complaint whatsoever. Unfortunately, though, other remarks followed, and I shall make some reference to them. But before I do I associate myself with the remarks of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) and in particular with the remarks he addressed to the chamber with respect to the Big Brother Movement. I have heard the Minister' s response and I can follow the line of reasoning upon which he bases his response. But, along with the honourable member for Cook, I say to the Minister: In view of the fact that the Big Brother Movement has been part of a tradition extending for some 50 years, the honourable member for Cook arranged for members of the Big Brother Movement to meet with me recently. I spoke with present and past executives of that organisation. More importantly, I spoke with two Little Brothers who came to Australia over 25 years ago and have very much made their mark in our Australian community. I ask the Minister to receive representations on this matter because a point of view was espoused by the honourable member for Cook, and supported by me, which I would like to put to the Minister. I must in fairness say that except in respect of matters upon which the Minister has laid down a firm guideline, as far as I am concerned I have not the slightest quarrel with the way in which he applies himself to the determination of matters which come within his ministerial portfolio. I think it should be stated in this chamber that I have had nothing but the utmost co-operation from the Minister's staff and from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I do not have a lot to do with the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in Canberra but I have a lot to do, as Federal member for Denison, with the Department's regional office in Hobart and, to a lesser extent, in Launceston. Those offices have a very heavy work burden. As I think the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said, practically every decision they make will cause some reaction, if not political certainly personal. I have the greatest admiration for those offices and I place on record that as far as I am concerned I am fortunate as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to have been able to have that sort of support and assistance from the Minister's office. Having said that and having acknowledged the work of the Department and the Minister's firmly held idelogical beliefs, I am sure he will recognise that I have the right to express my views in this Parliament on behalf of my Party, on behalf of the coalition in opposition and on behalf of, I would hope millions but perhaps hundreds of thousands of Australians who may espouse some of the matters which I bring up on their behalf in the Parliament and in other places in the course of my duties. It is for that reason that I suggest to the Minister , despite the modesty with which he says that if he had his way he would like to see things go a little further, that out there in the real Australia there is, rightly or wrongly-let me be frank to say rightly or wrongly-concern as to where you are leading us. I do not believe that in a political sense it was unreasonable for me to say in the Parliament that under you and under the Hawke socialist Government, immigration and ethnic affairs have taken what I conceive to be a radical turn to the left. Mr West —In what areas? Mr HODGMAN —Would you like me to articulate them? I will. Firstly, the Government of which you are a member- Mr Barry Jones —What about- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The honourable member may articulate his views through the Chair. Mr HODGMAN —I will be delighted to do so. I again wish the Minister for Science and Technology a happy birthday for yesterday. It is a great shame that the House did not acknowledge the birthday of the Minister for Sciences and Technology. Having said that, the Government, of which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is a senior member, took a decision earlier this year which upset hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come to this country . It decided to drop all sanctions against the Soviet Union. It then took decisions which, as the honourable member for Cook and I have said in the Parliament, indicated to the public that it is anti-British. The Minister cannot take away the capacity to speak the English language and he cannot say that there is a pro-British bias without bringing about some reaction in the Australian community. Interestingly enough, I have heard the reaction expressed on both sides-that is, from British migrants and the descendants of British migrants and from the descendants of non-British migrants. I gave the Minister full marks. I wish the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch) were here to recognise that I started my address earlier today by congratulating the Minister and the Government on a major Budget initiative. I congratulated the Minister recently when he withdrew the dinstinction between British and non-British residents in Australia in relation to their ability to deportation. We parted company shortly thereafter because deportation has virtually been abolished in this country as a result of the legislation brought into the Parliament by the Minister. On the one hand the Minister acted to take away a distinction which is an anomoly-the Opposition supported him on that-but on the other hand, whether he intended it or not, some of the decisions he has taken have created a chasm between non-British migrants in this country and those of British descent. Mr Lusher —An abyss. Mr HODGMAN —As the honourable member for Hume said, an abyss. That is indeed unfortunate. My remarks in relation to the oath of allegiance as prescribed in the Australian Citizenship Act 1948-73 should not be lightly cast aside. The oath of allegiance is worth recounting in this chamber. When I read to the chamber the words of that oath, the Committee will concede that it is a beautiful oath or, in the case of an affirmation, a beautifual affirmation. It says it all. The oath states: I, . . . renouncing all other allegiance, swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. The affirmation states: I, . . . renouncing all other allegiance, solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia, Her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Australia and fulfil my duties as an Australian citizen. I appeal to the Minister and to the Hawke Government not to move against the oath or affirmation of allegiance, as they are clearly planning to do, by removing any reference at all to Elizabeth II, Her Majesty the Queen of Australia. I again remind the Committee that she became the Queen of Australia by virtue of legislation brought into the Parliament by the Whitlam Labor Government-legislation which I, not as a member of this Parliament at that stage but as a member of the Tasmanian Parliament, publicly supported. Believe it or not, in this country there are people who believe in God, queen and country. There are people who believe in that oath of allegiance, who believe in our flag and who believe in our Queen. I implore the Minister not to take the first step down the line to a republican Australia by taking away the reference to the Queen of Australia from the oath of allegiance. I ask the Minister to recall that there is no mandate for the Prime Minister or for the Government to convert this country into a socialist republic. I forewarn the Government that the people of Australia will stand up for the principles I have advocated. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(8.40) — We have finally heard from one member of the Opposition who is willing to say something good about the Labor Government. I thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) very much. It is interesting to note that he was also willing to say something nice about the Whitlam socialist Government. He said it introduced the oath of allegiance in 1974. It is interesting to see the change in the shadow Minister's attitude in the last few weeks. I am concerned that the $9.984m allocated to the Northern Territory specifically to be spent on Aboriginal housing will, in fact, be spent on Aboriginal housing. I mentioned earlier that all the indications are that the Northern Territory Government puts all the money it receives, whether for specific purposes, capital purposes or general revenue, into one big bin. Not even the Commonwealth Grants Commission could unravel the mess when it made its recent report on special assistance for the Northern Territory. It made a number of critical comments about the way the Northern Territory runs its accounting system. I referred to a letter from the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory in which he made it quite clear that he is very reluctant to keep statistics or figures on how the money allocated to the Northern Territory under the States Grants (Housing) Act is spent on housing and, specifically, how it is spent on Aboriginal housing. He made it clear that very reluctantly he is now keeping statistics on the Northern Territory Government's spending on Aboriginal housing . I suggest that he is very reluctant to do that because he knows full well that when those statistics are completed they will show that he has been siphoning off the money specifically granted for Aboriginal housing. The likelihood is that the big boost in Aboriginal housing funds for the Northern Territory will not benefit Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory who want houses. If it happens to help them it will be by good luck and not good management. It will happen in spite of the unsympathetic Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory. The basic responsibility of any government is to handle the public purse in a responsible and accountable way. More importantly, the Northern Territory Government in this instance is entrusted to spend specific purpose grants on the specific purpose for which they were granted and not on some other jaunt such as the $2 1/2m it plans to spend this year on its own travel and entertainment. That is more than even members of the Opposition would even think of spending in one year. The comments of the Grants Commission and the correspondence I have referred to from the Chief Minister lead one to the inescapable conclusion that the Country Liberal Party Government in the Northern Territory is negligent, irresponsible, incompetent and untrustworthy. The whole issue has far wider and broader implications than that. This year's Federal Budget contains $159.74m in specific purpose recurrent grants to the Northern Territory and $88.121m in specific purpose capital grants to the Northern Territory. That is a total of $ 247.86m, or 30 per cent of the total allocation to the Northern Territory for specific purpose recurrent grants or capital grants. I am concerned that that money is spent on the purpose for which it was specifically allocated. I do not think we can be certain that the negligent, untrustworthy Government in the Northern Territory will do that, particularly when it will face electoral defeat in the next six months. Can we be certain that the $9.8m allocated for the Australian bicentennial road development program this year will actually be spent on that program? I do not think so. The sum of $8.9m has been allocated for the brucellosis and tuberculosis eradication campaign. Can we be sure that the Northern Territory Government will spend that amount on the campaign? Of couse we cannot. It puts all the money into one bin and not even the Grants Commission can trace it. Not even the Grants Commission knows whether it will be spent for that purpose. Can we be certain that the $2. 8m allocated for the community employment program, to which the Country Liberal Party Government in the Territory is opposed, will actually be spent on employment programs. Will it be spent on some other outlandish scheme? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! I invite the honourable member for the Northern Territory to tighten up relevance in respect of the estimates presently before the Committee. Mr REEVES —It plans to spend $200,000 on the self-government celebrations. All this wasted expenditure is going on while Aborigines in the Northern Territory are living in disgraceful conditions. It is all right for the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) to smile. If he saw those conditions he would have that smile wiped off his face very quickly. As I said at the outset, there is evidence to suspect that the Northern Territory Government is siphoning off specific purpose grants. I am most concerned about the specific purpose capital grant for Aboriginal housing in the Northern Territory. The whole matter, particularly the parlous state of the Territory's accounting system under which no one can be sure whether it is actually spending money on the specific purpose for which it is allocated, must be investigated urgently. I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and any other Minister involved in the allocation of funds for specific purposes in the Northern Territory to conduct that investigation as a matter of urgency. Unless an investigation is conducted, I fear that, despite all the good intentions of this Government to improve the terrible conditions of the Aboriginal people that the honourable member for Hume finds so amusing, those conditions will not be improved because the improvements will be blocked yet again by the unsympathetic Country Liberal Party Government. Mr Lusher —You did not even use your full time. You have four minutes left. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The honourable member for Hume is demonstrating a prowess for his new found ability to achieve a certain result. I suggest that he give a thought to the consequences. Mr PORTER(Barker)(8.47) —I rise again in this debate not in any way to try to discuss the comments made by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) in reply to my initial contribution because he failed to contradict in any way any of the points I made. I am sorry that the Minister is not here to oversee the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. One would think that he would be here for the debate on his own estimates. I refer to the contribution of the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves). As I understand it, he suggested that during my visit to one of many Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory, I had in some way attempted to influence a meeting of the Progress Association that was taking place during the evening. I think he referred in particular to my visit to Borroloola. Is that correct? Mr Reeves —No. I was saying that the Country Liberal Party friend you were with was doing precisely that-railroading the local Progress Association. Mr PORTER —I am surprised that the honourable member for the Northern Territory makes such allegations. I accept certainly that I have been to a large number of Aboriginal communities in the Northern Territory. I see it as part of my job to meet as many of the Aborginal communities as I can. In the Northern Territory I have been to Borroloola, Yuendumu, Walpiri, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin and Milingimbi. I have visited the Tangentyere Council, the Central Australian Aboriginal Media Association and so on. I have tried to meet as many communities as I can. If the honourable member alleges that in the day and night I spent in Borroloola I or the people who were in my company in some way tried to influence the local people I think he grossly underrates the intelligence of his own constituents. Certainly, I find it flattering to think that on a one day visit I could somehow influence the good people of the Northern Territory. I can understand that the honourable member for the Northern Territory is somewhat concerned about the Northern Territory. It was interesting that one of the real complaints that I received when I was in Borroloola was that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on that day had sent a plane in to take members of the Aboriginal community out of Borroloola to see him in some other town. The complaint that was made to me was that the Minister, in fact, did not go to Borroloola because they had wanted to see him. I regret that the Minister was not able to go to Borroloola but I made it quite plain that I did not have any control over the Minister. Finally, it is pretty clear that the honourable member for the Northern Territory made the fairly wide, sweeping allegations he has made tonight without in any way justifying those allegations because he finds himself in a very embarrassing position. Mr Chairman, you would know-and I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory would know-that before this Government was elected the previous Government was in favour of the building of the railway line from Alice Springs to Darwin. Unfortunately, the Government has made a decision against the interests of the Northern Territory people and the honourable member has found himself in a very difficult position because, before the decision was made by the Hawke Government, he supported that proposal. He now finds that he has to withdraw support for that proposal and suggest that he is in favour of the decision of the Hawke Government not to build that railway line. The Hawke Government has made a number of decisions which have been contrary to the best interests of the Northern Territory. So, the honourable member for the Northern Territory now comes into this Committee and tries to find other excuses to lay some blame at the feet of the Opposition for the problems that he is facing as a result of the Hawke Government's decisions which are, as I say, against the interests of the Northern Territory. