Thursday, 3 November 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: 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 Bilney,Mr Braithwaite,Mr Burr,Mrs Child,Mr Connolly,Mr Ronald Edwards ,Ms Fatin,Mr Hawker,Mr Hodgman,Mr Mildren,Mr Milton,Mr Peter Morris,Mr Simmons and Mr Snow. 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 Mrs Child and Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of Australia, believing that men and women are equal but different, convinced that Australia can provide equal opportunity for all citizens without foreign treaties, concerned that ratifying the UN Discrimination Convention would give a Communist-dominated international committee the power to judge Australia's laws, humbly petition that your honourable House will not ratify the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and we will always thus petition. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian Cadet Corps has great value in the development of youth in the schools of Australia. That the reorganisation of the Australian Cadet Corps will disperse accumulated expertise and interest of those involved, and in some cases negate the efforts of many people over many years. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will reconsider its decision and that the Government will not reorganise the Australian Cadet Corps. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the principle of the inadmissibility of discrimination and proclaims that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights and that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind including distinction based on sex. However extensive discrimination against women continues to exist. It is an obstacle to the participation of women on equal terms with men, in the political , social, economic and cultural life of this country. It hampers the growth of the prosperity of society and the family and makes more difficult the full development of the potentialities of women in the service of this country and of humanity. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government will act to ratify the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That discrimination in provision of work, in appointment to jobs and in promotion, currently exists in Australia on particular grounds including, inter alia, grounds of race, ethnic origin, marital status, pregnancy, sex and of sexual preference; and that discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits is currently exercised against particular groups of individuals-in particular against married women. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in Commonwealth employment, in employment of individuals under Federal awards, and in employment of all persons in areas over which Commonwealth equal opportunity legislation should have jurisdiction; and that appropriate laws be formulated and passed to outlaw discrimination in the provision of unemployment benefits to all persons without regard to sex or marital status. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Gear. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 freedom. It could also be a means of undermining the traditional family structure of our nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should delay the Bill and ask: That the Government set up a Joint Parliamentary Committee to examine- (a) the implications of the U.N. Covenant for public policy, the extent of Australian commitments, responsibilities and accountability in terms of the Covenant; (b) the full effects of the Sex Discrimination Bill 1983 for public policy in giving effect to the U.N. Convention. The Terms of Reference of the Joint Parliamentary Committee to be widely publicised and oral and written submissions sought from the interested organisations and individuals. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth: That we women of Australia feel the threat of the nuclear arms race to our world, our children and our future. That the threat of nuclear war in Australia is greatly increased by the presence of foreign bases. That we affirm Pine Gap near Alice Springs is one such key foreign communication base. Is a crucial link in the arms race, used for locating targets and therefore a prime target in the event of nuclear war. That we support the national womens' action to oppose the presence of Pine Gap and call for the removal of all foreign bases in Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are acutely aware of the adverse economic impact on the grain growing industry of the 15 per cent tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. Your petitioners are aware that the Federal Government as the duly elected national government of the Australian people apparently wishes to assist the local grain harvester manufacturing industry. Your petitioners are aware that the cost of that protection is being involuntarily borne by the grain growing industry. We petition the Federal Government to relieve the grain growing industry of the unfair and discriminatory tariff duty on imported grain harvesters. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Keefe. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, as members of a school Parent Club object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to school Parent Clubs in government schools. 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 Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will- 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the citizens of New South Wales respectfully 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 Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia respectfully showeth- last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50 per cent of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Steele Hall. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain elected representatives and officers of local governments in Australia shows that: General revenue grants to local government under personal income tax sharing entitlements have increased by 8.2 per cent in 1983-84 over 1982-83, The inflation rate over the same period was 11.2 per cent, The increase in grants to State governments over the same period was 11.8 per cent, Increased demands are being made on local government authorities to participate in Federal Government programs e.g. community employment program, The Labor Party made a pre-election commitment to allocate not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation in general revenue grants to local government. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will amend the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act of 1976 to provide a real term minimum guarantee to local government general revenue sharing arrangements in 1983-84, and in future years. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Fisher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the State of Victoria respectfully showeth: (1) that temporary salaried and full-time sessional teachers working for Adult Migrant Education Services are disadvantaged in status and security by lack of permanency and (2) that this disadvantage is reflected in its effects on and implications for multicultural education. (3) Victoria is particularly disadvantaged as with 30 per cent of national Adult Migrant Education Program it has only one permanent member of staff. Your petitioners therefore pray that: (1) This imbalance be redressed by providing realistic funding for permanency. (2) Funding should be used to balance the present inequity of permanent positions throughout Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Child. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria showeth: Our concern over the continuing taxation of Parents' Club bank accounts by way of the Bank Account Debit Tax. Your petitioners therefore pray that- Parent clubs being set up by government regulation in the State of Victoria ( Regulation XLII) be recognised by the Australian Government as education auxiliaries, in the same way as are school councils. The Treasurer move immediately to exempt parent clubs from the tax in the same way as are school councils. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. Petitions received. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) will second: That this House- (1) calls upon the Government to abandon forthwith its proposals to- (a) destroy the oath of allegiance by deleting all references to God and the Queen; and (b) meddle with the role of the Governor-General by amending the traditional letters patent; and (2) is of the opinion that such republican proposals are without any mandate and against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Australians. Mr GEAR(Tangney) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the significant contribution of Western Australian cricketers to Australian test cricket; and (2) congratulates Kim Hughes and Rod Marsh on their appointments to lead the Australian test side. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with concern and dismay the failure of the Government to pay any compensation or provide any employment to Mr Robert Clifford, owner of the vessel Trojan, who has suffered considerably as the result of the deliberate action of the Government in stopping the Gordon-below-Franklin development. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) takes note of the recent favourable trends in interest rates with respect to the Commonwealth Bond Tender and sales of thirteen and twenty-six week Treasury notes; (2) notes that yields on Treasury notes have now fallen below 10 per cent; and (3) calls on banks and building societies to follow this trend at the earliest opportunity by lowering interest rates on new and existing housing loans. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) requests the Prime Minister to seek the approval of the Premiers Conference to have the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations report on the following reference: That the Advisory Council for Inter-government Relations- (1) investigate those authorities or bodies which are publicly financed and which are of joint Commonwealth, State or Local Government responsibility; (2) advise the Commonwealth and States on the most satisfactory processes of auditability for these bodies through Auditors-General and Public Accounts Committees; and (3) present its Report to the Premiers by June 1984. (2) notes that there are large areas of public expenditure which are not auditable through Auditors-General and accountable to the Parliaments; and (3) urges immediate attention to the problem. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House calls on the Government to explore the possibility of introducing a national, comprehensive workers compensation scheme to cover all Australian workers on a fair and equitable basis. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House draws the Prime Minister's attention to the telex from the Premier of Tasmania to the Minister for Finance, dated 2 November 1983, and calls upon the Prime Minister to dismiss the Minister for Finance for again misleading the Parliament. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House notes with concern that the honourable member for Bennelong is prepared to associate himself with some of the stupid motions of the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman-Mr Speaker, on a point of order, God and the Queen and the Letters Patent are not stupid matters. I ask you to rule the honourable member's notice of motion out of order as being frivolous. Mr SPEAKER —Order! That is not a point of order. I will examine the question of whether the honourable member's notice is frivolous. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move that: That this House- (1) notes that the latest Treasury note tender produced yields of less than 10 per cent for short-term securities, thereby confirming the downward trend in interest rates; and (2) congratulates the Government on the soundness of its economic policies, confirming the fact that such policies have been clearly accepted by all sections of the Australian community. Mr SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition has sought my indulgence to make a brief statement with regard to the Standing Orders. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) gave notice to this House that on the next day of sitting, which is today, he would move a motion that, among other things, deplores the actions of the United States in invading Grenada. Mr Milton —Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member for La Trobe might join me in the point I am going to develop. Mr Speaker, your having granted me indulgence, I will not debate the merits or demerits of the matter, as we did yesterday. The point I raise is that the motion which the honourable member said he would move today has not been moved today. It does not appear on the Notice Paper under General Business. He has, in fact, withdrawn his notice. Of course, Standing Order 140 allows a member simply to go to the Clerk and have that notice withdrawn. Quite clearly, no obligation can be placed on the Clerk to give any explanation as to why a motion has been withdrawn. I ask that the Standing Orders Committee examine the situation where a member comes into this House, gives notice to the Parliament that at the next day of sitting he will move a motion and then, without any explanation to the Parliament, withdraws it. Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence in having the matter considered as a matter to be placed before the Standing Orders Committee that Standing Order 140 be amended to require that where a member gives notice to this House that he will be moving a motion, if he withdraws it, the House is entitled to an explanation as to why it is withdrawn. Mr SPEAKER —In response to the Leader of the Opposition, there are a number of matters before the Standing Orders Committee. We will consider the remarks he has made when the Committee meets. Ministerial Statement Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —by leave-Mr Speaker, the Government is anxious to provide the Parliament and the public with detailed information on its defence programs and projects for 1983-84. I have, therefore, prepared a comprehensive statement on this year's defence budget which I will table. In the time allotted to me today I wish to highlight the more important sections of that statement and re-affirm the Government's commitment to develop and maintain an effective Defence Force. To complement this statement, I will also table the annual report of the Department of Defence. The fundamental concern of defence policy, from which all other defence effort must derive, is the security of the nation, its independence and its interests, from military threat. We are favourably situated, remote from centres of security crisis. Successive governments have judged that the prospect of military threat to Australia is presently slight and that we would have several years of warning of unfavourable military developments. We have rejected the planning of our defence effort against some imagined threat, and to a uniform level of preparedness. To do so would mean vast increases in our defence budget that would have to come from reductions in other areas of our national expenditure and that would not now be justified. Nevertheless, the Government has not shirked its responsibility to provide what is necessary, even in these difficult economic times, for our fundamental defence needs. To make every dollar work best for the security of the nation, the Government insists on the need for discrimination and selectivity in our defence expenditure. It will need the support of the Australian people in this task, and it recognises its duty to explain its assessments to the people. Objectives Australia needs a well-equipped, highly trained and mobile Defence Force to ensure the security of Australia's territory, its economic zones and its areas of vital interests. The Defence Force should be able to: 1. provide a deterrent by making a major attack on Australia extremely costly and hazardous; 2. respond rapidly to lower level military emergencies within Australia's area of interest; 3. meet international peacekeeping needs from existing defence capacity; 4. maintain surveillance over the Australian coastline and maritime zone; and 5. assist civilian authorities in natural and man-made disasters and, when requested, in the maintenance of civil order. The Strategic Basis The Government, in its recent review of the strategic basis on which our defence policy will be based, has surveyed the external factors bearing on our national security and the other more enduring factors that are fundamental to any military contingency. The Government's stance in regard to the relations between the two super powers has been frequently expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and is unequivocal. We are part of a community of nations with common ideals of open democratic government. That is not a matter of political posture or rhetoric. It reflects the deep-seated political and social values of the nation. Disarmament The Government is committed to world disarmament and to support the reduction of international tension and instability. Although the risk of nuclear war is considered remote, the catastrophic results of such a conflict call on every country to support actions and procedures designed to lessen that risk. This Government is particularly concerned to do so. The Foreign Minister has already reported to the Parliament on the outcome of the ANZUS Council meeting which we both attended in Washington last July. I will not reiterate the Government's conclusions today. The Government has taken the firm view that not everything Australia does in the defence field with the United States of America, or with New Zealand, should be seen as part of the ANZUS relationship. The Government has repeatedly demonstrated its belief in the abiding importance to Australia of strategic developments in South East Asia. Our concerns there are, where possible, to help reduce the tensions that promote uncertainty and increased involvement in the region by external powers. We recognise their potential for affecting our immediate neighbourhood, and ultimately Australia itself. The defence co- operation programs we operate with our friends in the ASEAN group, Papua New Guinea and several south-west Pacific governments also testify to our abiding strategic interest in these regions. They are a valuable link to these nations' defence communities and not a means of influencing the internal policies of their governments. The Government has affirmed the priority for national defence within our region . There is no contradiction between its judgment that the nation presently faces no prospect of military threat and its commitment to the maintenance of a capable defence force. We must first ensure that we can deal with the limited defence demands that could arise with least warning. Nevertheless, we cannot neglect insurance against graver, but on present assessments more distant and less likely, contingencies. The Forward Defence Program We have inherited a five year defence program that is heavy with long term financial commitments. Some difficult decisions must be made in the years before us. The cost of defence equipment-aircraft, ships, tanks and guns-has grown faster than has the national income, and there is pressure to add weapons systems of kinds that we do not yet have. It is easy to think of defence planning only in terms of the more conspicious equipment items, but only about one quarter of the defence outlay is spent on new capital equipment and facilities. More than a quarter of the expenditure goes into paying for the day to day running of what we have: fuel, ammunition, spares and repairs, personnel postings and general administrative costs. About half of all defence expenditure goes in manpower. Where there are force structure adjustments there will sometimes be corresponding needs to adjust manpower. The Government understands all too well the personal anxiety this can cause. I have made it clear, in the case of the personnel made redundant by the decisions on the aircraft carrier and fixed wing aviation, that their well-being will be at the forefront of the Government's concerns in this difficult transition. The Defence Budget 1983-84 In developing a defence budget for 1983-84, the Government aimed to hold course until it was able to assess Australia's strategic situation and its consequences for defence policies and forward planning. The defence allocation of $5,280m represents an increase of 10.4 per cent over the outlay in 1982-83, or about 4 per cent in real terms. This is a major achievement by the Government in the face of daunting budgetary difficulties. The Opposition will no doubt claim that it would have provided substantially more, but this is no more than the rhetoric of opposition-not matched by its performance in office. Moreover its leaders are at the same time proposing that the projected deficit of $8.4 billion be cut by more than $2 billion. Before dealing with the effects of the budget on defence capabilities, I want to outline in broad terms the way in which resources have been allocated. Budget Categories The Government sees a strengthening of long term defence investment as appropriate to Australia's security outlook. The proportion of defence expenditure for capital equipment and facilities has increased from 21.8 per cent last year to 25.9 per cent this year. I am particularly pleased to announce that, as well as meeting the rising costs of major equipment proposals, the Government has been able to devote a substantial part of this increase to new service houses. Manpower costs have taken up around 50 per cent of defence expenditure over many years. The proportion this year has fallen to 46.6 per cent, primarily because most of the real growth in the Budget has been directed to capital investment. In 1983-84, average Defence Force personnel numbers are planned to reduce by about one per cent, mainly as a consequence of the decisions on the aircraft carrier and naval fixed wing aircraft. Civilian personnel numbers this year will also be reduced slightly. The Government plans during this year to hold the strength of the Army Reserve at 30,000, the level set by the previous Government . There will be small increases in the Naval Reserve and the Air Force Reserve over the year. The total provision for running costs will rise by some 2 per cent in real terms, to make up 26.6 per cent of defence expenditure. The growth of expenditure on defence capital facilities is being sustained and indeed accelerated this year, lifting it from 4.4 per cent to 5 per cent of defence expenditure. This is in accordance with the Government's emphasis on long term capital investment in defence, but it also makes a valuable shorter term contribution to employment. Finally, in the outline of the Budget by broad category, the Government has sustained the allocation of about one per cent of defence funds to the defence co-operation programs with a number of our friendly neighbours. Within the above broad functional categories, an outlay of some $380m has been provided for the Department of Defence Support, an increase of $57m on 1982-83. The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) will be making a separate statement dealing with matters under his administration. Defence Capabilities The foregoing outlines how expenditure has been allocated by functional category. In my tabled statement I set out in some detail what the Government's defence budget, and some related policy decisions, will do to support and develop the nation's defence capabilities both in the Defence Force and supporting civilian organisations. I will refer to only a few matters in the time available to me today. Maritime Defence The Government's decision not to acquire an aircraft carrier represents a major adjustment to Australia's Defence Force structure. The Government concluded that an aircraft carrier of a kind we could afford and the kinds of aircraft that could operate from it were not an adequate answer to Australia's maritime needs. The Government holds the view that our essential maritime needs can be met by capabilities already available or planned for the Defence Force. There are many important tasks for Navy to do that would have continued to suffer had it still focussed as much of its effort on the carrier as in the past. The decision to phase out fixed wing aircraft from the Navy was a logical consequence of the carrier decision. In future, the Fleet Air Arm will be an all -hellicopter force and enhancement of this aspect of maritime operations is one of the highest new equipment priorities for the Defence Force. The third of our United States-built FFG guided missile frigates, HMAS Sydney, should arrive in Australia in March 1984, and the fourth and last of the US-built ships, HMAS Darwin, should be accepted from the ship builders later that year and join the fleet in mid-1985. As I announced on 12 October last, the Government has decided in principle to proceed with construction of two FFG-class frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The first ship is expected to be delivered in about 1991. As well as acquiring the six new FFG-class frigates Navy's surface naval capability will be enhanced by continuing the program to upgrade the six destroyer escorts and three guided missile destroyers in our naval dockyards. Four more Fremantle-class patrol boats will join the fleet during 1983-84. From January 1984, the Government will begin to implement the long-awaited naval home porting in Western Australia when HMAS Stuart berths at the naval base, HMAS Stirling. Land Defence There has been a tendency over the years for the Army to be seen by some commentators as the least advanced element of the Australian Defence Force, because its equipment is less conspicuous and less costly than the ships and aircraft of the other Services. Yet, consistent with the Government's strategic perceptions and priorities, it expects the Army of the future to be a leaner, more mobile, better co-ordinated, and harder-hitting force. Already we have the Operational Deployment Force, based on an air-portable brigade able to be deployed at very short notice and backed by other formations tasked and equipped to develop the skills of more substantial conventional warfare. In the field of mobility, a new range of four and eight tonne off-road capable trucks is being delivered from Australian factories. Three Australian companies have recently submitted proposals for new light armoured fighting vehicles for the early 1990s. New utility helicopters will be needed for the Army to retain and strengthen its ability to operate effectively in our remoter areas. Several important radio communications programs are already under way. Army's hitting power will be improved by the introduction of a number of equipments and weapons for which substantial sums have been provided this year. These include the acquisition of mortar locating radars, Milan anti-armour missile systems and 155mm howitzers. Preparations are proceeding for the manufacture of a 105mm light field gun. Army will be introducing a range of advanced electronic warfare systems. New man portable anti-aircraft missile systems and general purpose machine guns are to be purchased. Air Defence The introduction of the FA18 tactical fighter into the RAAF is by far the largest single Defence project ever managed in Australia. It will be the dominant work load of the Australian aircraft industry for some years, and it will be important too for the building industry because of the redevelopment of the RAAF base Williamtown New South Wales and, possibly a major new fighter base at Tindal, near Katherine in the Northern Territory. The first Australian assembled FA18 is planned to be delivered early in 1985. The Government has approved the purchase of short-range Sidewinder missiles and all-weather medium range Sparrow missiles for the FA18, and an initial purchase of 20mm gun ammunition while plans are prepared to manufacture it in Australia. After the FA18 has entered service, it is intended that the two Boeing 707 aircraft recently purchased, and the two already operated by the RAAF, be adapted for use as in-flight refuelling tankers. Expenditure this year to maintain and upgrade the capability of the two squadrons of F111 strike aircraft will be substantial. This includes an all- weather targeting system with which the F111 will be able to employ a range of precision guided weapons. The design and development will continue in Australia of a new basic training aircraft which is expected to fly first early in 1985. The Government has approved the purchase of a further six Squirrel light helicopters for search and rescue work in support of flying operations. Aircraft of the RAAF will now conduct the fleet support operations, including simulated air attack and defence, previously provided by the Fleet Air Arm. The Government is pleased that this will help strengthen operational co-operation and training between our air and naval forces. Time prevents me from dealing adequately with a number of activities including the defence co-operation programs, the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, the Natural Disasters Organisation, and defence problems for industry. All of these are dealt with in my tabled statement. Defence Force Pay and Conditions I wish to comment only briefly on two issues which are of particular current interest. These relate to Defence Force conditions of service and to the Army Cadet Corps. I have dealt with these issues and others more fully in my tabled statement and in separate announcements over the past few weeks. At present, the Committee of Reference for Defence Force Pay can deal only with matters referred to it by the Minister, and its reports are subject to ministerial approval before they become operative. Appeals must go to the Minister. It is the Government's intention that the Minister's right to veto should be removed in respect to pay and related matters. The present Committee of Reference will be replaced by a Defence Force tribunal which will have power to act independently in the area of pay fixing. A Defence Force advocate will present the Defence Force case in hearings before the tribunal. The Government has made special provision under the existing Defence Force retirement and death benefits scheme to reduce significantly the impact of the decision to tax lump sums received on retirement. The aim is to ensure that the actual sum available to retiring service personnel under the new arrangements will remain as near as possible to the present amount. I confirm again that it is the policy of the Government that no already established Defence Force entitlement will be removed or diminished by retrospective legislative action. In relation to the Army Cadet Corps, some manning savings will be made in Army by reducing the number of regular personnel allocated to the Australian Cadet Corps, which is to be restructured along the lines of the Navy and Air Force cadet schemes. It will be based in Army Reserve depots instead of in schools and Army Reserve units will foster the new cadet corps. This will open up opportunities for young people who do not attend schools with cadet units. Emphasis will continue to be placed on the community orientation of the Cadet Corps and on adventure-type activities rather than on purely military training. Despite misinformed comment to the contrary, defence funding for cadets will not cease. Support for camps and uniforms will continue. Defence Management Finally, I deal briefly with two organisational matters which are of some interest. The Department of Defence has come under considerable criticism for its management of certain major equipment acquisitions. Some of this criticism has been based on shortcomings in earlier years that have subsequently been the subject of very positive management action. Some critics have said that Defence should move more quickly to acquire new equipment, while others have called for a more deliberate process that would give more opportunities for Australian industry. But among the 150 or so new Defence equipment acquisitions worth nearly $7000m now being managed, some criticism is no doubt valid and the Government is giving this subject the attention it deserves. The Utz Defence Review Committee only last year looked at the management arrangements for capital equipment procurement in Defence and accepted the view that this very important function was unduly fragmented in Defence. I expect to receive proposals soon to streamline Defence procurement procedures and to bring together the procurement functions now undertaken by the single Services. Defence Review Committee More generally, I am considering the Defence Review Committee's report on the higher defence machinery, and I propose soon to report to Cabinet. At this stage , I want to make only four points. Firstly, the Committee found that the fundamental concept of the defence re-organisation introduced by the Whitlam Government in the 1970s-of a single Department of Defence-had been widely accepted and was supported at the highest levels. It brought with it substantial improvements in the development and conduct of defence policy. Secondly, the Committee favoured strengthening the concept of a single senior military commander, which now stands in law, responsible to the Minister for Defence for the command of the Defence Force and for providing him with the highest military advice. Thirdly, the Committee contributed most valuably in clarifying the separate roles of the Defence Force and the Department of Defence, and the distribution of authority and responsibility between them. Finally, in considering the suitability of the defence organisation for a defence emergency or war, the Committee dismissed the simplistic notion that Australian defence planning today can be based on one specific, and by frequent implication massive, contingency. It accepted that there would be a good deal of continuity between the defence organisations in peacetime and wartime and that considerations of adaptability and versatility, based on considerations of circumstances and timing, should shape the development of Australia's higher defence machinery. The Government embraces these judgments wholeheartedly. I present the following paper: Defence Budget-Ministerial Statement, 3 November 1983. I table the annual report of the Department of Defence and the expanded statement which I alluded to at the start of my statement and ask that it be distributed to honourable members. Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr Sinclair —The arrangement was that two statements would be made, so I will seek to adjourn the debate on that understanding. Equally, I would not want to preclude the Minister who is about to speak from responding, should he so wish, to anything that we might say during what I hope will be cognate debate. I move: That the debate be now adjourned. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support) —by leave-I am pleased to be able to make a statement in addition to that made by my colleague, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes). I would like to inform honourable members about the state of Australia's defence industries and present some observations on the problems which I have perceived in those industries since I assumed responsibility for the Department of Defence Support. This Government places a greater emphasis than its predecessor on the role of defence industry in its overall defence policies. Over the last eight months I have sought to identify how this role can be best developed, how defence industry is to contribute to Australia's overall defence capabilities and the part that it will play in the Government's economic and social plans for the future of manufacturing industry in Australia. The overall direction of the Government's policy on defence industry is the subject of a review to which my colleague has referred in his statement. I anticipate that at the completion of this review I will be able to bring to the House a statement on defence industry policy. It is important to acknowledge the wider economic and social context in which defence industry has operated. Over the last decade, and particularly over the seven years of the previous Government, Australia has experienced a sharp decline in manufacturing industry. This decline has reflected weaknesses such as low levels of investment in plant and equipment, outmoded management practices, relatively high cost structures and the reliance on a small domestic market leading to inefficient scales of production. The sharp decline in Australia's manufacturing industry has raised questions about national economic and industrial independence. It has serious implications for defence policy because of the interrelationship between the state of economic activity in the manufacturing industry sector and defence preparedness. Past defence policies, particularly during the seventies and early eighties, have failed to develop an industry base which is relevant to the concept of an acceptable level of effective self-reliance in defence. To an extent, the problems I perceived when I first examined the state of defence industries reflected the problems of Australia's manufacturing sector as a whole, to which I have just referred. The structure of the public sector defence industry which this Government inherited is not greatly changed from that which existed at the end of World War II. In the post-war period we have seen a gradual run-down in the defence industries-buildings and capital equipment have often not been maintained, funding has been sparse, one might say erratic, and insufficient attention has been given to maintaining the skills which are present in our work force. It has been a priority for me therefore to review these establishments and commence a process of reform and revitalisation to make them competitive and efficient. We cannot achieve results overnight but the decisions I have taken have reflected my concern with the most urgent problems. As far as the private sector defence contractors are concerned, since assuming my responsibilities for the Department of Defence Support I have attempted to gain the views of industry and trade union leaders on the correct policies that we should pursue to tackle problems and develop our industries. This emphasis on consultation with business and the trade unions, rather than confrontation, has been central to the Government's overall approach to economic management. I took the opportunity provided by the National Economic Summit Conference in May to convene a colloquium in Sydney for a broad spectrum of companies involved in the defence industry to hear their views, and I was extremely impressed by their enthusiastic response, both in their attending that colloquium and in their willingness to contribute to the discussion. A similar degree of enthusiasm has been evident when I have had the opportunity to address industry groups and when I have visited many private companies around Australia over the past six months. It seems that after seven years of Liberal Government rule business leaders in the manufacturing sector appreciate a government which takes their views seriously. It is part of my personal philosophy also that gaining first hand experience of industries in the work places themselves is fundamental to an understanding of their problems. This approach has won the ready acceptance of management, unions and association representatives. By way of comparison with the Australian situation, I spent three weeks in August examining defence industries in Holland, Sweden and Norway , and I shall be referring to some of the lessons of this study tour presently. Countries such as Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands have, through positive planning and innovative policies, achieved a greater level of self-reliance in their defence industries. My colleague the Minister for Defence in his statement has referred to the need for a greater degree of self-reliance in defence policy . It is axiomatic that defence industries must play a significant role in this more self-reliant defence posture. Mr Deputy Speaker, honourable members will be aware of the findings over recent years of a number of reports and committees, such as the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report on industrial support for defence needs and allied matters of 1977 and the Katter Sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of 1979. These reports concluded that the run-down in Australia's defence industries has meant that the gap in our technological self-reliance has been widening. These concerns about Australia's declining industrial and technological base were also clearly evident in the report of the Defence Review Committee in 1982, chaired by Mr John Utz, which recommended the creation of the Department of Defence Support portfolio. At least part of the reason for the concern about our technological self-reliance stems from past policies which have failed to move away from traditional dependence on overseas sources of supply of capital equipment for the Australian Defence Force. About 70 per cent of capital equipment is currently sourced from overseas. By international standards Australia has a sophisticated, capital intensive Defence Force which requires close industry support of its technology. Past preference for overseas capital equipment has reduced the opportunities available to local industry to develop state of the art technology and consequently local capability to support important elements of the Force has declined. In the three countries which I visited-chosen because economically and socially they are similar to Australia-it was clear that their governments placed defence self-reliance as a clear objective. Mr Deputy Speaker, I now table a report of this visit for the information of honourable members. An important feature of the defence industries of these countries is that both the public and the private sectors are more commercially oriented than are their Australian counterparts, as evidenced by their specialisation and export orientation. Despite some individual differences among these countries, the problems for them, and Australia, are very similar: Small domestic markets; peaks and troughs in domestic defence procurement; the dominance of major international suppliers; and a reluctance to pursue indiscriminate arms sales. With one major exception the solutions adopted by those countries are very similar, but they differ from past Australian practice. The exception concerns preference for domestic sourcing-Sweden endeavours to be entirely self- sufficient in defence material, whereas Norway and the Netherlands, though preferring local procurement, consider material acquisitions on a case by case basis. The Netherlands and Norway-unlike Sweden-are not prepared to pay a large premium for local production. Both the Netherlands and Norway regard their defence industries as an important part of their defence capacity, and more importantly regard defence industry as a highly innovative segment of manufacturing industry vital to their national economies. The general policy of these governments is that within their respective countries there is minimal domestic competition for defence equipments. Their aim is to produce defence products which are competitive world wide, although financial assistance has been provided by governments to industries experiencing difficulties, and a small premium is sometimes paid for local manufacture in order to maintain employment levels. Whilst the Government is anxious to see a greater degree of self-reliance, we have to recognise that if the defence sector of Australian industry is to get increased orders, it must , as must any other sector, become more competitive internationally. Each country encourages defence industries to diversify into the civilian market as part of its policy of organising defence industry along commercial lines and its attempt to achieve international competitiveness. A balance between defence-civilian production has the following advantages in their view: It smooths the inevitable peaks and troughs in domestic defence procurement in small countries; it assists in the adoption of technology; and it transmits commercial cost-effectiveness concepts into defence decision making. Export of defence equipment was strictly controlled in all these countries, although they are anxious to seek suitable export markets. Technological innovation, in both product and manufacture, were seen as vital to their national interest. Trade union support for innovation was apparent particularly following full tripartite consultation between workers, management and government on the introduction of new technology. It is important to note the long history of industrial democracy in these countries. There is no doubt that it assists their industrial development and promotes structural change with minimal disruptive effects. Central to this success is a shared concern between management and workers in these countries about the need to be competitive. This has been achieved by greater attention to planning than has occurred in the past at least in Australian defence industries . The experiences of these countries and the success of the policies which they have implemented reinforce my belief about what we must do to improve the health of Australia's defence industry. While the defence industry in Australia represents only a small part of manufacturing industry, it employs more than 15,000 people in its public enterprises and a further significant number in private industry across a wide range of manufacturing and service companies. My Department is currently investigating the extent of private sector involvement in Defence manufacturing both directly and indirectly. We need more basic data on the contribution of defence production to the national economy. A point that has often been made about the defence industry is its potential for the acceleration of technology transfer into manufacturing industry as a whole. The government-owned defence research and development laboratories have provided opportunities for Australian leadership in specialised technologies. The transfer of these laboratories to the Department of Defence has brought with it the need to work hard at strengthening the relations between them and defence industries, so that the flow of ideas-in both directions-becomes mutually beneficial. I would like to refer to an example of complementary technology transfer. Projects Barra and Mulloka have been directly responsible for the enhancement of local capabilities for the design and manufacture of ceramic components, integrated circuits and thick film hybrid circuits. Of course, once a technology has been developed there is a need for a continuing commitment to marketing and product development. Government development of the defence support industry segment should be carefully targeted for maximum effectiveness in terms of market possibilities as well as for relevance to force needs and exports. Where the defence industry's technology is adaptable to commercial-non-defence- applications these opportunities should be pursued. In cases where the applications of defence technology are limited, and not attractive to the private sector-for example munitions manufacture-the public enterprises should be run in the most efficient manner possible. There are a number of policies being pursued by the Government which have the potential to assist in defence industry development. For example: Designating elements of equipment procured overseas to be manufactured in Australia; the selective investment in local defence manufacturing and repair capabilities associated with particular defence projects; offset policy applied to civil and defence contracts, encouraging both improvement in capability from technology transfer and export opportunities of equivalent technology; and preference for local content in government purchases. This Government proposes in future to use these policies in an integrated way to increase local industry involvement and to supplement these with progressive arrangements in its dealings with both the public and private sectors of the industry. An integration of current defence related policies into an Australian defence industry development policy has the potential for providing the Government with a powerful means of bringing new technology into the country, arranging overseas market access for Australian products and providing design and manufacturing work to the industry. With this broad purpose in mind, the Government has agreed to the establishment of a defence industry development committee, involving membership from relevant Government departments, trade unions and private industry. The terms of reference are currently being fixed. I would like to turn to a review of the defence industries under the control of the Department of Defence Support. The Department manages 13 establishments under three divisions-dockyards, munitions and aerospace. As I suggested in my earlier remarks, the structure of the public sector defence industry which this Government inherited is not greatly changed from that which existed at the end of World War II. I will add a qualifying remark. I do not say that particularly to deprecate the efforts of the previous Government. I think that in certain areas there has clearly been very significant investment-for example, the dockyards and in relation to the FA18 program in the Government Aircraft Factories. But if one looks over the period-one has to look at most of that period Australia was under conservative governments-one sees that investment has tended to be sporadic. In many establishments where investment has occurred it has been very small and has not been relative to the scale of the problems faced by those establishments and so on. I make the point that, over a very long period, we have allowed our defence industry to run down. Of course, the corollary to that is that it is not possible in a short period to reverse that trend; nor is it possible to reverse that trend without setting objectives and careful planning. Clearly the factories as they exist will not meet current force requirements; nor do they represent the optimal use of resources. It is unlikely that some sections of the public sector defence industry will achieve competitiveness with overseas industry. However, within the constraints of existing size and distribution of facilities there is considerable scope for improvement in both efficiency and strategic relevance. To narrow and eventually close the gap between the capabilities of the Government-run factories and dockyards and the requirements of force support would require careful investment, change in management attitudes and reskilling of the work force. One of my priorities is a carefully planned program of reforms in the public sector industry. This program takes account of the appropriate use of new production technology, improvements to working conditions and work force retraining. The task of revitalising the defence industry sector is under way. This was commenced after wide consultations and was designed to reduce management and work force uncertainty so that future initiatives could be more soundly based. I do not have time in this speech to comment on everything, but I would like to deal briefly with the aerospace and shipbuilding areas. Aerospace To review briefly the aerospace division first; this industry is principally composed of two private companies and the Government Aircraft Factories, which together employ some 5,500 workers and provide a wide range of capabilities for the manufacture, repair and overhaul of aircraft engines, airframes and components. The initial challenge facing me when assessing my portfolio was to arrest the dramatic slide in productivity and industrial relations at the Government Aircraft Factories due in part to the previous Government's policy of retrenchments after the cessation of Nomad production. The Government established a tripartite task force to develop a recovery plan for GAF and has implemented a cost awareness program which will involve all employees in new measures to reduce costs and achieve greater financial accountability. Substantial investment in production capability for the FA18 new tactical fighter program has been made in the three major factories; outlays for this purpose amounting to $52m have been provided for in 1983-84. The FA18 program will provide a substantial work load for the aerospace industry for four to five years, but the Government is aware that significant work load requirements exist in the industry in the medium and longer terms. To this end a review of overall capability in the aerospace industry and future defence requirements will be undertaken. I would like to mention progress on the basic trainer project because to some extent I believe that the development of this Australian-designed aircraft represents the hope of the Australian aircraft industry. The three majors of the aircraft industry are involved in the management of this project through the Australian aircraft consortium. The Australian-designed plane will meet a key requirement of the Royal Australian Airforce by the end of this decade. Additionally, I believe that this project has export potential. The Government is anxious therefore that the project remain efficiently managed and meet its time schedule. A sum of $5m has been appropriated to the project in 1983-84. The basic trainer project is crucial in building up design and development capacity in the Australian aerospace industry. Two other projects worth mentioning in this regard are the Ikara anti-submarine missile system and Project Winnin, both of which have undergone further development work this year. The Government will also be taking steps to increase the effort being put into the marketing of Australian-designed aerospace products such as Ikara, and Jindivik. Under this Government honourable members can expect to see some exciting projects emerge from the Australian aerospace industry. Shipbuilding The area of naval shipbuilding and repair provides an example of the Government 's faith in Australian industry's capacity. Performance at the Williamstown Naval Dockyard has been improved to allow the efficient construction of two Australian frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. The $830m package announced recently by Mr Scholes and myself will ensure employment for more than 2,000 employees at Williamstown for the next 10 