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.53) —It has been very interesting to sit here listening to Lucky Starr, the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), who has obviously been everywhere. I was rather intrigued by his visit to Walpiri. I have spent a lot of time in the Northern Territory and I have never heard of the place. I always thought that it was a language group. I think that, if the shadow Mininster looks at his diary, he will find that it is a language group and not a town or community. I wish to address a few remarks to the speech of the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). I draw the attention of the honourable member for Maranoa to a dictum from, I think, Bertrand Russell who said that treating unequals equally is just as discriminatory as it is to treat equals unequally. If he thinks about it, I am sure that even our top member for Maranoa will appreciate it. He spoke about health. He said that health in Aboriginal communities should be left to the States. I am pleased that this Budget enhances the amount of money allocated to health. I am sure it is an area that certainly needs assistance. It is absurd for people to say things such as: 'What can you do about health when a place is overrun with dogs?' One of the functions of community health is to educate people to the health hazards that exist in the community. There is no doubt that dogs constitute a certain level of hazard but it is nothing like the level of hazard that is constituted by simply not having enough clean water. That is the case in very many Aboriginal communities. I know it is the case in my own electorate-I am sure it is repeated throughout Australia-where Aboriginals are drinking water which would be classified by any reasonable standards as not fit for human consumption. Those records are available. They are known to sundry health authorities. Yet, nothing is done. In terms of Aboriginal advancement, I think the fact must be recognised that the Aboriginal community in his country was overrun by a more aggressive culture . I am not saying that it is a more advanced culture. It is certainly a more aggressive culture. The reality is that, if that culture feels itself sufficiently threatened, it will do it again. Aboriginal advancement must take place within the context of what is acceptable to the wider community. That will require a lot of education of that wider community, as the honourable member for Maranoa has demonstrated quite amply. One of the things that must be achieved is land rights. I am sure that the level of finance made available in the Budget for Aborigines will help achieve this. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) has already said that we will have uniform land rights in Australia. Land rights are essential. I am appalled at the scaremongering that has taken place in my own State by Liberal National Party people about the consequences of land rights. Let us look at an illustration. If one looks at a map of Western Australia, one will see a large tract of land called the Western Desert. It is gazetted as a native reserve. If this land was handed back to the Aboriginal people with freehold title in perpetuity, as land rights would be, the main roads through that area would be excised. One would have free access, free travel, from Laverton to Alice Springs . A new and very viable tourist route would be opened up which, in turn, would have excellent ramifications for Aboriginal communities because they would be in a position to service this new industry. It is a very isolated place where it is unrealistic to expect much in the way of new industries. Some positive initiatives could be taken. It would be a far more effective way of bringing Australia together than the present divisionary system where one needs permits to go through that area. That sort of proposal has to be considered. It is one of the very positive benfits that would accrue from land rights. However, I must say that as a socialist-and I am completely unabashed about using that term-I have the gravest misgivings about giving mineral rights to any individual. Mr Ian Cameron —Hear, hear! Mr CAMPBELL —I believe that mineral rights belong to the Crown. I am pleased to see that my socialist friend from Maranoa agrees with me. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! I ask the honourable member for Kalgoorlie not to provoke the honourable member for Maranoa. He is difficult enough to handle when he is unexcited. Mr CAMPBELL —I apologise, Mr Deputy Chairman. I thought I was soothing with flattery. I think that some positive initiatives can be taken in this respect, certainly where particular groups are disadvantaged. I think that mineral rights that accrue from that area could be set aside by the Government for this special benefit. I am sure that a very equitable framework can be worked out for that sort of thing. I reiterate as a socialist that I have very grave misgivings about mineral rights accruing to any individual. I also address a few words to the subject of commercial enterprises. The reality is that there will be very little Aboriginal advancement in this country until Aboriginals are earning the sort of money that the community at large earns. Many Aboriginals live in isolated areas where it is very difficult to establish any commercial enterprises. I find it particularly depressing that successive governments have not really addressed the subject of commercial enterprises. I believe that the emu farm at Wiluna, which has had its funding slashed-originally it was slashed by the notorious razor gang and on that occasion I put some money into it to keep it afloat-has been funded inadequately ever since. The Australian Industry Development Corporation has never recognised the commercial potential of this industry. It is an industry which seeks to commercialise the emu. It is an industry in which all the technicalities of commercial emu raising have been worked out. There is no doubt at all we know how to raise emus efficiently. What has not been addressed is the marketing aspect. We have fallen down badly in this area. No government department has ever addressed itself to the problem of marketing. This industry can be established across the whole range of low rainfall areas of Australia. It could be extended to Aboriginal communities in New South Wales, Queensland and most of Western Australia. Virtually all of Australia could benefit from development. There is a world shortage of leather. Emus could very well be a source of income in that respect that would benefit the whole of Australia. In Fremantle, we have a company called Shilkin N. & Son (Leather) Pty Ltd which, in fact, tanned emu skins from Wiluna to bind a book that was presented to Her Majesty the Queen. I think that is a tribute to the standard of the work able to be produced in Australia. This industry is under a threat. I have spoken to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. He has said that he has given instruction that no birds will be slaughtered and that the project will not be wound down any further until he has had another look at it. I hope that, arising out of that, we can get some sanity into the commercial development of Aboriginal enterprises. The emu industry is an enterprise which the private sector has looked at. I have spoken to people in the private sector who agree with me that it can be a very viable industry. One thing concerning me is the relative lack of money that has gone to the Aboriginal legal service in Western Australia. When one looks at the number of Aboriginals in Western Australia one sees for instance, that Western Australia is not serviced anywhere near as well as Queensland is. We have areas of real problems in Western Australia. Halls Creek is a classic, and we are aware of the tragedy that has occurred at Roebourne. In these instances there has certainly been an amount of police insensitivity. This is a tragedy because in the Western Australian police force there are policemen who are very compassinate and who understand the problem. I think that the Department of Police and Emergency Services should vet its own employees to make sure that suitable people are put in these areas. I would like to name a few people in the police force who I think are outstanding, but it may cause them embarrassment if I do. The situation at Wiluna is unfortunately not quite so good. I believe that attempts are being made by Aboriginals and white activists to stir up trouble and cause dissension in the community that does not exist. Perhaps these people do not realise that they are putting at risk an enterprise which has the potential to benefit Aboriginals right across Australia. I was looking forward to addressing many of my remarks to immigration. I want particularly to draw attention to the remarks made by the man who must certainly be the king of the sophists, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He talks in here in reverent tones about Her Majesty. He was a member of a government that appointed Ransley Victor Garland to the position of High Commissioner in London. He is a man of very suspect standards. I consider it to be an absolute insult to Her Majesty. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.03) —In this debate I think it is important to emphasise that we are talking about a substantial number of Budget appropriations. Mr Deputy Chairman, I am sure that you and those who are listening must wonder what Opposition members are doing because they are certainly not addressing substantial financial items in the Budget. They come in here with a great deal of rhetoric, but they have not dealt with any of the technical and specific items of the Budget. One can understand very much why that situation may have arisen. The reason why it may have arisen is that they do not take very well to being in opposition. Their main experience in opposition was an attempt to destroy a Budget in the other place. It would be nice to think that they could engage in a fairly sophisticated debate in this place about some of the financial appropriations in this Budget. Opposition members have not addressed themselves to the reality that under this Government there will be a 14 per cent increase in funding on immigration and ethnic affairs, taking the amount allocated to $158.8m from the previous $139.3m . That sort of increase in funding represents a substantial improvement. If we take account of the fact that the inflation rate is about 10 per cent, we find that there has been a substantial increase in spending by this Government on immigration and ethnic affairs. I will go into some fairly precise details. One of the issues that I think is very important is the development of material and syllabus development centres. A substantial amount of money will be spent in this Budget on those areas. I believe that that is a very important point with respect to the development of migrant initiatives. We should also look at child care in the adult migrant education program. This Government will address that area substantially and I believe that that is also an important initiative. One of the areas in which those opposite have a less than happy record is in the provision of funds for women's refuges. This Government will provide $200,000 in 1983-84 for the employment of ethnic workers in women's refuges. We had the unhappy experience in Western Australia, in particular, where conservative governments in the past cut back on funding for women's refuges. We believe that it is an important initiative and that women's refuges play an important part in the social conditions of those who may be disadvantaged. The fact that we are putting money into women's refuges shows an important initiative of this Government. This Government is making a substantial provision of some $4.8m for grants-in- aid. Again that is a significant improvement in funding, and it is the sort of issue that I would have thought those opposite would have addressed. These are important structural changes with respect to the emphasis in the immigration program. We have heard a great deal about the sorts of approaches that the Opposition would adopt on immigration. I believe that Opposition members are presenting the policy of this Government in a largely inaccurate way. It is not true to say that there has been a radical shift in immigration policy. In fact what there has been under the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West)-I believe that the community recognises this-is an intelligent development of immigration policy. We have taken on some of the policies of the previous Government and we have put a substantial amount of initiative into them now. This Government will be allocating some $1.5m, the previous Government allocated around $1.3m, to assist migrant resource centres. Some $42m will be spent on the adult migrant education program by this Government, compared with $38m by the previous Government. If one looks at these sorts of initiatives it is quite clear that under this Government there has been a continuation of orderly development of programs. It is not true, as those opposite claim, that we made some radical departures. If one listened to the contributions which have been made in this debate one could be led to the conclusion that those opposite support our Budget. They have not come to terms with any of the specific programs nor dealt with any of the technicalities in the programs. It is all very well to come in here with a great deal of rhetoric on immigration and on what one might and might not do, but we should get down to the reality of what spending we should do. There are some very important migrant groups in the federal electorate of Stirling. The Macedonians, the Yugoslavs, the Greeks, the Italians are very important parts of the Australian community. The sort of spending intended in this Budget will do a great deal for those sorts of groups. There are a lot of reasons for us to feel very confident about the future. One is the Government's proposal to develop channel 0-28 as a further provision of services to the ethnic community. That will be an important development in other communities. It is starting in Canberra in the next few days. We will welcome it when it comes to Western Australia in 1985. These are the sorts of moves made under this Government, which are important. They represent a continuation of policy which in certain areas I could call a bipartisan policy. It is not good enough for the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to talk about the oath and the affirmation at citizenship ceremonies. There is much more to it than that. There is the inheritance that we have of mass unemployment . Mass unemployment, under the previous Government, has done a great deal to further racism in this country. When there is a substantial amount of impoverishment there is also a substantial amount of racial tension engendered. What we need in this community is a bipartisan debate to try to deal with these matters. There are lots of reasons why in this Budget there are important initiatives. The Minister deserves congratulations for the hard work that he is doing. In some areas one cannot win. It is very difficult when one is dealing with the sorts of immigration programs that we have. We have a community in Australia which puts a lot of pressure on many back benchers to try to get people into Australia. It is the sort of debate that is very difficult to win. All we can do , with good faith and determination, is to go ahead and develop a reasonable immigration policy and I believe that under this Minister that is being done. I turn briefly to Aboriginal affairs. It is an area in which we believe that a great deal must be done. This Budget does have some important initiatives in it, and I believe that they will contribute a substantial amount. Under division 120 , Administrative, Department of Aboriginal Affairs, there will be a substantial increase in spending on community development employment programs. For 1983-84 we are looking at appropriating some $12.1m to Aboriginal communities to provide employment. This is a substantial increase; in fact, it is a doubling of the $6. 