years. There will be some $200m work for private industry. It will increase Australia's capability to undertake major refits and modernisations of FFG class vessels and sustain a capacity to undertake major repairs including battle damage. It will help retain shipbuilding skills unique to ship construction, contribute to Austalian self- reliance in supply of equipment and materials, introduce modern shipbuilding management systems, further the maximising of local involvement in defence purchases and retain a warship building capacity in Australia. The modernisation of Garden Island Dockyard is continuing with budgeted expenditure for 1983-84 in excess of $26m. This project will continue over many years and provide improved workshop amenities and facilities to permit the dockyard more efficiently to service the fleet. The project also provides for the establishment of a separate fleet base for operative ships. The Government is examining the possibility of utilising the Captain Cook Dockyard at Garden Island for the docking of commercial vessels where that dockyard can provide facilities and services not otherwise available. I have also visited and been impressed with the potential of private dockyards such as North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd in North Queensland, Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd in New South Wales and Australian Shipbuilding Industries Pty Ltd in Western Australia. These yards have demonstrated efficiency and complement the major yards. I recognise that the private sector has an important role in the defence industry. This is so particularly in areas such as electronics, systems engineering and computer software applications. The approach we must take for the development of this sector is different from that which might apply to the public sector enterprises. A recent example of defence industry initiatives taken by my Department is the investigation of air traffic control facilities. By analysing the combined requirements of the RAAF and the departments of Aviation and Science and Technology, a greater potential market may be identified and subsequently exploited by Australian industry. We would also be seeking to investigate and pursue export opportunities. In this regard I am strengthening the offsets policy and its administration to increase its effectiveness. The offsets policy should facilitate industry adjustment and growth through the transfer of technology and provide market access for exports. Since 1970 more than $600m-worth of orders have gone to Australian firms under the Federal offset policy by which local industries are given the opportunity to participate in contracts won by overseas suppliers. We have made it clear that we intend to achieve the 30 per cent offset goal which was first stated in 1970 but which far too frequently has not been honoured in the past. Current contracts from Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities and those projected over the next 10 years could produce $2 billion-worth of orders for Australian industry. Valuable opportunities now await Australian companies prepared to compete for offset orders. Finally, let me say that defence industry in Australia faces enormous challenges in the years ahead. This statement clears some of the ground and makes some preliminary observations. A review of defence industry policy and strategies is necessary and will be carried out. Over the next 12 months I hope to be able to report in greater detail on all of the major aspects of this strategically important field. I present the following paper: Australia's Defence Industries-Ministerial Statement, 3 November 1983. Motion (by Mr Scholes) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. [COGNATE PAPER: DEFENCE BUDGET Ministerial Statement] Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it may suit the convenience of the House to have a cognate debate on both of these statements. If that is agreed, I will move a procedural motion with regard to speaking time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering both matters? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed. Motion (by Mr Scholes)-by leave-agreed to. That so much or the Standing Orders be suspended as would enable the right honourable member for New England and the honourable member for North Sydney to speak for 25 minutes each and in that order. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(11.03) —The Opposition welcomes the presentation to the Parliament this morning of these two very comprehensive statements on the Government's attitude to defence. Regrettably, there are a number of serious omissions in the papers, and that concerns us. The fact that they have been presented and argued is quite essential to the understanding by the community at large of the directions in which defence is being taken and the objectives that are being pursued by the present incumbents of these two portfolios. I commend the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) for setting down in the early stages of the statement he has presented to the House the objectives, as he sees them, of the Australian Defence Force. I believe there is a difficulty for a nation like Australia, faced perhaps with an uncertain threat and with a complex of responsibilities accorded to the Defence Force, in always establishing in what direction and in what way defence expenditure should have priority. At the same time, I believe a number of emphases need to be placed and perhaps in one sense they go further than those in the Minister's objectives. In his first objective he stated that we should provide a deterrent by making a major attack on Australia extremely costly and hazardous. The difficulty in determining the nature of that deterrent is in determining to what degree and in what way the force can be structured to permit that objective to continue to have relevance. I believe that in interpreting that deterrent we need to look at two aspects. The first is the physical makeup of the units of the force, and the second is the defence relationships we have with the countries that surround us. While the Minister has spoken- I do not really want to talk about it at this stage-in his comprehensive paper of the relationship which sees the stationing of Royal Australian Air Force aircraft at Butterworth in Malaysia and in Singapore, he has referred to the five-power defence arrangements only minimally . Yet I believe that those five-power defence arrangements are particularly important in the strategic situations of the region in which we play a part. Equally, he refers to our relationships with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations and speaks of the need to undertake co-operative defence activities, including exercising with their national forces. It is in that area that we in opposition are critical of the performance of this Government. We are concerned that changes have been introduced which threaten the maintenance of that very special defence relationship with the ASEAN countries which we believe is not only in the general strategic interests of the nations of this region, but is also absolutely essential for Australia's security. The degree to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in particular has led this country into a perspective with each of those individual ASEAN countries we believe threatens that special defence relationship. If that were not enough, specific actions have been undertaken by the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe)-in particular his freeze on negotiations on two ventures with the Philippines defence forces-which we think even further prejudice that relationship. We believe that there is a very real need for Australia to have in its relationships with each of the ASEAN countries a role which will help those countries to work together and also to develop their defence capability against any potential aggressor. There is little doubt that in this theatre of the world there is such a possibility. We are foolish if we turn our minds away from KAL Flight 007 or the unfortunate occurrence in the last few weeks of the explosion in Rangoon which killed members of the South Korean Government and some officials of the Government of Burma. We are foolish if we turn aside from the implications of the Vietnamese presence in Cambodia and in Laos, and we are foolish indeed if we think that with the internal signs of potential political change that is taking place in some of those ASEAN countries Australia can just stand back and say that there is no potential defence threat. Having said that, I believe the general objectives laid down by the Minister for Defence in his statement and echoed in his more complete statement on the review of the strategic bases are ones with which the Opposition has very little argument. However, I did note in his fuller statement his reference to the imbalance between the military capacities of the two super-powers. That statement, which was not echoed to the same degree in his briefer paper to the House, is something that needs to be borne in mind by those who are pursuing the disarmament debate today. The whole of the preservation of peace in the world, in our mind, lies very much in the relationship between each of the countries of the Western world and our preparedness to apply the same deterrence that the Minister has referred to in the objectives for the Australian Defence Force. Unless there is an ability to maintain an adequate deterrence, preferably of a non-nuclear character, in our view the threat to world peace is significantly enhanced. We believe that within that world balance Australia has a role to play . This Government is walking away from what is happening in Grenada, which is an illustration of an area where Australia should at least be prepared to undertake , in consultation with other countries of the Commonwealth, a form of Commonwealth commitment to restore peace in that area of the Caribbean. In the same way, when we were in government we committed ourselves to participation in the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai and we undertook, with other countries of the Commonwealth, to maintain a training team in Uganda. On the overall embrace of the strategic bases, there are two other factors to which I want to refer briefly. The first is that there is little doubt that out relationship with New Zealand must be developed to the maximum. This is a relationship which extends not only to defence but also to defence procurement. The Minister for Defence Support, in the statement he made a moment ago, submitted to us a paper from his own visit to three countries-Sweden, Norway and the Netherlands-each of which he identified as being a country with whom there is some similarity in terms of the nature of our economy and our general attitudes. My concern is that in defence procurement and in defence we look at our particular relationship with New Zealand and our relationship with the countries with which we undertake a defence co-operation program. Our DCP program is probably the most important extension of the defence arm in Australia . I believe it is one of the important foreign policy arms of Australia. The relationship not only with the countries of ASEAN but with Papua New Guinea and the countries of the south-west Pacific is a way by which we can ensure a better understanding. Our particular relationship with New Zealand, through ANZUS and the bilateral relationships that have been developed through the undertakings in the closer economic relations, is of prime importance for our future. I hope that the Minister for Defence Support, in looking at future developments, will not just look far afield but will come back and see in what way we can develop a more special relationship in defence procurement and international procurement. It is for that reason that I was so concerned about the comments he made on the arrangements with the Philippines defence forces. That is an area where we need to develop relationships to a greater degree. If we can do so I believe it will be to both our defence and our commercial advantage. The Minister in his statement referred to the ANZUS relationship. I do not want to develop, any more than he did, the arguments around that ANZUS relationship. The Opposition regards our ANZUS relationship as extending significantly further than the relationship that the Minister has exposed and that which has been expressed by the Foreign Minister. Certainly there has been a distancing of the present Australian Government from the United States of America in a number of significant affairs. We recognise that the left wing influence of the Australian Labor Party is important. As far as our side of politics is concerned, we believe that the commitments we have undertaken with the United States-for example, in the Indian Ocean-are, in general, embraced within that same ANZUS doctrine. For all that the Minister says that no new arrangements have been developed in ANZUS for many years, I can assure him that under our Government we had an annual review of the ANZUS relationship which discussed on each occasion the areas of prime concern for Australia, the areas where we believed the relationship needed to be extended, and areas, where there were any, where we saw that there was a shortfall. I do not believe it is in Australia's interests to state, as this Government has, that there are limitations on the ANZUS relationship. I believe those limitations, if they are there, need to be examined in any particular circumstance on an ad hoc basis. To state them in the way that they have been stated I do not believe is in Australia's interests, nor do I believe it is a strict interpretation of that very special relationship which over the years has been developed between governments of the coalition's persuasion and administrations of both persuasions in the United States. One other aspect of the special defence relationship and the general strategic bases paper to which I would like to make particular reference is the relationship-the Minister refers to this on page 7 of his more complete paper- between Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. That relationship is of prime importance in any assessment of Australia's defence capability. I have been worried on occasions by the attitude of the Labor Government on East Timor, not least because there are aspects of the Indonesian relationship which, unless they are fostered, nurtured and approached with a very considerable measure of understanding, can certainly be prejudicial to our longer term security. I am hopeful that some of the more extravagant comments that have been made, which I do not believe are responsible, are now finally set aside. We on this side believe that Australia's relationship with Indonesia and the relationship between Indonesia and Papua New Guinea are areas in which we have a special concern and which we need to develop to the maximum. I turn to the defence review and the funding provisions. The Minister has referred in his full paper and again in his briefer paper to a number of aspects of funding of the defence vote. I think it is worth commenting on the period during which the coalition was in government. Looking back over that period one sees that in 1979-80 there was a real growth figure of 5.3 per cent; in 1980-81, it was 6.7 per cent; in 1981-82, it was 4.2 per cent; and in 1982-83, in the light of our having decided that we would defer the decision on a number of major capital items because of our intention to acquire HMS Invincible in 1983- 84, it was 3.8 per cent. The 1983-84 vote, the vote of the Minister's Government , represents, he claims, a real growth figure of about 4 per cent. However, the figure given in Table 2 on page 359 of Budget Paper No. 1 is 2.2 per cent. I am afraid the reason for our reduction of the vote to 3.8 per cent in 1982-83 which, as I have said, was because of our intention to acquire HMS Invincible, has not been mirrored, as the Budget Papers show, in the figures provided for this year for the Services. Our concern, having looked at that broad strategic assessment, is that the Department of Defence is being significantly prejudiced in a number of ways which will destroy its ability to undertake those very proper responsibilities which the Minister has set out in his objectives. It is our concern that that deterioration in defence capability has occurred already in a number of ways. It has occurred first in significant areas of naval equipment. I do not want at great length to go down the argument about the carrier or fixed wing aviation but I certainly believe that the manner of the Government's decision taking in both those areas was totally irresponsible. For it to take a political decision as it did on the carrier is to deny the Royal Australian Navy any opportunity of arguing the carrier's case. There are significant arguments for a carrier. It is true that there are economic difficulties in acquiring that capability but there are alternatives, as the experience in the Falklands Islands demonstrated. I believe it is totally foolish for the Government, immediately after its election, without consideration of any defence input or of any of the advice of its Service personnel, to have said: 'There will be no carrier'. I believe that it is equally, in fact more, irresponsible to say that it would scrap the fixed wing aviation component. The Minister has outlined in his full statement the Government's intentions with respect to the A4 aircraft and the Tracker aircraft. I regard those decisions as totally irresponsible. They will withdraw from the Australian Defence Force a unique capability which is not available in other sections of the Force. The Tracker and the A4 are very serviceable types. The A4, in fact, is operated by all the other nations in our region. It has at the moment the only aerial refuelling capability of any aircraft in the Australian Service. While the Minister has spoken of future Boeing 707 conversion for airborne refuelling, that capability is not presently in place. There is a very real advantage in Australia's being able to send a fully fuelled A4 into the air, refuel another aircraft and maintain aircraft on station, particularly given the very considerable extent of the Australian coastline and the difficulty in the maintenance of any type of adequate air cover for Australian ships other than very close to existing Australian airfields. If one questions that statement, the experience of Kangaroo '83 in the Pilbara demonstrated that very fittingly. Of course, it is not only in terms of aerial refuelling that the A4 has a capability. It is a very good ground support aircraft. In its exercises with the Navy it undertook a number of duties which, regrettably, at this stage are not capable of being fulfilled by the Royal Australian Air Force. Even in terms of the cuts in service times, it is surely recognised that by having A4 aircraft operating out of HMAS Albatross in close proximity to the fleet exercising area, we are able to maintain aircraft on station and undertake exercising for a far longer period than when we have aircraft operating from Williamtown, which is so many more miles to the north. I think the circumstances of the decision to withdraw the fixed wing aviation component of the fleet has been very detrimental to our present capability, to the exercise opportunity of the fleet and, indeed, to the morale of all those concerned. For all that the Minister has commented in his paper that an undertaking has been given to care for those affected by the withdrawal of that capability, we are all aware that a significant number of people in the Fleet Air Arm has been recruited by or have applied for transfer to the Canadian service, some to the Royal Navy and some to the United States service. That is a unique capability which, once lost, cannot be restored. Not only have we lost the equipment but also we are about to lose the manpower. Australia, frankly, cannot afford so to do. This paper refers to many decisions, in the course of the other changes undertaken by the Government, with respect to new equipment. We on our side of the House certainly have expressed our support for the decision to build the two follow-on destroyers at Williamstown. I note the comments made by the Minister for Defence Support in his paper regarding the private shipyards-Carrington Slipways Pty Ltd, North Queensland Engineers and Agents Pty Ltd and Australian Shipbuilding Industries Pty Ltd in Western Australia, all of which to a greater or lesser degree have participated in military procurement in the past. I believe those shipyards, together with the upgrading of Garden Island, have a very real role for the future. A number of items of capital equipment in the other two Services concern us, but time will not allow me to pursue them. The one aspect of the FA18 acquisition that I think we need to emphasise is that it is essential that we understand that the relative value of the Australian dollar to the United States dollar, as much as anything, will be a prime factor in the ultimate cost of that item of defence procurement. The problems of having a very large defence item of that ilk involving such a large draw on the defence vote cannot be solved easily within the defence vote alone, given the sometimes extreme movements of the relative currencies of the United States of America and Australia. It has always seemed unfortunate to me that the Defence Force has not been able to utilise to a greater degree the movement of funds to meet these already identified purchases at a time when it is most favourable to Australia instead of at a time when it perhaps suits other items of Federal budgeting. Within the other changes that the Government has introduced to defence I am concerned about two that are mentioned in the paper. I see as very regrettable the decision concerning the Australian Army Cadet Corps, particularly the destruction of the School Cadet Corps. Certainly for many years the Department of Defence has not been enamoured of the School Cadet structure. I do not believe that that is a sufficiently valid reason for it now to be terminated. In my view the Australian Cadet Corps in many ways, associated as it was with our school system, provided an input into some aspect of military training that was of value in giving a new generation of Australians some understanding of what defence was all about. Its particular emphasis on community activities since we re-established it in 1976 provided an added advantage in giving children, particularly those in less privileged areas, an adventure opportunity that might otherwise have been denied them. For all the brave words of the Minister in his statement, I do not believe that the new Cadet Corps will provide the same type of training in the future and I see the change as most regrettable. The other area of particular concern I mention is that, because of the changes that are consequential on the taxing of Reserve personnel pay and the Defence Force retirement and death benefits tax changes, extreme morale problems are generating in the Services. The Minister has made a statement with respect to DFRDB taxation. I know that that has overcome some problems. But I draw the Minister's attention to the complaints that the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association has that the extra commutation will further reduce retirement pay. That is certainly so. While the Minister says that it is minimal, I find it incredible that a government which says that there will be no change in DFRDB entitlement also says: 'Oh, but that is not a change in DFRDB entitlement when the tax penalty is increased'. That, of course, is nonsense because that Government is the employer. For the Government to reduce the entitlement, as it has, I do not believe is a justifiable basis at all for dealing with the conditions of servicemen. Certainly, it is prospective and in that it is prospective the prospects of those people for future advancement will be considered very much against what they see as a reduced DFRDB pension entitlement in the future. I draw the Minister's attention to concerns the Regular Defence Forces Welfare Association has about even his present changes. Another area of concern I have is the reserves. I believe that there are very real problems in the nature of the treatment of taxation on Reserve personnel's pay. I do not believe it will be possible to maintain numbers in the reserves, as the Minister has suggested. His Budget has already reduced them. Unless there can be an incentive for trained people to remain in the reserves I do not believe that we will be able to provide that necessary backup for augmentation of defence numbers when it is needed. Finally, I turn to the Utz Defence Review Committee report. In the statement there is minimal reference to it, extolling its virtues. But there is no announcement in this paper about what should be done under the recommendations of the Utz Committee report to provide significant changes in some of the structural patterns within the Department of Defence. I believe that is one of the principal weaknesses of this statement. I urge the Minister to come into this House at the very earliest opportunity and explain to us his intentions in relation to implementing the recommendations of that Utz Committee report on the higher defence organisation. Particularly I would like to see a strengthening of the role of the Chief of the Defence Force Staff and some of the committee structures within the Department of Defence. It is high time the Minister reached decisions on these matters. It is no use his extolling the principles that Mr Utz espoused. Rather, it is time for him to implement them. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(11.28) —The security of our country is the first and paramount concern we all have. All else may be promising, our economy prosperous , our society compassionate, fair and generous, our laws just and our people at peace with themselves and each other; yet, if challenged in armed conflict and if we fail we can lose everything-our liberty, our lives, our country, our future and our possessions. To entertain this possibility is not fantasy. History is littered with examples of races and nations which could not defend themselves and were conquered and enslaved or exterminated. We can witness the fate of the Armenians in the second decade of this century, the extermination of the European Jews, the subjugation of Eastern European nations by Soviet Russia and, in our region, the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of people by the Pol Pot regime. History is also replete with examples of countries whose people ignored the possibility of conflict until the possibility had become a reality, whose military leaders made tragically wrong assessments of their country's defensive needs, whose intelligence analysts misread the capabilities and intentions of undeclared enemies and whose political leaders, even when they belatedly perceived the looming presence of great and growing risks, lacked the courage, the political will and the foresight to meet those risks before they became disasters. Honourable members should remember Britain before the war. As early as February 1934 the Defence Requirements Committee reported that Germany was the ultimate potential enemy, certain to become within a few years a serious menace to Britain. Even with the menace that Germany clearly presented, rearmament proceeded at a snail's pace. It was not until March 1939 and Hitler's annexation of the remnants of Czechoslovakia that the British Government came to the real understanding of the full import of Hitler's intentions. It may be said that the standard excuse for Britain's failure to realise what was happening and the menace Germany presented could best be summed up in a quote from the series Yes Minister. Honourable members may recall that the head of the mythical department in the series was a man called Sir Humphrey who, speaking of Munich, said: 'It was an unfortunate occurrence about which certain facts were not known at the time'. The Minister asked: 'What important facts?'. Sir Humphrey replied: 'That Hitler wanted to conquer Europe'. The Minister said: 'I thought everyone knew Hitler wanted to conquer Europe'. Sir Humphrey replied: 'Not the Foreign Office' . Australia's defence needs, the structure of our defence forces and the defence support facilities we should maintain and develop are subjects of continuing debate. But all too frequently the debate ignores the long term issues we must resolve and the very great difficulties our defence planners face-difficulties caused by the implacable facts of the geography of our country and our region and the impossibility of gauging with any precision the political, economic and social future of South East Asia and the western Pacific basin. Instead, the defence debate tends to focus on decisions involving the acquisition of hardware -decisions that often seem to be influenced by the follow-on syndrome, accompanied by the desire to purchase the state of the art syndrome-without examining the assumptions on which major acquisitions should be based. What are the main issues we must confront and resolve as a nation? First, if we are to plan for our future defence needs-I use that term broadly to encompass both our defence forces and defence support-we need to understand very clearly what our vital national interests are, those interests which at all costs must be protected, and to separate in our thinking those vital interests from other interests which, although important, have a lower order of priority. No one would dispute that our vital interests include the territorial integrity of our country, its island territories and the extended maritime zone. Few would dispute that the security of New Zealand is vital to us. But how much further do our vital interests extend? For example, would an attack on Papua New Guinea or Fiji necessitate an armed response from us? The second major issue is how we can conduct foreign policy and use it to support our national security. In international affairs power is the final arbiter-its use or its potential use. Fundamental security concerns of foreign policy viewed in terms of our security are two. First, alliance management and, secondly, alliance building. Alliance management primarily concerns the ANZUS Treaty and utilising that Treaty in a way best calculated to meet our present and future vital security needs. But alliance building is another matter. It is the planning of the construction of other possible alliances. For example, an alliance with that extraordinarily powerful country Japan is certainly a matter which, in the long term and in defensive terms, we should consider. The third major issue we need to confront is this: Should a threat emerge, how much time will we have? Putting to one side the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the possibility of war between that country and the United States of America, it is generally thought that at present there are no obvious threats to Australia's security, which I accept. It is also generally thought that if a threat does emerge we will have adequate time to get ready-a theory I do not accept. The dangers of this kind of theory-it may be described as the theory of the emerging and perceived threat-are evident when one examines the assumptions on which implicitly it is based. The first assumption is that in the time between the emergence of the threat and when the potential for armed aggression against Australia is translated into an actual capacity, we will build up our forces to a level capable either of deterring the aggressor or, should deterrence fail, of defending our vital interests against it. The second assumption is that Australia's intelligence analysists will correctly perceive the emerging threat as requiring a major response from the Australian Government. The third assumption is that this assessment will be accepted by the government of the day. The last assumption is that the government of the day will not only act on the assessment given to it but also will take action sufficient in all respects to meet the threat when and if it emerges. Failure to make good any one of these assumptions could lead to a terminal disaster for this country. We can learn much from history. We can learn from Munich. We can learn from the Falklands campaign where Britain misread Argentina's intentions. We can learn from Argentina. It misread Britain's willingness to risk all in a campaign. Both sides were wrong. I should like to make two other more general criticisms of the emerging and perceived threat theory because of the importance of that theory, as it lies at the heart of our defence thinking. The first is that of one thing we can be fairly certain. Whatever happens will be unpredictable. Honourable members will remember how frequently in the past planners have based their planning on assumptions that have proved to be perfectly invalid. Take the Maginot line. The Germans did not attack the Maginot line; they went around through the Low Countries. Singapore was a fortress impregnable, so it was thought, from sea attack. The Japanese thought so too; they came down through the peninsula. In the Falkland Islands campaign the Argentinians quite misunderstood Britain's capacity to attack on foot over impossible terrain and in the most inclement and unpleasant of conditions. An enemy may be unkind enough to attack one before, in one's judgment, it should do so. The second general criticism that I make of the perceived threat theory arises out of the availability of weapons that can turn the tide of a campaign. If Argentina had had a few more Exocets it is very possible that Britain would have been defeated in the Falklands campaign. The fourth major issue that needs to be resolved is the structure of our military forces. Broadly stated, our defence forces are structured on the same lines as they were when they emerged from the Korean and Vietnam wars. But much has changed, including the supposition that in future hostilities we will necessarily be acting in concert with our great and powerful ally the United States. We still persist with the core force structure but is this structure valid? Do we need to maintain a state-or-the-art readiness in all fields? Can we do so or should we not be more selective? Must we not look to assessing priorities and making hard choices about force structure? Must we not assume also that circumstances not involving a global war, nor China, nor the Soviet Union, may arise when we may find ourselves involved in hostilities and the United States declines to assist us? I think it is unlikely. I would be the last person to denigrate the efficacy of the ANZUS Treaty which was my father's brainchild and which was negotiated by him. But it is fundamental to our security interests that we should plan against this sort of contingency. This brings me to the fifth major issue, our future military role in our region . What role do we see for ourselves? We are a regional power with a vital interest in regional stability. How is that to be guaranteed? What role do we see for ourselves in action with the United States and our other allies? What role do we see for acting alone? The next major issue which we need to confront in detail and not just in generalisation is the structure and the long term goals of our defence support facilities. In doing this we need to recognise that however desirable it may be we cannot do everything ourselves and that consequently some hard and informed choices will need to be made between competing demands on limited resources. Having listened to what the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) have had to say, and having had an opportunity for a short time before the debate to read the papers that they gave and laid before this House, there are some criticisms that I believe must be made. The Minister for Defence has said little about the strategic environment we may face in the future. More importantly, he has made no examination of the difficulties of the theory of perceived and emerging threats. Can one make an assessment now about where one will be in five years time and where a potential aggressor will be in five years time and how one can act to meet the potential threat? The Minister has assumed that we will have adequate warning, an assumption which, for the reasons I have pointed out, is not only dangerous but also one which is