3m that was allocated under the previous Government. We know that under the previous Government there was certainly a lack of resolve to deal with this most impoverished and most disadvantaged of the Australian community. It is a truism that under the previous Government, if one wanted to look for disadvantage, one found it amongst Aboriginals, ethnic groups and women. We are doing a lot to redress some of those disadvantages. This Government is treating that matter in a very earnest way. I think it must be said in respect to this debate that, in the Federal area, the previous Government tried to do some sound things in Aboriginal affairs. It is just that, under some of its State running mates, particularly as in Western Australia under the lamentable Court Government and in Queensland under the lamentable Bjelke-Petersen Government, some of the worst things are being done with respect to Aboriginal communities. It is quite true that we have had previous Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs under previous governments in the Federal Parliament who have been well-meaning and well-intentioned. It is just that they have had as running mates in the States some people who left a lot to be desired. I believe that the Western Australian community has one particular example in mind; that is, the infamous Noonkanbah issue and a decision by the Western Australian State Government to overrule Aboriginal rights completely with respect to a drilling operation in Noonkanbah. All it succeeded in doing was creating an Aboriginal community which was very antagonistic to that State Government. It was quite clear that the then Premier, Sir Charles Court, and Mr Hassell, the then Minister for Police, sought to abuse and use State power to override Aboriginal communities. The fact that they did not succeed is a tribute to the people in the Australian community. I add also that at the time the Federal Government had the sense to recognise what was going on. I also add that those companies which were associated with that infamous Richter drilling episode were very embarrassed-I speak about the parent company CSR Ltd-that such an appalling attack on Aboriginal affairs could be mounted by such a desperate and disreputable government as the lamentable Court Government in Western Australia. I believe that a lot of work has to be done in the area of Aboriginal affairs. Some important initiatives are being taken in this Budget. Under the previous Government there were some reasonable things which we are pursuing. But honourable members opposite will have a lot to do when they have to account for some of their running mates, particularly in States such as Queensland. Mr PORTER —Mr Deputy Chairman-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —The honourable member for Barker has already spoken to the question twice. He is not entitled to speak a third time. Mr PORTER —Mr Deputy Chairman, I seek your indulgence for one second. Apparently , during my previous contribution I mentioned that I had been to Walpiri. Of course, there is no such place. I meant Warrabri. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) quite rightly corrected that statement. Walpiri is not a place; Warrabri is. I apologise for that. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Chair accepts the honourable member's brief explanation . Mr HAND(Melbourne)(9.13) —I rise for the few moments allotted to me to take up a couple of the points made by the absent shadow Minister for Immigration, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It is extraordinary that, in the course of this debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, neither of the shadow Ministers, neither the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) nor the honourable member for Denison, addressed themselves to the appropriations. We heard a travelogue from the honourable member for Barker about this trips round the Northern Territory. We heard from the honourable member for Denison about the embargo on Russian trade and about the flag. But he did not utter a single word about the appropriations. The simple reason that happened is that the percentage increases for both departments are so great that honourable members opposite dare not talk about what this Government had done. Any section of the estimates of these departments shows quite clearly a percentage increase on the last Budget. Over and above inflation honourable members will find that generally the increase is quite substantial. I recall the debate when the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) handed down a statement and gave an outline of the number of people who would be allowed into Australia under the various programs. In the adjournment debate that night the honourable member for Denison started what I term as a vicious attack on people from Central America and other regions such as the Middle East. If honourable members recall that debate, the Minister outlined the fact that we were going to increase the number of people coming to Australia from Central America. The honourable member for Denison was very critical of the fact that the Minister was going to allow in 2,500 people from areas such as Central and South America. People who have been watching the news services would have seen what occurred in the front of Parliament House tonight. There was a demonstration and a vigil by some people from Chile. I raised this matter on the night the Minister made his speech. The Chilean situation that was raised in the adjournment debate that night still exists. People in Chile have been driven from their country by their Goverment. The honourable member for Denison criticised this Government for allowing more refugees to come here from places such as Chile and Central America. Last week the Minister met with people in my electorate who have fled from Timor because of the aggression, the persecution and the slaughter of people there by the Indonesians. Those people were most grateful that the Minister talked to them. I am hopeful that big things can be done for that community in the near future. It is important to remember that for seven years the former Government treated with contempt the migrant communities of this country. It treated them as though they did not exist. It treated the Aborigines in the same way. The honourable member for Barker should not shake his head, because that is what the former Government did. The former Government's record in immigration and ethnic affairs and Aboriginal affairs was appalling. One has only to go round the various communities and talk to the people. The former Government propped up some of its organisations with people who were not fit to be in positions because they did not have any interest in ethnic communities, or Aboriginal communities for that matter. If honourable members go round those communities they will hear from the people what they think about the present Government. They are saying that this Government is getting on with the job and living up to the commitments that it made, and they are damned glad that we are in office. I say again that it is unfortunate that the honourable member for Denison is not in this chamber. He sneaks around the Parliament and says behind closed doors: 'Do not give up on Timor. I am with you on the Irish question'. He does not even come into the chamber to listen to the debate. I have never seen two shadow Ministers who have been in and out of this chamber as often as these two. I do not know what is going on outside this chamber but something damned interesting must be happening out there because they have shown a complete lack of interest in what has gone on here tonight. They have not addressed one policy area. Mr Porter —Where is your Minister? Mr HAND —They have not addressed one policy area at all. The Minister took care of the honourable member for Barker. He cleaned the honourable member right up when he opened his mouth earlier on the matter of Aboriginal affairs. The honourable member did not have one answer. He has not been able to come back at the Minister on anything he said. It may be that the Leader of the Opposition ( Mr Peacock) was in the chamber earlier whispering into the honourable member's ear. Perhaps he may have been told not to speak again in the course of the debate because he had made a absolute fool of himself. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.17) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), is absolutely right. I do not have anything to answer. The very few points that Opposition speakers and shadow Ministers made during the debate have already been dealt with. It is amazing that, with the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of appropriations in the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, they have not been able to find anything to criticise in policies and programs. As has already been pointed out, there has been a 14 per cent increase in monetary terms in the vote for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I have already dealt with the allegations that the intake under our family reunion program is not as high as it might be. I pointed out that it will be at least double the figure the previous Government allowed into Australia. I pointed out how the refugee program had been diversified and how we had corrected any imbalances that remained in the program inherited from the previous Government. I have given the reasons why we will not reinstitute the United Kingdom Big Brother Movement migration program. All our efforts in government and all my efforts as Minister have been to remove division and discrimination from migration policies. All I have heard tonight from the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) , and some of the other speakers on behalf of the Opposition have been attempts to stir up more discrimination and more division. We are removing discrimination from the Migration Act. As I have already pointed out, the amendments are now before the Senate. We will continue to amend that Act when we get the report from the Human Rights Commission with regard to the civil liberties position. The Aliens Act may be repealed in the near future because it is discriminatory. The Citizenship Act will soon be amended and I will come to that in a moment. We are doing this because we know that Australia-this is one of the few correct points to which the Opposition referred-is a nation of immigrants. It is true that we are the second greatest migrant nation today. We have been a nation of immigrants for 200-odd years but even more so since the policies instigated by Arthur Calwell as our first Minister for Immigration after the Second World War. That imposes a great many responsibilities on us. We are a multicultural society , as I have been pointing out to migrants groups all around Australia. We are a multicultural society by virtue of the fact that these policies have produced for Australia over four million people born overseas and at least six million people who were born overseas or who have a parent born overseas. If we are to prevent that very multiculturalism from becoming an instrument of class repression in itself, in the sense that it creates certain disadvantages in some migrant communities, we have to put special programs in place to combat that. We recognise that. I do not think the previous Government did. We will do that in two ways-by mainstreaming, by making sure that migrants know about what is available under general programs, be they employment services, social security, education services, health services or whatever. We must use the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to create special policies to overcome the disadvantages for a disadvantaged group. Let me briefly give honourable members some figures which they failed to address during the debate. We have increased the grants-in-aid program by sixty additional grants. That was the one policy honourable members opposite referred to in the debate on the appropriations. We are giving an extra $1.6m a year for that purpose, lifting the total outlay to $5m. The adult migrant education program is very important; so we are allocating $1m extra in these appropriations this year to create teacher permanency. We hope that over the next two years at least 65 per cent of the teaching hours in the service will be met by permanent teachers. That is how it ought to be. Mr Hodgman —That is good, but you are still not paying them what you promised you would pay them. Mr WEST —We are saying that this year-I have already asked the State to give me the figures to show that this money will be spent-we will employ, as a starting point, all those who have two years service as full time casuals. That is the starting point and I intend to see that over the next couple of years our campaign promise is implemented. But the former Government of which the honourable member was a member did nothing. The teachers have been correctly complaining about this for years under the former Government and nothing was done. We are making an attempt to give justice to the Teachers Federation and its migrant education service. We will also expand the courses in industry so that workers can learn English on the job. We have allocated an extra $1m for courses in industry. So much for the migrant education service. The appropriations give a great deal of attention to the problems of migrant women. We have allocated $550,000-odd to allow child care services within the adult migrant education classrooms. We have allowed $200,000 through the women's emergency service programs for the employment of ethnic social workers in women' s refuges. The migrant resource centres which, of course, emanated from the former Galbally report, were pegged in financial outlays for several years. Since this Government took office, we have increased the outlay for migrant resource centres by 45 per cent. The final top up is in this Budget. We think that interpreter services inside State departments to provide services for migrants are very important. There has been a huge increase in finance available to the States to employ interpreters because they had been in a very run down position. Under the former Government no agreement had been formulated at all for Western Australia, Tasmania or the Northern Territory. The honourable member for Denison should take note that I have already written to the State Premiers who do not have the agreeements. I have offered them money and asked them to join with us in an agreement to allow their interpreters to be employed in order to provide a service that they did not have before. Mr Hodgman —I will support you. Mr WEST —The honourable member should get on to Gray and tell him to sign an agreement with me. There is some money there. There is 100 per cent in the first year from the Commonwealth and 50 per cent on a dollar for dollar basis thereafter to employ translators in the State departments such as health commissions and so on. But they have not signed it before. The Western Australian Liberal Government never signed it before. I hope that the new Labor Government will. I have already had discussions with it and I know that it will soon sign an agreement with me. I have tried to address some questions that honourable members failed to address in the debate on the Appropriation Bill. I might put on the record that in some of the more peripheral areas of immigration policy we have already set up a review of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. I expect that report soon and I intend to act upon it. We have already set up a review of private overseas students. We have already devolved the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters to industry and the States. They are now paying some finance towards this. We intend soon to set up a national population council. In relation to other areas of policy which were deficient under the former coalition, we intend to adopt a more liberal policy on spouse entry to this country, on health entry requirements, on de facto relations with regard to change of status and on income requirements with regard to aged siblings entering Australia under family reunion provisions. In these summing up remarks I say that we will not miss the need to implement legislative reform. As I have said, we may repeal the Aliens Act. We will amend the Migration Act even further to remove all discrimination and all assaults against civil liberties from that Act. Finally, I want to put on the line what we will do with the Citizenship Act because there are 1.2 million people in Australia who are eligible for citizenship but who have not applied. Mr Dobie —You have broken all the arrangements about time. You have broken them all. Mr WEST —I have been very patient in listening to some of the honourable members opposite put up their absurdities as the evening wore on and without hearing anything that had much to do with the appropriations. In the Citizenship Act we will make it easier for people to get citizenship by reducing the English language requirement to a basic English requirement. We will exempt people over 50 years of age. These are the things we are considering at the moment. There is a possibility that we can reduce citizenship grants from three years to two years residence in Australia. Certainly the oath needs changing to make it more Australian in flavour and character. I do not see any reason why the Australian Citizenship Act should refer to and give a definition of Commonwealth citizens as British subjects. As the Minister for Finance who is in charge of public service affairs has already pointed out, when we amend the Citizenship Act to take all reference to British subjects out of it and amend the consequential legislation under the Public Service Act, we will create a situation where the permanency in the Public Service will no longer depend upon a requirement for British subject status. Australian citizenship status will mean that all migrants, from wherever they come, as long as they have had permanent residence and become Australian citizens, will still be eligible to join the Australian Public Service. That is our record. We will not resile from it. If members of the Opposition still want to say that we have created division, that policies have taken a radical and dangerous turn to the Left and there is no longer any bipartisanship in migration policies, all I can say to the shadow Minister is: That is your affair and not mine. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $910,031,000. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.33) —In rising in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs I wish to raise two matters: The first is the Australian-Association of South East Asian Nations relationship and the second is in relation to Australia's attitude to South Africa. I will deal firstly with the matter of Australian-ASEAN relationships. It must be said that the relationship between that bloc and ours has reached a low ebb, probably the lowest ebb ever because unfortunately greater weight has been given to the interests of Vietnam as distinct from the interests of our ASEAN neighbours. Honourable members have to look only at recent decisions not to support the ASEAN resolution in the United Nations and at previous statements by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) of his desire to resume aid to Vietnam. Public disapproval of Australia's policies by the Singapore Foreign Minister in recent days and the Thai Foreign Minister and the refusal by these ASEAN countries to attend the Australian-ASEAN forum must be a matter of concern for all Australians. Quite simply it is a matter of deciding where Australia's interests lie and who our friends are. Mr Steedman —Not fascist dictatorships. Mr WHITE —It is obvious that if the honourable member is not going to support his friends and allies he is in favour of supporting some of the communist countries to the north. The fact is that our interests lie with ASEAN and not with Vietnam. This is for two very good reasons. If the honourable member keeps quiet long enough he might learn something. The first reason is our strategic and the other is very sensible economically. Why we got out of our way to create tensions with ASEAN countries is something that I fail to undertstand although I have read the Foreign Minister's speeches closely. I understand some of the reasoning behind it, but I certainly do not agree with it. In strategic matters, the fact is that ASEAN is still the major bulwark for this country against communist countries in South East Asia. I see the Foreign Minister turning away. Perhaps he does not believe that this threat still exists. Mr Steedman —What about the fascists? Mr WHITE —We still have more than a passing interest in containing communism in the area in which we live. I remind the honourable member of Australia's involvement in the last 30 years in containing communism in this part of the world. A considerable number of Australian lives have been lost in Korea, Malaya and Vietnam, making this country relatively safe for the honourable member opposite to sit in this House. I will not stand here and hear him denigrate the people who have gone out there to make this country safe for him. Mr Steedman —I have never denigrated anyone who has gone out to fight; I have denigrated the politicians who sent them there. Mr WHITE —I happen to have been there on two of those occasions. So the honourable member might withdraw that remark for a start. The fact is that there are many left wing elements in this country, a few of them sitting on the honourable member's side of the House, who, rightly or wrongly in their hearts, support and encourage communist incursions in this part of the world. The fact is that it does exist. If the honourable member wants some evidene for it he should go and see what is happening in Kampuchea and go and see what the Vietnamese are doing in Laos and then come back and discuss this matter sensibly . It is interesting that some honourable members here can well recall that, when Australian troops were actively engaged in Vietnam, people in the Australian Labor Party were actively encouraging the other side. That is something that I personally will never forget. I turn now to economic matters. It is true that Australia is becoming increasingly irrelevant to the ASEAN countries. Something like two per cent of its trade is with Australia. But the fact is that the ASEAN countries are becoming more and more important to Australia. That is the direction in which our future lies. It is a massive growth area, both in size and development and a market for our own products. It is estimated that by the year 2000 we will be exporting, if we are sensible, some 85 per cent of our exports to that area. We have to decide whether we will support ASEAN interests or Vietnam interests. We cannot do both. Earlier statements by the Foreign Minister indicated that he was going to seek closer ties with ASEAN countries, but the ASEAN perception, rightly or wrongly, is that in recent months Australia has turned its back against them. We have a lot of ground to make up. I support showing disapproval of the Khmer Rouge. But important though that may be, it has to be admitted that the Vietnamese are equally as brutal in the regime that they are setting up. As I understand it, they are employing a considerable number of ex-Khmer Rouge officials in their administration. I can do no better than to quote from the Australian of 7 October: If any European power were still behaving in Indo-China as is Vietnam, we would not fail to condemn it. Whether the question is approached from a basis of principle or a standpoint of self-interest, we have much to lose and little, if anything, to gain by sacrificing the friendship of ASEAN for the passing gratitude of a totalitarian government whose international ambitions are totally opposed to our own. I will spend a few minutes on Australian-South African relations. Our relations have been bedevilled for a number of years by apartheid. People, and rightly so, have strong views on this question. I might add that many South Africans have strong views on the question of apartheid. Many people in South Africa are striving for a more equal society. The problem is that unless the other countries recognise that efforts and progress are being made, the people who are striving for that equality and progress will become dis- heartened. We must be careful to condemn apartheid and not South Africa. I am grateful to see the Government is undertaking a review of our relations with that country. I hope very much it will be for the better for some very good reasons: Firstly, it should recognise and encourage progress that is being made in that country; and secondly, it should recognise the inconsistencies of some of our present policies, many of which were put in place by the previous Government, my Government. For example, cricket has become almost wholly integrated. I will spend a couple of minutes on Qantas Airways Ltd flights to South Africa. Some 30 international airlines fly to South Africa. It now takes something like four months to make a booking with South African Airways to fly from South Africa to Australia or from Australia to South Africa. It should be noted that four members of the Australian Labor Party are planning a visit to South Africa within the next few weeks. Two have already been told that they will have to fly with Qantas. All of them, despite how they are going to Africa, are going to South Africa. One of them is going through the communist country of Mozambique to get there. I ask the Foreign Minister: What other airlines will the Government warn its members of? Communist airlines fly freely around the world and freely into South Africa. Are those airlines to be banned to ALP members as well? All of this indicates-I hope that the Government will take note of this- that the question of banning Qantas flights direct to South Africa is no longer relevant. I expect that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), by forbidding honourable members from flying with South African Airways and forcing them to fly with Qantas, has indicated some recognition that it is time Qantas flew to South Africa. The third reason why we should review our policy is a recognition of the importance of South Africa to the total African economy. South Africa provides considerable food, power, manufactured goods and jobs to neighbouring countries. The fourth reason is the containment of communism which, if Australian Labor Party members do not mind my mentioning that word again, is rampant throughout Africa with Russian, Cuban and East African troops-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.43) —One of the real pleasures of being part of this Labor Government is to go around the country and find considerable support for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and for the job he is doing. One of the things that stands out is that he is obviously putting in a lot of hard work. He is getting a very good response and a good reception from people overseas and members of the community. That has been an important and very significant gain. One of the things that has emerged in this Parliament is an attempt to develop some bipartisanship on a number of foreign affairs issues. I will mention those in a moment. I identify four characteristics as belonging to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. One is his willingness to consult. The second is the process of developing an independent Australian foreign policy. That is a difficult process but he is doing it and he deserves congratulations for it. Thirdly, he is asserting the fact that we have economic and foreign relationships, that they are linked together and that we need to try to develop them jointly. The fourth element is that we are now changing from what one might call a more passive approach to a more active and independent approach to foreign policy. That is not easy. As the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who has just resumed his seat, indicated that brings us into some conflict with our Association of South East Asian neighbours. I think that, in the context of this debate, it is important that we take the side of our Foreign Minister as opposed to that of the ASEAN countries. We will not always see eye to eye and I have no doubt that if the question arises I will certainly support the Australian Foreign Minister as distinct from our ASEAN neighbours. This is a very demanding area and it is a difficult issue to debate and negotiate. I believe that the Minister is doing an excellent job and I believe that we would help him by supporting him in all respects. If we look at the issues with which Australia is currently confronted, we see that we are in a very dangerous environment. I shall just list those issues: The downing of KAL-007, the bombing in Rangoon last weekend, the issues over East Timor and Kampuchea, the question of aid to Vietnam, the sad and tragic situation in the Lebanon, the problems in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the reality of the deployment of Soviet SS20 and United States Pershing and cruise missiles. When we put all of those factors together, I believe that we ought to recognise in this place that the job of the Foreign Minister is a difficult, very demanding and very important one. It is not for us to try to find fault with it but to try to give substantial support to it. I believe that the Australian community is giving support to it and that there are those opposite who, sensibly, support it. My intention tonight is certainly to give that support. My colleague the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) wishes shortly to elaborate on a couple of points. I wish to deal with a couple of issues that have come up very recently. One is the question of the oil at Jabiru. I believe that one of the important issues that we will have to face there is the ability to assert Australian sovereignty over that oil field. There will be some difficult negotiations. It is important that we establish our sovereignty there and, if there are any difficulties with Indonesia, we certainly must exert our rights. Another important issue, the one that has been alluded to, is the question of flights to South Africa. Under the previous Prime Minister we were not encouraged to use flights to South Africa. It is our approach to discourage that and I believe that we will be asking in this chamber what the Opposition's attitude is to that matter. Is it to continue the policy of the previous Prime Minister of discouraging and forbidding Australian politicians from travelling on flights to South Africa? Another important issue for Australia is the decline in the Government of the Philippines. With the assassination of Benigno Aquino, the fabric of government in the Philippines is being broken down. One of the concerns that I have expressed in this place is that I believe the rule of law does not prevail in the Philippines. It is important that we recognise that fact in this place. One of the concerns for the Western Australian community, of course, is the question of Father Brian Gore. We hope that Father Brian Gore is being represented effectively by Australian Embassy officials in the Philippines. I wish to deal with one particular aspect that I believe is important in our foreign policy and foreign aid. That is the question of developing co-operative ventures between Australia and other countries with respect to foreign aid. It is important that we look at one aspect that is coming up, that is, the joint venture with the Government of Papua New Guinea concerning the development of the Ok Tedi copper concentrate project on the Fly River in Papua New Guinea. One of the proposals that is currently before the Government of Papua New Guinea is the proposal by Lombardo Marine in Australia for a joint venture with the Government of Papua New Guinea. It is a very important approach to foreign aid and to foreign policy because it envisages a co-operative venture between an Australian company and a Papua New Guinean operation. It also envisages joint employment. Australia, through Lombardo Marine, which, I might add, is based in Western Australia, in providing those barging services to the coast for the copper concentrate from Kiunga to Daru-a journey of about 800 kilometres-could provide an important operation with respect to a joint venture with the Government of Papua New Guinea. As I said earlier, I think we need in our foreign policy and our foreign aid to provide a capacity for joint ventures. This is an important joint venture, because it envisages the training of Papua New Guinean personnel and it will certainly result in employment both in Australia and in Papua New Guinea. I believe that engaging in such ventures is the important and proper way to go. The Australian Government has made a commitment to the building of fast light naval patrol boats. This commitment was given at the South Pacific Forum. Again, this is the sort of arena in which a company such as Lombardo Marine can make a major contribution. I believe that, under this Minister, we are working towards an independent and statesmanlike foreign policy. It is a difficult and very important task. As I have indicated, there are important issues on the foreign policy agenda at the moment which we cannot afford to take lightly. I commend the work of the Foreign Minister as would, I believe, the Australian community. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(9.48) —I rise to speak to the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. As I commented in the debate on the estimates for the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I am disturbed that this Department has also increased its public relations vote. It seems that every departmental estimate in this Budget has this problem. I wish not to comment in a personal way against the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who has come into the chamber and who is now sitting at the table, but to point out that the Hawke Labor Government has been in power for over half a year. There has been an economic summit, a technological summit, a Budget, extensive and some important overseas visits by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Foreign Minister, and excellent report on Timor presented to this place by members of the Parliament, a number of major international conferences and the partial exposure of a number of significant foreign policy issues. But still the Parliament has not had a comprehensive statement on foreign policy put to it by this Government. I remind the Minister and the chamber that elongated answers during Question Time do not constitute a foreign policy. This Parliament has been left to divine the intentions of the Government by reference to Labor Party Conference resolutions of 1982. As we are all aware, this is an extra-parliamentary body, and the Government has created a situation in which organisations outside this Parliament are treated as having greater authority than the Parliament itself. It should be emphasised that most of the discussion on foreign affairs in this chamber has been initiated by this side. I include the debate this week when we raised the major matter of our relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations. I support everything that the previous speaker from this side, the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), had to say on that matter. Of course, there have been the notable exceptions of the statement on ANZUS and one or two secondary statements relating to the presentation of parliamentary reports. Is it too much to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when he settles down to his task here in Canberra, to present to this Parliament a comprehensive statement of foreign policy for the benefit of the nation and for the benefit of our international associates so that we can then have an intelligent and meaningful debate? Questions answered in his absence by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) or by deputy Foreign Ministers, whatever their titles, do not constitute a foreign policy. I recently complimented the Minister when we were debating his reply to the reports by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on Namibia and the Middle East, and I am personally very pleased with the moderate and centre line that he is taking on most issues. I say to him in some anguish that it is particularly irksome to have to refer to the authority of the ALP Conference in 1982 on matters which ought properly to be the substance of statements in this chamber. That does not mean that we should confuse statements made by the Prime Minister regarding Conference decisions in 1982. Nonetheless, we, as intelligent, concerned and interested opposition want to refer to some authority for some of the actions and speeches being made by the Foreign Minister overseas. In view of the convolutions that have taken place in our area of the world since the Labor Party came into government, we think it is well past the time to have a major foreign affairs statement and debate in this chamber. I remind the Committee that the present Government when in opposition constantly made complaints along these lines about the lack of defence and foreign affairs statements. Yet it is worse than we were. I think the Foreign Minister has tried extremely hard, and I compliment him on his efforts to act as an adjudicator and as a carrier of messages in world affairs. I suspect that what has been missed by the Government, certainly by the Minister and by the new member for Canning (Ms Fatin)-Perhaps I should say the temporary member for Canning-when she spoke in the debate this week about her visit to a conference in Singapore, is the realisation of how incredibly sensitive the ASEAN countries are to the spoken word. I believe that all of us who are interested in this Department and in foreign affairs, as a result of our parliamentary experience, were very concerned to read the Reuters reports that senior diplomats in our foreign service were showing alarm at some of the reactions that have taken place in that part of the world. I share the Foreign Minister's view that some of the reactions in ASEAN have been exaggerated. I hope that we do not go overboard in this regard, but I believe that the present Minister has not been exercising sufficient care in the sensitive relationships that exist in this Asian Balkan situation, to use a general word. In the last few minutes at my disposal I would like to turn to another matter. Last month, before the Roxby Downs protesters camped out front, members of the Lebanese community journeyed to Canberra on 24 hours notice to express their anxieties about the horrible events taking place in their country. Again it was the Opposition which proposed a motion which focused the concerns of the Lebanese and which urged an approach which, if adopted, would place a high priority on creating opportunities for effective humanitarian relief for the many innocent victims of this dreadful fighting. Lebanon, since it became independent in 1943, has been ruled on the basis of an unwritten arrangement which shares powers between Christians, Sunni Moslems and Shi'ite Moslems. Those of us who have been to that war ravaged country have become suddenly aware of the 6,000-year history of the Phoenicians. One is suddenly aware of the way in which these people, through the millenniums, have been able to live one with the other, despite their religious backgrounds. All this broke down catastrophically in 1958 under the pressures of political changes in the Middle East and the situation has deteriorated since then. It is not my intention to recite again the history of this lamentable and tragic progress to what has become almost national dissolution. The situation remains traumatic. The recent tragic fighting has come about as the Lebanese army has set about the task of installing national authority over the militia groups, and this has produced a tense situation. Our basic aim should be to restore Lebanon to the Lebanese, but I acknowledge that this will be a most difficult task. Clearly international concern has to be directed at minimising the scope for passions to be let loose in indiscriminate retaliation. The people of Lebanon have our earnest sympathy in this very difficult time. I hope that the ambition of all Australians who were born in Lebanon is for all occupying forces on their soil to leave as soon as possible. The current ceasefire is a crucial development for the future of the country. It has already provided the opportunity for relief agencies such as the International Red Cross to move through barriers to give humanitarian relief and assistance. The sponsorship by Saudi Arabia of the current initiative to find a formula for the working of a political system which will give confidence to all communities to participate in the political process is an event of great importance. It is an initiative to be appreciated and applauded, and to which we can add our further support. There are too many Australians who were born in Lebanon-from all sectors-who do want to see us achieve that end. Let us not only hope but also pray that a way will again be found to restore the balance of opportunity for all Lebanese interest groups to find a sense of national co- operation and unity. This, I believe, should be one of the basic concerns and should be the source of a major statement in this chamber so that proper discussion, without heated emotion, can bring our policies to some intelligent conclusion. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(9.58) —It is with great pleasure that I participate in this debate on the estimates of the Department of Foreign Affairs which, as honourable members will know, I recently left. For that reason I might be forgiven by the Committee for beginning on a personal note. A career in the Department with whose estimates we are dealing is still one of the most worthwhile careers that people can undertake in the service of their country. It is not sufficiently realised-although perhaps more by members of this chamber than by most-that people who undertake that career undergo difficulties, deprivations and dangers. One of the most commendable acts that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) undertook as soon as he took office was to initiate an investigation into why these dangers are undergone more or less unsung by members of our diplomatic service. I also want to put on record the fact that in the difficult situation which I presented to the Department by becoming a candidate for the Opposition, as it then was, against the Fraser Government I was treated with great generosity and sensitivity by officers of the Department, including its permanent head. I must say that I gave them enough to worry about. I make the same comment in respect of Mr Street. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! It being 10 p.m., I shall report progress and seek leave to sit again. Progress reported. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Hayden-Mr Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr BILNEY —As I was saying, the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street), a former Foreign Minister, gave me every consideration. I turn to the situation within the Department which I believe has arisen over the last half a dozen years during the time of the previous Government. I think there is a perception on the part of a number of officers that the Department has declined in importance and relevance. While one may agree or disagree with that, in a sense the Department had a rather unlucky run, to begin at the political level, by virtue of the fact that we had an extremely assertive and aggressive Prime Minister who saw to it that his will was imposed on the foreign policy of this country without paying much attention to whoever happened to be Foreign Minister . The present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was in my opinion a very able Foreign Minister. But because he was a rival for the leadership of the Liberal Party, he was not given much of a run. The second Foreign Minister, Mr Street, was perhaps too close to the Prime Minister. This resulted in a situation in which the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and other agencies that were set up, such as the Office of National Assessments, seemed to me to detract from the real role that the Department was best able to perform. Perhaps the permanent heads of that period were also inhibited by the situation and were not able to be as assertive as they otherwise might have been. Another aspect was one that is often referred to, the so-called closed shop mentality in foreign affairs which resulted perhaps in some slow promotions. I believe that that situation has been greatly corrected over the last couple of years. It resulted in the loss of a number of able people from the Department. I am thinking of people from the area in which I used to work who have now gone to work for Mr Cain, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) or, in case it should be thought that it was all one way, to Mr Fraser in the case of Mr Alexander Downer, who subsequently went to work for the Leader of the Opposition and the Australian Chamber of Commerce. The net result was that the Department over those years became constrained in getting its teeth into the real issues of foreign Policy. I single out, for example, the treatment of international monetary institutions . We still continue, unlike most other countries in a comparable position, to treat the International Monetary Fund as though it were solely and wholly the monetary body set up at the time of the Bretton Woods Conference, rather than the highly politcal institution it has now become. I believe it is fortunate that now we have, as the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) pointed out, a very strong and capable Minister who is well able to stand on his own feet, who is concerned to explain our policy to Australians and to involve them in the formulation of it. The remarks of the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) were ill-chosen in that regard. An expenditure on public relations is precisely what should be done in a democratic society to involve the people of the country in the formulation of foreign policy. The honourable member for Stirling also dealt with the Association of South East Asian Nations. I fully support his remarks. I believe for too long we have allowed ourselves to be, as it were, bluffed by the ASEAN countries. It is of course no part of the present Minister's concern to upset the arrangements we have with the ASEAN countries. But I believe they will be fostered by healthy independence and a healthy regard for Australian interests, rather than the reverse. One other initiative of the present Minister that I commend is the much greater priority given to disarmament issues, particularly with regard to the setting up of an ambassador for disarmament, the so-called prince of peace. I believe that is an initiative that will command, and has already commanded, wide support. I turn to two or three particular items of the estimates before us. One that I have singled out, on which I believe more could have been done, is the question of travel included in divisions 315.2.04 and 316.2.01. It is often thought that overseas travel is just a junket and is undertaken purely for purposes of pleasure. In particular, travel in the conference vote has been slashed this year. I believe that will result in insufficient representation by Australia at meetings of importance to us. I do not refer only to officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs. I have had the experience of having to satisfy people that they were getting a fair go in relation to attending meetings which they regarded as important. That is something that could be looked at in the future. I believe the Government has done exceptionally well this year in the foreign aid area. I referred to this matter in my remarks in the Budget debate. But it is worth noting that we have made substantial progress for the first time in some years towards increasing the ratio of official development assistance to gross national product. It has risen from 0.47 per cent to 0.48 per cent or, depending on how it is measured, to 0.49 per cent. There has been a much greater emphasis this year on aid to the poorest countries. If one looks at table 8 of Budget Paper No. 9, one notes that there has been a considerable increase in our subventions to the International Development Association, the soft loan affiliate of the World Bank, and that is to be entirely commended. Similarly to be commended is the great expansion in DIF-the development import finance facility-which enables foreign countries to buy from Australian suppliers on terms which are favourable to them. We are doing ourselves and other countries a favour. I thoroughly commend it. In the short time available to me I mention also our policy towards South Africa, which the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) referred to in a way which makes one wonder which party he is representing. It seems to me that the great emphasis of our policy towards South Africa is on continuity of the policy which was first laid down when Mr Whitlam became Foreign Minister in 1972 and which has been continued with variations ever since. I speak of this with some feeling because I happened to be present at the United Nations that year. While Australia had taken a certain stance during the committee stage, by 4 December we were taking a stance which has been supported by governments ever since. I do not have time to go into details, but I believe that the present Government's policy towards South Africa is very much a matter of continuing the existing policy that was laid down in those days, which expresses in its various forms- Mr White-The policy is up for review, is it not? Mr BILNEY —Indeed, but it expresses in its various forms the abhorrence of apartheid which is felt on both sides of the House. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(10.08) —Mr Deputy Chairman, the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) correctly observed that since becoming Minister for Foreign Affairs I have not made a comprehensive statement to the Parliament on the matter of foreign affairs. If that is an issue of some concern to him, it must be a matter of even greater anxiety for him to have noted tonight that his party spokesman on foreign affairs is absent. The shadow Minister ceases to be a shadow; he becomes invisible. Mr Dobie —He is on special leave tonight, and you know it. Mr HAYDEN —We did not hear from him yesterday, we cannot hear from him today and we will not hear from him tomorrow. I merely make that observation in passing. The honourable member for Cook seeks to interject some defence for his colleagues. I allow him to get it on the record. Mr Dobie —It was known all day that he would not be here this evening. We tried to shift this debate-we were unable to do so-to meet his convenience. It would have met your convenience as well. It is unfair to make that comment about him. Mr HAYDEN —Fine, but the point was made with some humour, and I hope the honourable member observed that. Mr Dobie —It will not be in Hansard. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Cook will remain silent. I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member for Cook is correct; I have not made a comprehensive statement on foreign policy since becoming Minister. That is not the product of wilful discourtesy but rather follows a conscious purpose. We have already made a major statement on the ANZUS alliance in the Parliament. It followed the ANZUS consultations a little earlier in Washington. In a few weeks time at the latest I hope to make a substantial statement about another regional aspect of foreign policy. I had rather hoped to get in place a series of statements about particular aspects of foreign policy and then to link them together in a general overview. What has concerned me-I am quite candid about this-is that if one were to rush in as a neophyte in the practical terms of being a Foreign Minister, make a comprehensive statement on foreign policy and thereafter seek to force fit all major perceptions on foreign policy into that matrix, one may well discover in the light of experience that one would have preferred, having been given more time and experience, perhaps to have shaped a different mould. That is what I am about. I take seriously the criticism of the honourable member for Cook. At the first opportunity which I believe to be appropriate I will make such a comprehensive statement. I do not think it would be accurate for the honourable member to assert dogmatically that there has been no communication in the Parliament on the matter of foreign affairs. There have been a number of debates on this topic. I freely concede that most of these have come about as a result of matters of public importance or, in one or two instances, notices of motion given by the Opposition on matters of concern in the field of foreign policy. But there is nothing novel or special about that; that is the proper function of the Opposition. As I recollect it, in each instance, with the exception of one occasion this week when there was a slightly more vigorous exchange between the Government and the Opposition, we have pretty much settled on bipartisanship. There have been instances of disagreement in those debates. Not surprisingly, there has been a general view that respective parties would have done whatever the job was much better in government than the other party would have done. I think that is a well known symptom of the Australian style of politics and government in this chamber. What is more important is that one sees fairly clear evidence of a consistent pattern showing up in foreign policy in which there is a substantial area of agreement on both sides of the Parliament. I suggest that that pattern really started in the period 1972-75 under the Whitlam Labor Government. I argue that, as in many other fields, but particularly in foreign policy, under the then leadership of Prime Minister Whitlam it was a period of inspirational activity in foreign policy. New directions were adopted and fresh approaches were accepted. I believe that the Opposition at that time-the present Opposition-and the new government in power under Gough Whitlam had a coincidence of views which were much more relevant to the modern age than had been the case in the past. I suggest that foreign policy in that earlier period suffered from a mustiness of perception that had become dimmed over the years-a form of perception that had been shaped in a much earlier time and which had ceased to be relevant to the needs of this country. In all those circumstances, if one accepts that, one can see that even under the succeeding government of Mr Fraser, under the foreign ministry of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and then the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr Street) whilst there were differences on particular issues or on some aspects of foreign policy, a common thread had been established in that earlier period which was evident and developing. I assert that that is very much the case today. The reason I stress that point is that I believe that as much as possible it is important, if in no other area, that the spokespeople in the various political parties try to adopt some common understandings about Australia's position in the world, its national interest within the international scene and how best to promote those matters. That is especially true when any of us are speaking overseas. Whilst we may, within the elegant style of parliamentary exchanges in Australia , resort to the cudgel rather than the rapier, I do not believe that overseas it pays to denigrate this country or to undermine its credibility or the respect to which it is entitled internationally. I think it is to the credit of all of us that this is very much the practice these days. That is a reflection of greater maturity in respect of these matters which is evident in the Parliament. Parenthetically I observe that the role of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has been invaluable in injecting this sort of maturing process. I recall how much resistance there was in the 1960s on the part of the Australian Labor Party to joining that Joint Committee. I recall all sorts of dire predictions and quite genuine objections to that Committee being articulated by opponents within the Labor Party. Accordingly, the Labor Party stood apart from the Committee for several years. I believe that to have been unfortunate for the Labor Party in that it deprived the Labor Party, at an important stage in foreign policy development in this country, of access to important information and, accordingly, of the opportunity better to shape and refine the perceptions of foreign policy. Since the Australian Labor Party joined the Joint Committee it has become abundantly evident that there is a very high level of co-operation and common understanding between the representatives of the various parties who are members of that Committee on this important topic . One of the material results has been a series of splendid reports-very largely enjoying bipartisan support-coming from that Committee. Its reports have been commended widely. I have quite unrestrainedly commended them in this Parliament. I observe that among those who have served on sub-committees of that Joint Committee responsible for some of those reports has been the honourable member for Cook whose comments tonight, while critical in some respects-I note those criticisms with respect, although I do not necessarily agree with them-were measured, thoughtful, constructive and, I believe, helped to contribute to a positive debate on the subject of foreign policy. It is the view of the Government that there are a number of issues in foreign policy which we wish to see presented much more actively and formulated in sharper tones in appropriate forums. Prime amongst the instances is the issue of disarmament. It is not my intention to go over the initiatives we have already taken in this area but I can report to honourable members that the overwhelming impression of the delegates to the United Nations General Assembly, currently convened in New York, is that there is a greater evidence of concern about this single issue, more than any other apparent at that Assembly. More than that, not only is this the dominant concern but also there is more concern about the stability of international relations across borders and security and continuity of government administration within borders evident at the current United Nations General Assembly, according to observers who have many years participation at such assemblies behind them, than can be recollected at any time in the past decade or more. The reason for that, of course, is, as the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) emphasised in what was a rather masterful display, covering a wide field, compactly but in an informed way, that there is throughout the world today evidence of serious conflict. That serious conflict, in a number of instances, has a latest capability of providing a flashpoint that could ignite a major conflagration. That in turn could draw the major powers of the world into a most undesirable confrontation with consequences for all of us. It is in that context that we have decided to promote much more actively- certainly much more publicly-the issue of disarmament and arms control; the issue of peace. We are not talking just about nuclear weapons although these are dominant in out minds these days. We are also talking about conventional arms. Some $700,000m a year is being spent on armament-an extraordinarily huge amount of money. I always find it perplexing that it is comparatively so easy for countries, developing countries as much as the developed countries, to divert resources into armament spending and yet so extraordinarily difficult for them to make an adequate effort in the production of investable funds for the development of underdeveloped countries. Accordingly, we find that the North- South dialogue today, while at full heat in rhetoric, is extremely deficient in actual action on the ground. There is talk about proposals for a global dialogue as a sort of touch stone for getting moving the principles explicitly espoused in the North-South dialogue. Associated expressions such as the Brandt Commission report, the New International Economic Order and so on have been a touch stone for getting these principles moving. My great reservation is that in trying to get a great global dialogue under way all we will be doing will be shifting the discussion, the talk, the lung beating which has been under way for so long in forums of the United Nations-not productively I regret to say-into another big tent with just as little productivity. My own hunch is that if we are to get those principles moving a series of ad hoc initiatives will have to be undertaken. They can be undertaken concurrently from different spheres. In this I bear in mind the work of the Commonwealth Secretariat in introducing a working paper on a new Bretton Woods agreement. One may have reservations about the expectations which some countries seem to have about a new Bretton Woods agreement. It will not be a panacea should some new arrangements be put in place. If there are fundamental deficiencies in domestic economic management for a country, bringing about some sort of new arrangement will not remedy those. But I believe there is a very strong argument for exploring what the deficiencies are-they are quite clearly there in the present international financial arrangement-and working to try to establish again within the ad hoc initiatives, a series of ad hoc responses to some of those problems and incrementally bring about a process of change. The point I am making, however, is that here is an illustration of how a particular principle which is quite explicit in the North-South dialogue is now being put into operation. Perhaps other types of platforms can be brought into being or mobilised where they exist to take up other aspects of these principles and to start getting some movement. I can see no other way for any really concrete movement in the future unless it is done in this sort of manner. The need of the developing countries in the world is not so much for great gushes of the wisdom of what Western thought is all about but rather some very material things which will allow them to get access to sufficient investable funds at reasonable rates of interest and to have real access to trading opportunities instead of the florid flourish of politicians' promises about freer trade when they are overseas and practising more protection when they are at home. I move on from the North-South debate and our clear commitment in that respect to the issue of human rights, which is another matter that exercises us greatly as a democratic socialist party. The first thing one has to acknowledge is that, of course, there are clear cultural differences between societies and therefore between countries. There are different ways of approaching the way in which the rights of people are regarded in a society as a result of cultural experiences and historical background. But when all these things are said I have to say that I continually come to one conclusion from my experience over a long time now, and that is simply that no one likes to be deprived of freedom. People, wherever they are, like to be free. They like to be free in the political and social sense but they also like to be free in the economic sense. Those of us in developed countries who have the deep commitment to small 'l' liberal principles of human rights and freedom for individuals in the community must also recognise that these things become very abstract and remote and could become quite irrelevant if, at the same time, in a developing country the riches are not there and the abundance not available that we are used to. These things do not have the relevance they have for us unless bread and cheese is also available by which people can live. It is a simple metaphor. We are talking about guarantees for economic rights. To be effective these things must be linked as well. One could raise a number of other matters if one wished to but I do not wish to delay the House much further on those matters. I will make one brief reference to the development assistance program, the overseas aid program, of the Australian Government. This year, in real terms, the provision of funds represents a 4 per cent increase. That is a substantial increase. One may look at the gross domestic product figure, that is aid as a proportion of GDP on a deposit basis, and note that in spite of the real increase of 4 per cent this year there is a reduction in the amount of aid as a proportion of gross domestic product as against the preceding year. Last year there was no growth in the economy-in fact it went into reverse. This year we are expecting growth of between 3 to 4 per cent. That is a simple explanation for that statistical quirk . I think that the more important comparison or statistical reference, however, is the proposition of aid as a proportion of gross domestic product on what is called an encashment basis. This means the actual spending of money, as distinct from an undertaking to provide money which may not be called upon until some later time in the near future. Encashment means the actual demand on funds from within the Budget. In that respect we have the figure up to 0.48 per cent of GDP , which is the highest it has been since 1975-76 when the last Budget of the last Labor Government was presented. I do not want to labour the point that we are smarter than the conservative coalition parties were when they were in government. The conservative coalition parties had a commendable record in the provision of aid during their period of office. It was a very difficult period in terms of economic management. It is still a very difficult period in terms of economic management. They set out to maintain the Australian Development Assistance Bureau at respectable levels allowing for all of those difficulties. We aim at doing the same. I do not believe, except that we work very hard at manufacturing them, that there are any significant or important differences between us in that field. The final matter I raise concerns South Africa. The honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) referred to South Africa in his comments. I will concentrate on one aspect alone. I noted in one of the morning newspapers a reference to Mr Oppenheimer, who has declared that the so-called constitutional reforms in South Africa are not reforms. He will be voting against them in South Africa and urging people in South Africa to vote against them. Of course he is correct. They are not reforms. They are nothing more than a thin and fictitious veneer aimed at trying to give some respectability to what is a very poisonous and a very cruel form of racial dictatorship which has been practised in that country intolerably for too long. The proposals are to replace a unicameral system with an arrangement whereby there will be three houses: A House of Assembly with 168 white members, a House of Representatives with 85 coloured members and a House of Deputies with 45 Indian members-no black members. Let us put that to one side and note the combination of 85 coloured members and 45 Indian members respectively in the House of Representatives and the House of Deputies which is a total of 130, falling well short of the total of the 168 white members in the House of Assembly. The mathematics are obvious. The whites maintain their dominance. It is merely a manipulation for the purposes of deception. It is a crude deception. It is an objectionable deception. And it fools no one. Under the so-called constitutional reforms-and they are certainly not reforms- the pivotal function will rest with the Executive position of President. That of Prime Minister will be abolished. The President will have wide-ranging powers. He will have the authority to appoint and dismiss Ministers, convene and dissolve Parliament, proclaim martial law, declare war, asset to or refuse Bills and to send Bills back to Parliament for reconsideration. Very importantly he will have the authority to determine whether matters are matters that are called 'own affairs', that is they are peculiar to a particular House and are therefore dealt with only by that House-or are 'general affairs', in which case they will be dealt with by all of the Houses. That means, of course, that in the final result the white conservatives from the National Party will continue to determine the destiny of that country and, where it suits them, ignore as crudely and as cruelly as they have done so often in the past the views of the non-white members of the South African community. In other words, they will maintain a process of steady strangulation of the expressions and the aspirations of the non-white people in this newly formulated political system, if it ever comes into existence. The President, of course, will be elected by a college of 50 whites, 20 coloured people and 13 Indians. So, again, all the power has been concentrated in the hands of the whites. As I said, this is a contrivance-and a very crude contrivance-which deceives no one. The blacks are not represented. That is the most appalling aspect of this cruel mockery that the practitioners of apartheid seek to masquerade as constitutional reform. The blacks number more than 70 per cent of the South African population. But they are excluded from any meaningful role at all in the political processes of South Africa. The flimsy pretext put up to seek to excuse this exclusion is that the blacks will have their political role, their authority and their destiny decided by themselves in their own homelands. Putting to one side the economic disadvantages of many, if not all of these areas, one discovers that some simple statistics show the brazen unfairness of what is being practised here. There are 20 million blacks in South Africa. Under the homelands arrangement, they will have 13 per cent of the total area of land. There are five million whites in South Africa. They will have 87 per cent of the total area of land in South Africa. So the rampant injustices, the crudeness of the policy and all of the cruel malicious and nasty excesses that we have seen in the past will continue. This is not reform at all. It is a mockery, a provocation and a crude caricature that is being foisted on the people of South Africa, and all in an attempt to deceive the people of the West. For our part, we revile this grand but malicious infamy against the fundamental rights of man in South Africa. The final point in all of this is that to this stage, since the election of this Government, we have been following the principles-in relation to our responses to apartheid where it affects sportspeople and the apartheid policy where it affects our relationships with South Africa-we have been following the principles which were pursued by the last conservative government-the Fraser Government. Those principles were very much laid down by the earlier Whitlam Government. So, there is continuity in this area. There has been no deviation at all. I noted, when I was absent from Australia, some critical commentary about South African women squash players participating in a squash competition in Western Australian. The advice I received was that on balance-and a very fine balance-we followed the principles which had been followed by the previous Government and which, before that, had been established very much by the Labor Government. It had to be accepted that the women from South Africa participating in that competition did not come forward as representatives of their country or as members of a team from that country, but that they were there as individual participants very much in the same way as individual participants in golf have come forward and have been allowed to compete in such competitions in Australia in the past. Accordingly, in those circumstances and bearing in mind the Brisbane code of conduct which was thrashed out last year on this subject, it was decided to allow those women to participate in that competition. We have not deviated-and we do not intend to deviate-from the principles which were laid down. We have instituted a review which should come before the Cabinet next week when it considers the sporting aspects of apartheid policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has declared unequivocally that at the very least there will be no reduction and no diminution in the principles which will be pursued as a result of that review as against those which are in place at the moment. That is my view. That is the objective which I will certainly be firmly pursuing in any discussions on this matter. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Remainder of Bill-by leave-taken as a whole, and agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Dawkins)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 23 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.41) —Clause 3 of Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 1983-84 states: The Minister for Finance may issue out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and apply for the services specified in Schedule 2, in respect of the year ending 30 June 1984, the sum of $1,861,432,000. Other references are made to the Department of Finance. Tonight I express my concern about whether such sums can be matched by revenue. I say that because in the last few days in this place certain actions have been taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to support new and very worrying issues of tax. Motion (by Mr Holding) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— 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.Hayden, W. G. 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. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.Lusher, S. A. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Cohen, B. Goodluck, B. J.Bowen, Lionel Hicks, N. J.Morris, Peter O'Keefe, F. L.Keogh, L. J. Andrew, J. N.Gorman, R. N. J. Macphee, I. M.Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith? Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I wish to address the House on the third reading. Mr Holding —I move: That the question be now put. Mr Tuckey —This is disgraceful. I have matters of great importance. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The question I put to the House was whether it was the wish of the House to proceed to the third reading forthwith. I did not get a reply before the honourable member for O'Connor, who did not have the call, rose. Mr Hodgman —A committee is required. The CHAIRMAN —Is it the wish of the Committee to take the Bill as a whole? Mr Sinclair-No, clause by clause. Mr Tuckey-Mr Chairman, I want to speak on clause 1. The CHAIRMAN —The question is that Schedule 2 be agreed to. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) put: That progress be reported. A division having been called and the bells being rung- Mr Sinclair-Mr Chairman, on a point of order, are we now voting on clause 1 or the Schedule? The CHAIRMAN —Order! We have dealt with the Schedule. Mr Sinclair-We have not. We disagreed and asked for a vote on it. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Schedule 2 was called on. The Minister moved that progress be reported. Mr Sinclair-Mr Chairman, you said that the question was that the Schedule be agreed to. We said that we disagreed with that. We have called for a division on the Schedule being called on. On the point of order, the Minister cannot negate a motion that you put in Committee on that question. You have now two questions before the Chair. I suggest that you put the first question to the Committee and resolve that before you move to the next point. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The issue is that the Committee was not prepared to take the Bill as a whole. Mr Sinclair-No, that has been resolved. That was put to the House by Mr Speaker . You have now put the first question. We have called for a division on that first question. The subsequent motion by the Acting Leader of the House cannot be accommodated until you have dealt with that first question. The CHAIRMAN —The Minister can move that progress be reported. Mr Sinclair-He cannot when we have a question before the Committee. We have a question before the chamber. You put it to the chamber and you cannot negate the question before the chamber. You can when that question is resolved but not before then. The CHAIRMAN —I have given my ruling on the matter. Mr Sinclair-Mr Chairman, we move dissent from your ruling. The normal order of procedures of this place requires that there be an ordinary understanding of debating practice. If it is not possible in this place to accommodate business in the way in which it should be it is an absolute disgrace to democracy. There is no basis by which this Parliament can survive if it appears to negate parliamentary practice, ordinary debating practice or the systems of this place. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I ask the right honourable gentleman to resume his seat. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.Lusher, S. A. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Cohen, B. Goodluck, B. J.Bowen, Lionel Hicks, W. J.Morris, Peter O'Keefe, F. L.Keogh, L. J. Andrew, J. N.Gorman, R. N. J. Macphee, I. M.Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Dissent from Ruling Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(11.03) —Mr Chairman, in accordance with the notice I have tabled with you in writing, I move: That the Chairman's ruling be dissented from. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Chairman-Hon. Les Johnson) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 30 —— Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.Lusher, S. A. Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Kelly, R. J.Bilney, G. N. Kent, L.Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lindsay, E. J.Brumby, J. M. McHugh, J.Campbell, G. Maher, M. J.Charles, D. E. Mayer, H.Charlesworth, R. I. Mildren, J. B.Chynoweth, R. L. Milton, P.Cross, M. D. Morris, AllanCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mountford, J. G.Darling, E. E. O'Neil, L. R. T.Dawkins, J. S. Punch, G. F.Duffy, M. J. Reeves, J. E.Edwards, Ronald Saunderson, J.Everingham, D. N. Scholes, G. G. D.Fatin, W. F. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Fry, K. L. Snow, J. H.Gayler, J. Staples, P. R.Gear, G. Steedman, A. P.Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C.Hand, G. L. Uren, T.Hayden, W. G. Wells, D. McM.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Hollis, C. Willis, R.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Cohen, B. Goodluck, B. J.Bowen, Lionel Hicks, W. J.Morris, Peter O'Keefe, F. L.Keogh, L. J. Andrew, J. N.Gorman, R. N. J. Macphee, I. M.Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the negative. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Dawkins) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(11.13) —Mr Speaker- Motion (by Mr Holding) put: That the question be now put. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— 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. Theophaneous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. 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. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.Lusher, S. A. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Cohen, B. Goodluck, B. J.Bowen, Lionel Hicks, N. J.Morris, Peter O'Keefe, F. L.Keogh, L. J. Andrew, J. N.Gorman, R. N. J. Macphee, I. M.Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Original question put: That the House do now adjourn. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 31 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 31 —— 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.Hayden, W. G. 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. Aldred, K. J. McGauran, P. J.Anthony, J. D. McVeigh, D. T.Braithwaite, R. A. Millar, P. C.Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Newman, K. E.Cameron, Ian (Teller) Porter, J. R.Dobie, J. D. M. Robinson, IanDrummond, P. H. Ruddock, P. M.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Fisher, P. S. Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hodgman, W. M. Street, A. A.Howard, J. W. Tuckey, C. W.Hunt, R. J. D. White, P. N. D.Lloyd, B. Wilson, I. B. C.Lusher, S. A. Blewett, N. Fife, W. C.Morrison, W. L. Coleman, W. P.Child, J. Rocher, A. C.McLeay, Leo Groom, R. J.Cohen, B. Goodluck, B. J.Bowen, Lionel Hicks, N. J.Morris, Peter O'Keefe, F. L.Keogh, L. J. Andrew, J. N.Gorman, R. N. J. MacPhee, I. M.Jacobi, R. MacKellar, M. J. R. In division- Mr Scholes-Mr Speaker, would you advise the honourable member who is taking certain risks that he is not covered by privilege in the remarks he is making? Mr SPEAKER-The point of order taken by the Minister for Defence is quite correct. The matter is not recorded in Hansard and, if reported in the Press, would not be covered by privilege. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.26 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 October 1983: Navigation Act-Navigation (Orders) Regulations-1983- No. 10-Marine Orders, Part 12 No. 11-Marine Orders, Part 41 No. 12-Marine Orders, Part 48 The following papers were presented: Mr Aldred-Australian Labor Party-Minutes of the Camberwell Branch Meeting of 2 August 1983. Mr Howard-Record unemployment rate-News release by the Hon. John Howard, M.P., dated 13 October 1983. Mr Tuckey-Coomel Pty Ltd-Sale of land at Armadale, W.A.-Memo to members of Coomel. Letter to Mr Colin Gardiner, Liquidator, from Mr G. J. Robertson. Mr Tuckey-Two complimentary slips McLaren and Stewart, letter to members of Coomel P/L, copy of letter (3 pages) signed G. J. Robertson to C. Gardiner ( Liquidator) dated 6.4.79. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 383 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 24 August 1983: (1) Is he able to say how the official Soviet Union policy on (a) water fluoridation, (b) fluoride dietary supplements, (c) topical use of fluorides and (d) milk fluoridation differs from that of (i) the World Heath Organisation and (ii) the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. (2) Is he also able to say whether the report of the Safe Drinking Water Committee of the United States National Research Council National Academy of Sciences of 1977 or the WHO monograph Fluorides and Human Health recommended (a) better criteria for diagnosing dental fluorosis, (b) assessment of fluorosis in communities with 1 ppm fluoride in water supplies, (c) bone and blood fluoride levels in patients with chronic renal disease in high and low fluoride communities be correlated with x-ray, histology and clinical findings, (d) determination of inorganic components in food fluoride, (e) repetition of Rappaport's mongolism study and, if confirmed, intensive case-finding to supplement his figures, (f) mortality statistics comparing fluoridated and other areas, (g) in vivo studies of possible cellular tolerance to fluoride, (h) repetition of Manocha et al (1975) primate enzyme studies with 5 ppm water and better controls, (i) repetition of low F chromosomal studies of mice, (j) dominant lethal studies in rodents by mating males on various F dosages with normal females and (k) more evaluation or cancer and congenital deformity rates in fluoridated versus other cities. (3) Have any of the recommendations referred to in part (2) been (a) publicly acknowledged, (b) supported and (c) acted upon by Australian authorities; if so, which recommendations. Mr Dawkins —The Acting Minister for Health has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) The Australian Embassy in Moscow has advised that the USSR supports the fluoridation of water, and at present 120 cities are using fluoridated water while the procedure is being introduced in a further 60 cities. The World Health Organization and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia NH and MRC recommend the fluoridation of water. The World Health Assembly of WHO adopted the following resolution in 1978: 'Urges Member States to consider, within national plans for the prevention and control of oral disease, the fluoridation of public water supplies, where and when appropriate.' The NH and MRC first recommended fluoridation in 1953 and has reaffirmed this support on a number of occasions, the most recent being in 1979. (b) The Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies reported (page 269) that fluoride tablets are used in USSR as a dietary supplement. While WHO has not made a recommendation specifically concerning fluoride dietary supplements, the World Health Assembly of WHO adopted the following resolution in 1978: 'Where fluoridation of public drinking water supplies is not feasible for technical or other reasons, alternative methods of achieving an optimum daily intake or application of fluoride should be considered.' In 1977 NH and MRC made the following recommendation: 'Council recommends that in non-fluoridated areas the following dietary fluoride supplements should be taken- 0-12 months-0.25 mg fluoride as fluoride ion daily 12.24 months-0.5 mg fluoride as fluoride ion daily 24 months-1 mg fluoride as fluoride ion daily. Ideally these supplements should be taken until the age of 18 years.' (c) The report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies states (page 269) that fluoride solutions are used for topical application in USSR. The WHO and NH and MRC support the topical use of fluorides to assist in the control of dental caries. In 1978 NH and MRC adopted the following recommendation: 'A fluoride dentrifice be used in home dental care for children and adults. A fluoride prophylactic paste be used in dental practice for the removal of plaque , and other cleaning and polishing procedures. The application of fluoride preparations by trained personnel should be encouraged in non-fluoridated areas, and that the need for such application in fluoridated areas should be assessed by a dentist.' (d) Information is not currently available concerning the use of milk as a vehicle for fluoride in USSR. Neither WHO nor NH and MRC has expressed a policy specifically concerning the fluoridation of milk. (2) The Safe Drinking Water Committee of the United States National Academy of Science's National Research Council did make research recommendations along the lines of the eleven recommendations abstracted by the honourable member. The 1970 WHO monograph Fluorides and Human Health, comprising a series of review papers, made no recommendations. (3) The matters referred to in the above recommendations, related specifically to the findings of particular American studies. They were considered, however, by the Committee of Inquiry into the Fluoridation of Victorian Water Supplies. While its recommendations did not specifically refer to those of the US Safe Drinking Water Committee, it was concluded in Section 19.7 of the Report that: 'Assertions that fluoridation of water supplies at recommended levels has toxic , carcinogenic, mutagenic, teratogenic or allergenic effects on humans are not supported by sound, scientific evidence. Whilst a null proposition can never be proved, there is massive evidence to show that fluoridation at recommended levels has no harmful effect on the health of the community'. Question No. 485 Mr Street asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: Is he able to say what (a) government and (b) non-government organisations have made voluntary contributions to the World Disarmament Campaign; if so, what are they? Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) The following governments have made contributions to the World Disarmament Campaign including contributions to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) which fall within the framework of the Campaign: Country Contribution Canada $C70,000 (for WDC) $C30,000 (for UNIDIR) Finland FM250,000 India Rs1,000,000 Indonesia $US5,000 Iraq $US10,000 Mexico $US50,000 Norway $US45,000 (for UNIDIR) Sweden SKr500,000 USSR 1,500,000 roubles Byelorussian 100,000 roubles Ukrainian SSR 200,000 roubles Bulgaria 20,000 leva Mongolia $1,000 in tugriks (Mongolian currency) GDR 100,000 Marks Romania 300,000 lei Hungary 250,000 forints (b) The only large contribution to the World Disarmament Campaign by a non- government organisation was that of Rissho Kosei-kai, a Japanese lay Buddhist organisation, which gave $1,000,000. This money is in a trust fund, the proceeds from which 'will be used for activities to promote peace and disarmament, including the World Disarmament Campaign, the work of NGOs, and various public information efforts related to peace, development, the environment and human rights'. There have also been a number of small contributions from various non- government organisations and individuals totalling $US11,482. On 28 August 1983 I announced that the Australian Government has decided to make a voluntary contribution of $50,000: $30,000 to the World Disarmament Campaign and $20,000 to the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research. This contribution is additional to Australia's contribution to United Nations disarmament activities through the regular budget of the United Nations. A World Disarmament Campaign pledging conference will be held in New York on 27 October 1983 when Australia and other countries will formally pledge their contributions to the Campaign. Question No. 418 Mr Simmons asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 September 1983: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the rapid infestation of Paterson's curse throughout New South Wales following the easing of drought conditions. (2) Is this also a problem in other parts of Australia; if so, can he advise what action the Government proposes, to control future infestations. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am aware that the spread of Paterson's curse has accelerated in certain parts of New South Wales in the past few months following drought breaking rain. (2) Paterson's curse is a declared noxious weed throughout Victoria and parts of New South Wales, South Australia and Western Australia. The primary responsibility for the control of weeds rests with the individual landholder. However, in the case of weeds which are declared to be noxious, State and local Government authorities become involved in control programs. The Commonwealth has no direct responsibility for weed control, except in its own territories, but it may be indirectly involved in control programs through the research work of CSIRO. CSIRO had developed a biological control program for Paterson's curse and made a trial release of insect control agents in July 1980. The program was subsequently suspended by a perpetual injunction taken out by two apiarists and two graziers and agreed to by CSIRO. This injunction prevented a continuation of the program and nothing further can be done by CSIRO until the injunction is lifted. The Australian Agricultural Council, of which I am Chairman, is concerned about the future of biological control programs and at its recent meeting endorsed the preparation of complementary Commonwealth/State legislation for assessing and, where appropriate, approving proposals for biological control of any weed or pest species. The proposed legislation is intended to provide for the nomination and advertisement of target species. It will allow for public enquiry and for appeal processes. It will also provide authority to release control agents and establish a method for Commonwealth/State agreement on proposals through the Australian Agricultural Council. Steps have been taken to develop the legislation but the timing of its introduction has yet to be determined. Question No. 499 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice on 13 September 1983: (1) What action is his Department taking in relation to the industry allegation that canned ham from Spain has been dumped in Australia. (2) What is the general situation in relation to imported canned ham since the previous Government took action in the early 1980s. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Following inquiries made by the Australian industry, the Minister informed the industry in writing on 15 April 1983 that his Department was aware of imports of canned ham from Spain and that on the basis of available preliminary evidence, dumping may not be taking place. The industry was also advised that the Department was prepared to examine the matter further but it was necessary for a formal complaint to be lodged. The industry has not yet lodged a formal complaint. (2) In 1980, the dumping complaint against exports of canned ham from Romania and Yugoslavia was suspended following the acceptance of voluntary price undertakings from the exporters involved. The acceptance of such an undertaking is a satisfactory method of resolution to a dumping complaint provided such an undertaking as to future price removes any injury which has, or will be caused to the industry. Further overseas inquiries were conducted in December 1982. Revised price undertakings were accepted by the Minister on 14 June 1983 in accordance with sub-section 8 (2A) of the Customs Tariff (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. The voluntary undertakings by exporters in Romania and Yugoslavia not to export below the normal values represent the equivalent of any possible action available under the Customs (Anti-Dumping) Act 1975. The undertakings will be reviewed again when movements in overseas domestic prices warrant such action. Imports of canned ham from Romania and Yugoslavia are accorded developing country preference when imported under quota arrangements. Quotas of 900 tonnes a year of canned ham from developing countries were imposed from 1 June 1982. Imports of canned ham are monitored by the Department. There have not been any imports of canned ham from Romania or Yugoslavia this calendar year to the end of August. Total imports of canned ham from all sources since 1 January 1983 are 16.8 tonnes. This includes 15 tonnes from Spain in January 1983. The date of the last import of canned ham was in February 1983 of less than one tonne from West Germany. Question No. 533 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Did he announce in the House on 23 August 1983 the introduction of a three year program called the Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme which will extend ABC radio and television services to areas not presently receiving such services. (2) Is there any difference in principle between this scheme and the three year program for improved television reception announced by his predecessor on 17 August 1982. (3) Which areas are to receive improved radio and television reception in stages 2 and 3 of the scheme. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. My predecessor's announcement referred to the final year of the Remote Area Television (RATV) Program which, beginning in 1980, has now brought ABC television to 75 out of a planned 77 communities. The Remote or Underserved Communities Scheme (RUCS) which I announced on 23 August 1983 is a new scheme designed to bring both ABC radio to 12 communities in eastern Australia and Tasmania and ABC television services to 42 communities throughout Australia over the three-year period from 1983-84 to 1985-86. (3) In my statement of 23 August I said that the communities to be served by ABC television have yet to be firmly identified, but that I expect to make an announcment giving their names once detailed field studies are completed. My statement of 23 August also gave the names of the 12 communities to be provided with ABC radio services. They are: Bombala, Cootamundra, Corowa, Moruya , Narooma, Nowra (N.S.W.), Wangaratta (Vic.), Rosebery, Savage River, Strahan, Waratah and Zeehan (Tas). Question No. 535 Mr Campbell asked the Minister for Defence Support, upon notice, on 14 September 1983: (1) Is there an Australian component in the Mercedes-Benz contract for the supply of trucks to the Army. (2) What contractual obligations does Mercedes-Benz have and how are they fulfilled. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I can confirm that there is an Australian component in the Mercedes-Benz contract for the supply of the 4 ton truck to the Army. (2) Contract value on Mercedes-Benz is $57.75m at July 1981 prices. The contract calls for virtually 100 per cent Australian Industry Participation under two heads Australian content in locally manufactured vehicles to a total of $24m that is, 42 per cent. This obligation is met progressively as trucks are delivered and now stands at $4.08m. Plus a further $34m in offset orders on Australian industry for components to be incorporated in other Mercedes vehicles. This obligation is to be fulfilled not later than 5 years after the due date of delivery of the last vehicle in June 1987. To date, Mercedes-Benz have ordered components worth $4.7m against this obligation. In the event of non-achievement, the contract provides for liquidated damages as follows: for each 1 per cent shortfall in Australian manufactured content-compensation $ 50,000 for each $1m or pro rata shortfall in offset-compensation $50,000.