directly contrary to something he is reported to have said at the Defend Australia 83 Defence seminar. In an article in the Australian Financial Review of 17 October the Minister for Defence is reported to have queried whether Australia would have adequate warning time in the event of a threat arising. I wholeheartedly support that query and it is all the more reason why he should, in this House, have debated that tremendously important topic and have directed us to his views and have analysed how Australia could be sure that it would always be in a position to meet a threat as it emerges. My view is that the doctrine is dangerous nonsense. He has said nothing in substance on the subject of alliance building and he has said virtually nothing about the Force structure-that is, the balance between the three armed forces-or about the core force concept. The core force concept has been accepted doctrine for quite some time, just as it has been accepted doctrine for quite some time that there will be a surge capacity; that we will be able to expand our forces to meet threats as they arrive-everything neat and orderly and on time rather as though a potential aggressor would give us a timetable of his intentions. For example, one may ask: What is now the rationale of the Navy's present role in the absence of a carrier around which much of the fleet's capability has been designed? I agree entirely with the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) when he says that there is much to be said for the carrier option. However, regardless of which way one goes, regardless of whether or not one acquires a carrier, one must examine the consequences of the non-acquisition of that carrier in terms of one's naval capability, of one's naval structure and what one can do. The truth of the matter is that without air cover, and given the kind of air defence systems our fleet now has, all of the ships in our fleet are highly vulnerable against sea- skimming missiles. The Minister has said little about our vital interests. He has referred to areas of vital interest. But must we not begin by examining very clearly what our vital interests are? How do we we know what kind of a strategy we should adopt unless we know what the vital interests are which we must protect? It is so fundamental that it is difficult to see how one can plan for the long term without coming to a clear decision on the vital interests this country must protect. It is simple, it seems to me, that before one can be in a position to protect one's vital interests one has to know what those vital interests are. He has said little about our military role in the region, although he has referred- quite rightly-to the relationships that we have with other powers in the region and to the need to maintain those relationships. The Minister has said little about some of the specific questions which are so important. Where is our missile for close air defence for the Army? I know that we are to spend some money upon hand-held air defence missiles for the Army. Is that all? Is that all that is proposed? Where is our long range surface-to-air missile? Where are our airborne early warning and control aircraft? The point of these criticisms is this: I do not come to this House for the purpose of saying that everything in the past has been perfect. Indeed, one of the major tragedies about the political debate on defence has been that it has not been taken seriously enough by any political party for quite a number of years. But this Government came to power, amongst other things, on the most biting criticisms of what the previous Government had done. What does it propose? What do we get? We have a policy statement from the Minister which lacks intellectual bite and direction and which fails to focus on or seek to resolve questions of major importance. That is the case with the first policy statement by this Minister. I turn to the Minister for Defence Support. Some of the general statements that he has made are statements with which I most certainly agree. Certainly, I think that we need to enhance our own capacity. I think it is essential that we build up our self-reliance. But we will not be guided very greatly by general statements and by a statement which in many respects is lamentably short on specifics. It does not really help to be told that we are to have 'reform and revitalisation', that there is to be 'consultation', that he has a certain belief about what we must do to improve the health of Australia's defence industry, that there will be a carefully planned program of reform in the public sector industry, that we have 'exciting projects' or that there will be a strengthening of the off-set policy. What would help is to have specifics. Apparently we must wait, according to the Minister, for a statement on defence industry policy which, as I would read his statement-the Minister can correct me across the table if I am wrong-we will get some time within the next 12 months or so, when he hopes to report to us in greater detail. That is simply not good enough. Nor is the generalised and deficient statement of the Minister for Defence good enough. It is somewhat surprising, given the avowed stance of the Government when in opposition and since it has been in Government, that the Minister does not address himself to some of the specifics of his portfolio and that he is unable, for reasons which are hard to discern, to bring to his House a comprehensive statement. Let me point to one or two specifics which seem to be of great importance to this country. It is quite conceivable that in a conflict Australia might run short of the Harpoon missile or the MK48 torpedo. It is essential to have a capacity to manufacture those kinds of weapons in this country. They need not necessarily be the latest American design, but to manufacture missiles and torpedoes must be an absolute minimum. They are the equivalent to rifle ammunition in the 1914-1918 War. If we were to be placed in a position such as that in which Argentina was placed, when we ran out of those missiles in any kind of war-perhaps just a limited, regional war- what would be our position? We would be virtually defenceless. To be without those missiles could lead us to disaster. Yet nothing is said about the establishment of that kind of capacity. There is difficulty in coming to grips with the two statements. I am not denigrating some of the general statements made by the Ministers. I do not denigrate the obvious work that both Ministers have put into their portfolios. So far as the Minister for Defence Support is concerned, I certainly do not denigrate the industry with which he has gone around the country to come to grips with his portfolio. However, that being said, it is difficult to come to grips with the statements because they are somewhat like blancmanges. They lack point, substance and direction. In assessing the Government's policies, I am very much reminded of a statement made in this House on 26 August 1982. This was what was said: We are now less well provided for as to the defence of this country than we were in 1941, and for the same reason-because the Government prefers to talk and achieve little. The speaker was the shadow Minister for Defence. If he held those views in August 1982, it is inconceivable that he could come to this House, express the views that he has and fail to deal with the issues in the way in which he has. Perhaps it is an epitaph for this Government's first attempt to bring before this House policy statments on the most vital of all issues for this country. Mr MORRISON(St George)(11.54) —There seems to me to be a vague sense of boyish wonder in the speech by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). It is as though he has found at last the fascinating world of defence. Perhaps when the honourable gentleman has been in this place a little longer and if he perhaps at some stage gets himself involved in the activities of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, many of the issues that he raised today will become much clearer to him. It is a learning process and I am delighted that he has started on that process. But if he wishes to familiarise himself with some of the broader concepts of threats to security I can do no better than refer the honourable gentleman to the report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence on 'Threats to Australia's Security'. I want to make one point because I think it is necessary to place any defence debate in this place in a particular perspective. In the last 33 years honourable members opposite have had control of the administration of defence for all but three and a half of those years. So we must assess the criticisms they make in terms of their responsibility over a very long period for the administration of the defence forces. I believe it is quaintly ironic that the former Minister for Defence, the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) has made observations about the promises and the performance of this Government. Again, I reiterate the appalling record of the previous Government, in the period from 1976 to 1982, in matching performance with promise. The honourable gentleman today quoted some statistics. I look forward to seeing those reprinted in Hansard so that I can examine them. I make the observations that in the period between 1976 and 1982 the historic trend in the growth of defence outlay in constant prices was of the order of 2 per cent. Expenditure in terms of gross national product remained even at about 2.6 per cent through the 1970s. It managed to hit 3 per cent in the last two or so years, due to the unfortunate measure of the Australian GNP being reduced through the regrettable lack of economic activity in Australia. There was over the period of administration of the present Opposition when it was in government a yawning chasm between its promises and its performance. It was an erratic performance. In 1976 an admirable White Paper on defence was presented, and I say admirable because it happens to be based on the Australian Labor Party's program between 1972 and 1975. That 1976 White Paper was a projection of the plans we made in 1975. In 1978, having set forward this program, the previous Minister for Defence said to the House: Outlay this year . . . will not be large enough for us to achieve in the time that we originally contemplated all of the objectives and projects of the Defence White Paper of 1976. Again, during the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union in 1980 exactly the same sort of promise was given. Two years later the Liberal Government Minister said to the House: 'Sorry, chaps, we cannot really live up to our promises'. What has this approach done to the defence planning of the Australian defence forces? It has introduced an element of erraticism. It has prevented the military planners from having any settled base on which to work. In the last year or so the previous Government started to fiddle with the funds to reschedule the expenditures. A former Minister for Defence, Mr Killen, on 29 April 1982 stated: Significant relief from Budget pressures in 1981-82-- He was saying: 'Let us not worry about other years; let us just sort out the particular problem we have at the moment'- has been provided by reductions in planned payments on purchases under United States Department of Defense foreign military sales arrangements. He then discussed rescheduling. The previous Government postponed payments and did not live up to promises. This has created enormous problems for this new Government in arriving at a sensible Budget expenditure, and a sensible five- year program. What has happened with regard to the commitments for the FA18? The commitments were entered into by the previous Government but were not satisfactorily provided for by way of outlays in the sense of planning those expenditures over the five-year period. The new Government is faced with enormous constraints on its own Budget problems. The Government, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Cabinet must try to relate these commitments to the available funds, and that is essentially the great problem faced by the Government. The problem is that it is impossible to undertake new initiatives because most of the funds for the next five years are committed as a result of the particularly incompetent way that the previous Government sought to match the promise with performance. I thought that my colleague the honourable member for New England would refer to the question of fixed wing aircraft. Again, it is quaintly ironic that he seems to have different thoughts in opposition from those which he represented in government. Let me make it very clear once and for all that the fate of the fixed wing naval aircraft was sealed in 1982. This occurred at a time when the Government was proposing the purchase of HMS Invincible. It said that the Invincible would be an anti-submarine warfare craft. The then Minister stated: It is not being bought for its capacity to operate short take-off and landing aircraft. The ship will be used as a helicopter carrier and there should not be any expectation in present circumstances that will be going beyond that. Just to make the point clear, on the next page of his statement, the then Liberal Minister for Defence said: The current commitments and the future of . . . Navy's existing fixed-wing aircraft are being examined by a defence working party as a consequence of a Government decision that these aircraft are to be paid off as soon as practicable to provide early savings in expenditure. So let us not have this hypocrisy of the Opposition charging around the countryside saying: 'What a terrible thing has happened to the fixed wing component of the Navy.' That decision was made in 1982 and it was made by the Liberal Government. A couple of other observations were made by the honourable member for New England. He referred to our relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations. I trust that in this Parliament we can look a little beyond the political sparring between political parties to Australia's integrity and Australia's national interests. We have had-I say 'we' because I mean both the Liberal Party and the Labor Party-differences of opinion with ASEAN on the question of Democratic Kampuchea, the Pol Pot regime. In its term of government the Liberal Party decided-and we supported the move-to derecognise Democratic Kampuchea, and voted against the credentials of DK in the United Nations. This action was criticised by the ASEAN countries, but let us not get in a position where we are trying to score points off each other and denigrating Australia's national interests just because of the headlines we may be able to generate within Australia. There are significant differences of opinion on both sides of the House on the question of Kampuchea. We have differences of opinion with the ASEAN countries. I appeal to honourable members on both sides of the House: Let us not use what is in effect an Australian perception, an Australian national interest, for petty political advantage. We have to develop our relations with the countries of ASEAN. They have very different political, economic and cultural backgrounds from that of Australia. Their perceptions will be different from ours, and why should they not be? Our perceptions will be different from theirs and why should they not be? As members of the Australian Parlaiment and as representatives of the Australian people let us be very clear on what the Australian national interest is, and having agreed on that-it has been agreed by both governments in the performance of their functions-then develop our relations with ASEAN in the many other areas of significance to us. The statement of the Minister of Defence is businesslike. It has to be businesslike because it has to deal with the question of balancing funds. As I have said, that is this Government's heritage as a result of the inadequate performance of the previous Government in its defence planning. It is and has to be a policy of constraint. It has to seek to get the very best out of every dollar spent, and every dollar spent has to be examined very carefully. So the criticism about the Army Cadet Corps and other matters such as bands and so on have to be related, and any person making substantial criticism should say what the alternatives are. The Opposition should come forward with alternatives to our propositions, and it can best understand the difficulties faced by the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Defence Support, because of the shortage of funds and the difficulties in planning the defence program. I was interested to hear the Minister for Defence Support commenting on his visit to some countries in Europe. Just recently I had the opportunity of visiting Indonesia. I was very impressed by the great effort being made by the Indonesian Government to develop its self reliance in defence production. It is now producing and in fact is now selling helicopters. It is building up particularly in Bandung a significant aerospace program. It is also building a hydrofoil patrol boat and it is developing a missile building capacity. So these countries in our area are following a course of greater self-reliance. This is precisely what the Minister for Defence Support was saying. When we recognise that 70 per cent of our capital equipment is currently sourced from overseas, there is quite obviously a great need for an effort by an Australian Government to lessen our dependence on foreign sourced equipment. This is very important for us. I commend the Minister for Defence Support on the Government's program to develop, even at the cost of a premium, as will be the case in the early stages and probably in the later stages, Australian-made products. I think it is very important that we place greater emphasis on our capacity for self-reliance, as far as we can, in the production of our defence equipment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope that both Ministers will be able to carry through the program, given the very difficult task they face. I believe that both papers which have been presented this morning provide a firm, businesslike, unglamorous, unspectacular, but still and all a very sound, basis for the development of this Government's defence policy. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(12.09) —In welcoming the statements this morning of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) , I also welcome the remarks made by the honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) in his speech. He made the point that in dealing with these grave matters it is necessary to look beyond making points by political sparring and to think in terms of the national interest. I know that the honourable member has made that sort of point before. If I may say so, it is a statesmanlike attitude that many honourable members on this side of the House would share. Nevertheless I feel that when the honourable member says we must avoid political sparring, he sometimes smudges or overlooks the fact that there are real and basic philosophical differences between the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia. If honourable members express themselves through political sparring, it is simply one form of expression of the real differences that exist. I do not think it is enough to dismiss all disagreements based on these philosophical differences as mere sparring. Still, Mr Deputy Speaker, I join with the others on this side of the House in welcoming the statements. I certainly welcome the general approach as outlined by the Minister for Defence when he espoused the concept of what I hope I may still call 'the free world'. In one part to his statement he said: The Government's stance in regard to the relations between the two super powers has been frequently expressed by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs and is unequivocal. We are part of a community of nations with common ideals of open democratic government. That is not a matter of political posture or rhetoric. It reflects the deep-seated political and social values of the nation. That is a very fine statement. It is certainly an improvement-one may as well be blunt about it-it is a great improvement on the statements made by the now Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) who when in Opposition, was shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs. He was able time and again to give speeches and addresses on the global balance without even mentioning the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or the United States of America, the Association of South East Asian Nations, Afghanistan or Vietnam. He made that famous statement in Brisbane a year or so ago that the principal source of conflict between the USA and the USSR was control of strategic areas and resources and that Australia has no interest in this struggle; that is, that Australia has no interest in who controls the world. That sort of neutralism and isolationism was very characteristic of the Deputy Prime Minister and is quite thoroughly rejected in the statement by the Minister for Defence. This statement is also certainly an improvement on what the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and former Leader of the Opposition used to say; he insisted on an Australia veto of the use of the base at North West Cape, otherwise, he said, we will close it down. He was extremely outspoken in his opposition to the previous Government's commitment in the Sinai. So there has been a change in rhetoric, and it is an improvement, but nevertheless it would seem that very little follows in fact from the change in rhetoric, because we have what boils down to an isolationist defence policy from the Minister. No serious commitment has been articulated in any detail in any defence decision made in regard to the world alliance. No serious statement has been made on Soviet expansionism in the world. How could there be, because the same influences are still there. The Deputy Prime Minister has not renounced the views that I quoted earlier. The Foreign Minister has not renounced the views that I quoted earlier. Indeed, the awful deterioration in our relations with ASEAN is one of the main consequences of his policy. The Minister for Defence Support has been most outspoken, and I have not the slightest doubt about his sincerity, on the need for Australia to give humanitarian and economic aid to Marxist Grenada and Nicaragua. When he is criticising Indonesia, when he is criticising the Philippines, when he is criticising Dr Kissinger, these influences are still there, and they are possibly more prominent now than when the present Government was in Opposition. We find the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) defending the Gaddafi regime in Libya. So although the rhetoric has improved, the influences on the hard decisions are still there and the consequence is what amounts to an isolationist defence policy. As I have said, there is no serious articulation here, no serious awareness of any aspect of Soviet expansionism. Of course the Minister for Defence knows of Soviet activity in Da Nang and Cam Ranh Bay. Everybody now knows about Soviet-Cuban activity in Grenada. The Minister of course knows about Vietnam-Soviet activity in Cambodia and Laos. All these things are well known, but no awareness of it is expressed in the Minister's statement. As I have said, the rhetoric has changed but the decisions are unsatisfactory. The rhetoric is not carried through. This unsatisfactory state of affairs in the defence policy began almost immediately after the change of government in March this year. It began within days of the election with the decision, while the HMAS Melbourne was corroding and being cannibalised in Garden Island in my electorate, to abandon any plans to purchase a replacement aircraft carrier. This was carried through with the decision on the Fleet Air Arm. It was carried through further later with the decision on the superannuation tax, with the decision to tax the incomes of members of the reserves, and with the undermining of the school cadet system. It is possible that one could say, given the isolationism of the Government's general philosophy-in practice as distinct from rhetoric-and given the financial restrictions on the Minister, that he has done the best he can. I am prepared to concede that, given those terrible restraints. Nevertheless, the consequences are an unsatisfactory policy and an increasing and grave morale problem in the Services, of which the Minister is very well aware. Let us refer, for example, to the members of the reserves, who are to be taxed, who are to have their training time reduced, who are to have their real funds reduced and who are now to have the increased responsibility for the cadet system if the new system works. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that I have three fairly distinguished cadet corps in my electorate-at Scots College, Sydney Boys High School and Sydney Grammar School. I have to say that the Minister's handling of this matter has been fairly shabby. There has been no consultation with the cadet corps. There is to be-obviously there will have to be in the end- but consultation is coming only after the decisions have been made. Clearly, we have a scheme which undermines the school cadets, which is of course what the Government is interested in. We are to have a new scheme of cadets, but outside the school framework for the most part. They will become open units and the headmasters will lose the authority to approve the officers who are appointed. In many cases they are masters, parents or old boys of the schools. The cadets' activities will presumably be undertaken at night time. The questions that have not been answered are: How can the reserves possibly handle the cadets? How can they replace the officers of the school cadets? Indeed, how can they possibly absorb many thousands of boys in the existing cadet system, to mention the figures in New South Wales only?. Two other points about this development are worth noting. Because it is attaching the cadets not to the schools but to the reserves it means, does it not, Mr Deputy Speaker, a return to the emphasis or the over-emphasis on military training-that is what the reserves are about-and a getting away from the way in which the school cadets were being developed since they were restored by the former Government in the late 1970s, with much more emphasis placed on non-military aspects of their work? Further, it is worth noting that the schools which will suffer the most will be the State schools. If some schools want to maintain the school cadets-I am sure, say, Scots or Grammar in my electorate will want to do so-they will, with difficulty, and by adding to their burdens, be able to manage it. But many of the State schools with fewer financial resources at their disposal will not be able to do so even if they want to. The school cadets will disappear into the proposed new system. It seems to me that the whole thing is a pretty shabby deal and a pretty unsatisfactory way of negotiating or not negotiating these developments. I think the Minister must be censured for the way in which he has handled this matter. Let me refer now to the statement of the Minister for Defence Support. He has taken up the themes of the Hamer report, the Katter Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence report and the Utz Defence Review Committee report and he is to be congratulated on that. Those aspects of his statement are to be welcomed. The Minister said: 'The run-down had to be reversed' and 'More self-reliance is necessary'. These are the sorts of statements that the Minister has made and they are good. However, again, it would seem that the rhetoric is good, but we are not satisfied on the follow- through. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) made many points in that respect which I will not repeat. But I ask the Minister why he did not use the opportunity to say some of the things which we were hoping he would say and explain some of the policy decisions that he has made. I am referring, for example, to his decision to suspend the planned visit to the Philippines by officers of his Department to inspect the Swedish Bofors gun mountings on vessels belonging to the Philippines Navy and the blocking of the proposed technology transfer by which Australia would supply the know-how and equipment to set up a propellants manufacturing plant in the Philippines. This was a decision which we learnt of a couple of weeks ago which was reported, for example, in the Australian Financial Review under the headline: 'Government Gets Military Supply Lines Confused'. I do not know what loss of finance is involved in that decision. This newspaper report quotes the Minister's office as saying: . . . that reports that the frozen deals might be worth as much as $15million were highly exaggerated. We are also told that the Minister regarded the existing guidelines as too loose . He said that he would withhold approval of several arms deals involving his Department until the guidelines were overhauled. This is a pretty serious decision setting us in confrontation with the Philippines. It cuts across the policies of the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs. It complicates further our deteriorating relationship with ASEAN and it raises questions about many other programs that may also be under threat from the Minister's decisions. This is pretty important, but the Minister did not explain why he had taken this decision. We have on record his public attitude to Indonesia, with which we also have defence support arrangements. But it would seem that they too are under threat. Again the Minister has not told us why. I conclude by referring briefly to the modernisation development on Garden Island, which is in my electorate, mentioned by the Minister. Mr Deputy Speaker, I hope to have an opportunity later in the day to refer to it at greater length. This is a matter of very great controversy. The Minister referred to it, but he seems to be unaware of the very great complaints from residents, particularly those associated with the Potts Point Protection Association. I am not asking the Minister to accept the residents' complaints entirely, but they are very deep and seriously meant complaints. I am disappointed that, in referring to Garden Island, the Minister did not go into that. It is another case of being pleased with what the Minister had to say but being displeased at what he did not have to say in his statement. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(12.25) —My remarks will be somewhat briefer than the normal time entitlement because I wish to make room for my colleague and friend the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter) to speak in this debate. First, I must direct a few remarks to the speech of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). The thrust of his speech, expressed on a number of occasions, was that the rhetoric had changed to some extent but that the actions of the Government were unsatisfactory. A careful examination of the 'Defence Report', which shows the various strengths and weaknesses of our Defence Force, displays that defence is very much a matter of long lead times. The equipment that one orders today comes on stream perhaps four or five years down the track and then one has it for 20, 25 or 30 years. So the Defence Force as it is structured today is very much a result of decisions made in the early 1960s. The equipment being ordered by the present Government will still be with the Defence Force at the turn of the century. So, we are asked to make a judgment of statements by two Labor Ministers after they have been in office for eight months, with all that that means. A basic fact of life in all areas of government expenditure is the present serious situation of the Australian economy as part of the world economy. It is not suggested today by members of the Opposition, as it was in 1975, that somehow or other the Labor Government has created an economic disaster in Australia while the rest of the world is chugging along merrily. It is now recognised, because we heard it from the former Prime Minister, the former right honourable member for Wannon, that Australia is part of the world economy. So, economic recovery in this nation is absolutely vital for increased defence expenditure in future, as it is for increased expenditure in areas such as health, welfare and education. It is not untimely to point out that the Opposition, in previous debates in this Parliament, has proposed to reduce the Budget deficit by $2,000m. I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that some of that money would have come out of the defence budget. On the one hand the Opposition says: 'Spend less'. On the other hand it says: 'Spend more'. What is the record of the Government? This Budget shows a 4 per cent increase in funding in real terms. Following the Soviet incursion into Afghanistan, the former Government upgraded its rolling program and gave the Defence Force to understand that it could look at an expansion in capital expenditure of the order of 7 per cent a year. This no doubt is the rhetoric that the honourable member for Wentworth was talking about because, while the former Minister for Defence made those statements and it was the policy of his Government, that Government did not deliver in real terms. What are the facts? The basic facts of expenditure on equipment are that the FA18, the Hornet, which last year cost $ 170m, will this year take $500m out of defence capital expenditure. That level of expenditure will continue for the next four or five years. The Hornet program will dominate the capital expenditure program of the Defence Force for the next four years. Against that background the Government has ordered two frigates for the Royal Australian Navy to be built at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. It is rather interesting to take up government again after being in opposition for seven years and to consider some of these matters, particularly against the statements about rhetoric and performance. When the Whitlam Government was elected it was found that Williamstown Dockyard was so outmoded that it was quite incapable of playing an effective role. A program was set under way by the Labor Government of the day to modernise Williamstown Dockyard so that the destroyer replacement program might be set under way. That modernisation of Williamstown Dockyard was decided on in 1973, and 10 years later this Government has started that program. That is an indication of actually just what rhetoric and performance have meant to the parties opposite. The honourable member for Wentworth expressed his pleasure that $26m had been provided for the modernisation of Garden Island dockyard. That is another program which was held up through the whole period of the Fraser Government. As the then Chairman of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, I went to Garden Island in the early days of the Whitlam Government. The Committee was aware of the neglect of that dockyard by conservative governments over many years. That program was being prepared in the days of the Whitlam Government. Now in 1983, more than seven years down the track, that program is getting under way. I believe the statements made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) and the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) have been positive. The Ministers are doing their best and they have obtained an increase in expenditure in the very difficult circumstances that apply in Australia today. It is one thing to discuss small points; there are plenty of them and one can always find things with which one disagrees. But this is really all about defence capabilities. Within these broad parameters of defence expenditure the Government must maintain and develop capabilities appropriate to Australia's strategic situation . The Defence Force needs a range of capabilities to enable it to respond effectively to relatively low level contingencies which could develop with very little warning. This means that a substantial part of the force must remain in an advanced state of readiness. The Kangaroo 83 exercise, recently completed, demonstrated the competence and skills of the Defence Force in such a situation. It also demonstrated the extraordinarily difficult problems of transporting the Defence Force and its equipment in the north of this continent. The Force also needs to invest in a number of capabilities which are unlikely to be required in the short term but which would be essential as a basis for expansion if the strategic situation were to deteriorate. In this regard Australia has modern equipment facilities and trained manpower, but there are areas where improvements need to be made. The major change to the force structure was the decision not to acquire an aircraft carrier. The Government concluded that an aircraft carrier of the kind we could afford and the kind of aircraft which could operate from it were not a satisfactory answer to Australia's needs in anti-submarine warfare, maritime air defence, strike, surveillance and reconnaissance. The statement by the Minister describes the very large sums allotted in this year's Budget to develop these capabilities. Our modern land-based aircraft, destroyers, guided missile frigates, helicopters and patrol boats, both in existence and planned, can meet our essential maritime needs. For example, I draw the attention of the House to recent remarks of the Chief of the Air Staff to the effect that Australia's anti-shipping strike power would be unequalled by any other nation in the region. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that the previous Government did not set aside future funds to cover the cost of a carrier. The honourable member for Wentworth spoke about the Melbourne being cannibalised in his electorate. That decision was made by the former Fraser Government. This Government is firmly of the view that resources which would have gone to the carrier will be better spent in other ways. The Minister for Defence Support has outlined the ways in which that expenditure will take place. It is a privilege and a pleasure to speak in this debate today. I congratulate the two Ministers on the way in which they have set about their difficult task of building on what they inherited from the previous Government. What they are doing will enable us to build in this country that defence force which is necessary for the defence of Australia and which will enable Australia to meet its international commitments within the structure of its alliances. Mr KATTER(Kennedy)(12.35) —I would like to thank the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) who, with his characteristic consideration, has been kind enough to make part of his time available to me particularly in view of the fact that he chairs the Sub-Committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has made reference to the ANZUS pact and the importance of certain aspects of that pact. With the few minutes at my disposal I would like to have a look at this area generally; that is the South East Asian area and the Pacific and northern Pacific areas. I have learned that over the years we have not had formal agreements with Indonesia but we have had what we propose to call arrangements. I think it is fairly clear that those arrangements are pretty critical and vital to the security of this country. It is quite obvious that if Indonesia were to have a change in government, a change in attitude and loyalties, we could well be faced with a very difficult situation. Hence, though we would not in any way forsake our principles or our international attitudes, I think it is most unwise to jeopardise that relationship unless it was very valid. The other matter I would like to mention is the north Pacific area. We are inclined to overlook this area. I think it came out in stark reality recently just how sensitive that area is. Two facts have emerged: Firstly, the Russians are deeply entrenched. I have mentioned this on previous occasions in this House on no lesser authority than that of Admiral Long. As I have said before, if we were to name the most powerful military person on earth we would have to name Admiral Long because he is the Commander-in-Chief Pacific-CINCPAC-he is the Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Ocean area and more recently he has been given the responsibility in the Persian Gulf area. He is a man who inevitably must have his finger on the pulse of the threats that would exist in any of these areas. In a briefing that I was privileged to have with him, it was pointed out that the Soviets in the northern Pacific area have a base which is every bit equal in capability and equipment to that which exists in the European zone. It is capable of carrying on a global war from that area. That would explain the extreme sensitivity of the Soviets in the area and what they would consider an intrusion; hence the shooting down of the Korean 747 aircraft. The other matter I would like to dwell on in this context is the redeployment of the two mirage squadrons from Butterworth. I can appreciate the necessity for this. I would like to stress-I think it is obvious to any of us who have been close to the defence scene over a period of years-that there is a sensitivity about face and a sensitivity about belonging in that area. I will explain that. I well remember when I attended the United Nations some years ago that the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr McMahon, pointed out that it was extremely important that one gets to know, to understand and to try to relate to South East Asian delegates. His particular argument there was that it has got to be understood that we are not just one great European country which had very little in common with all of our Association of South East Asian Nations and other ethnic groups in the area because we were just one out. I attempted to get to know the South East Asian delegates and found that they were very amen- able, provided one did not put on a big brother attitude. Another thing that was stressed by Mr McMahon-I was able to confirm this at the United Nations-is that the matter of face and presence is extremely important. I want to discuss the matter of presence for a minute or two. I repeat that perhaps there were good reasons for the redeployment of our two mirage squadrons. One is already out and the other is to leave that area before very much longer. The Minister in his statement said that future arrangements would be considered at an appropriate time, or words to that effect. I am terribly interested to know what those arrangements will be. But from my own experience and from information from those who know much more than me and from their briefing it would appear to me that it is extremely important that we maintain a real and effective presence-not just a gesture-in that area. I sincerely hope that that does happen. I would again like to make one or two comments on the aircraft carrier. I agree with the shadow Minister for Defence that a decision on this matter should be made very promptly. It was decided to-if one likes-scuttle HMAS Melbourne. This was worrying. I did make note of the fact that the honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) pointed out that he was not arguing the merits or demerits of the matter of an aircraft carrier. Quite specifically, the inquiry that was held in relation to the desirability of an aircraft carrier for our general spectrum of defence was done with a great deal of care and extended over a very long period. Inquiries were held in many States and evidence was taken at all levels from Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot down. So there was a perfectly bipartisan approach to the whole matter. I went to one of the inquiries-I must be honest about this-convinced that we should have an aircraft carrier. I came out convinced that we should not have an aircraft carrier unless we were prepared to set aside the requirements of many other items which were critical to our defence, such as forward warning aircraft. It is with great sadness that we depart from what was a major part of our equipment; that is, an Australian aircraft carrier. If we could have had three moderate aircraft carriers and we could have also had our new generation equipment and our new generation weaponry, which is vital to Australia, we would have made the most of it. We do that on the basis of three things: What we can afford, static defence and the ordinary conventional mobile defence. I could speak for hours on that matter, not just the few minutes that I have at my disposal. So much for the aircraft carrier. I sympathise with the many retired naval officers who have been particularly rude about my committee and its findings. I can understand their reactions, but I must ask them to have a look at the whole spectrum of consideration that we had to give to that matter. The decision of the committee, which was a totally bipartisan committee, was unanimous. In the remaining minute I have, I would like to deal with the matter of cadets. I agree with the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) on one aspect; that is, it does affect more particularly the under-privileged schools. If I might give an example: When I was Minister for the Army I was driving through a little town called Mount Morgan. Mount Morgan, as my friend, the honourable member for Brisbane would know, has about 95 per cent Labor supporters. I happened to be passing by and saw a group of cadets in the backyard of the State school getting ready to go out on adventure training. That would have been the most enthusiastic, probably the most efficient group of cadets, the sons of miners-I do not know about the daughters, I do not know if they are included; there was not much sex discrimination about then-and ordinary toilers and battlers. They constituted one of the best cadet corps I had-not in the Kennedy electorate but in the whole area for which I was responsible and that was all of Australia by the way. I appeal to the Government-I do not know whether it is possible at this late stage-to have another look at this matter of cadets and, if possible, reverse the decision and give the State schools and the little blokes a bit of a go. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ministerial Statement Consideration resumed on the following paper presented by Mr Scholes: Defence Budget-Ministerial Statement, 3 November 1983 and on motion by Mr Howe: That the House take note of the papers. Question resolved in the affirmative. Sitting suspended from 12.44 to 2 p.m. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) left Australia today to attend a meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organisation in Rome and to hold ministerial discussions in the Middle East on Australia's meat trade. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will be Acting Minister for Primary Industry until the Minister returns. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Did Australia vote in the United Nations General Assembly in favour of a motion censuring or condemning the United States of America for its involvement with Commonwealth Caribbean countries in Grenada? If so, did countries such as Canada , Japan, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Philippines, for example, abstain from such vote? What explanation was given for this vote by Australia? Mr HAYDEN —As I understand the situation, the proposition put by the Leader of the Opposition is correct. I am asking for more information because, on the basis of the facts as I see them at the moment, the vote would appear to be contrary to the instructions I issued. A number of recommendations were put to me in the minute from the Department of Foreign Affairs on this issue. Specifically in relation to this matter it says: If forced into immediate vote, abstain unless a substantial majority of Western countries move to support. Delegations should seek to align as far as possible with Nordics, Canada, the Netherlands, France, UK and NZ. We should anticipate that these marker delegations would not all vote in the same way. I have a copy of the cablegram which went to the United Nations delegation in New York. I find it quite unambiguous. I will read it, with the indulgence of the House: Mr Hayden has agreed to instructions set out in parts (D)- which I have just enumerated- and (E) of paragraph 3 of reftel . . . We note from other cables- they are referred to- that amendments may be proposed to the Nicaraguan draft resolution. Notwithstanding these, we would want you at the end of the day to maintain your abstention unless a substantial majority of Western countries move to support the resolution. For your reference you should be aware that abstention reflects Mr Hayden's unwillingness to go beyond his statement of 31 October. It refers to a cable number and continues: The proposed resolution on Grenada goes beyond this significantly. I can add nothing more to the matter than that. It can be seen quite clearly that quite precise instructions were issued by the Department as a result of my instructions in turn to the Department. Mr Peacock —Will you take action against them? Mr HAYDEN —We will find out the explanation. My immediate impulse is to say yes, but I am asking for an explanation. On appearances, all I can say is that I am uneasy about what has happened. There may be an explanation. Mr HOLLIS —Has the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs seen reports that the Kempsey Shire Council will reduce the water supply to the Aboriginal reserve at Burnt Bridge and provide one tap for 130 Aborigines on the reserve? Is it true that the Council has taken $9,000 of a Federal Government grant which was to be used for an Aboriginal training program? Mr HOLDING —I have seen the reports in the Press this morning concerning these allegations. I am concerned that a community of some 130 Aboriginals should be restricted to only one tap for their water supply. The Aboriginal reserve is Burnt Bridge, which is held by the State Minister. Arrangements were made earlier this week for a meeting between the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the State Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, the Aboriginal Development Commission, the Ngaku Aboriginal Housing Co. and the Kempsey Shire Council to take place on Friday, 11 November, to sort out responsibilities for payments of excess water rates and to ensure that a program of repairs to the water pipes will go ahead as smoothly and as quickly as possible. Tenders for the repair of the water pipes close on 9 November. A grant of $50, 000 has been allocated by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs for repairs to those pipes and that funding will be made available immediately the contract has been let for the work. There is no truth to the allegation that the $50,000 that has been made available will be withdrawn. I am aware that the Kempsey Shire Council obtained a court order on the bank account of the Ngaku Aboriginal Housing Co. for payment of outstanding water rates. This and the other matters at issue will be discussed at the meeting on 9 November. I hope that on that date any outstanding difficulties between the Council and the Aboriginal community will be resolved to the satisfaction of everyone. Mr HUNT —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications. Are the second Homestead and Community Broadcasting Satellite Service transponders on the proposed satellite to be allocated to three big Sydney media interests? What effect would this have on broadcasters in all other States? If no decision has been made, will the Minister give an assurance that the Government will honour its promise to people in remote country areas that they will receive programs, other than those of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, on a low cost receiving dish? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government has not sold out or is not about to sell out the people in other States and those in remote areas for Sydney media interests? Will the Minister refer the allocation issue for public hearing by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal? Mr DUFFY —The subject of the honourable member's question relates, as I have said in the House in the last fortnight, to matters currently before Cabinet. It is anticipated that decisions in the area to which he has referred will be made within the next fortnight. In respect of the specific matter raised, that is, the use of the transponders, the issue involves reaching a balance in providing a diversity of service not only to remote areas but also to country areas and generally provincial areas which require, and have indicated quite clearly that they require, a broader range of television and radio programs. I can, however, assure the honourable member that the Government has taken into account in all of its considerations, and will continue to take into account, the balance between that diversity and the protection of regional stations. The Government has under consideration the matters raised by the honourable member. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a delegation from the National Conference of State Legislatures of the United States of America, led by representative Bill Passannante, President of the Conference. On behalf of the House I extend to the delegation a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Ms McHUGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Transport. What information is available on the effects of drugs on driving ability, particularly when taken in association with alcohol? What action is the Government taking in respect of this very serious problem? Mr PETER MORRIS —I thank the honourable member for Phillip for her question and I commend her for her continuing interest and efforts in support of the improvement of road safety. Mr Goodluck —She is not on the committee. Mr PETER MORRIS —You alcoholics are the ones I am directing this answer to. The dangers of drink driving are well known, certainly to the honourable member for Franklin. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister would, on reflection, realise that that is an unparliamentary imputation. I ask him to withdraw. Mr PETER MORRIS —Certainly it was not intended in an unparliamentary fashion; it was an indication of his prowess. But I withdraw it, of course. As I was saying, the dangers of drink driving are well known and significant progress has been made in overcoming this problem, especially with the introduction of random breath testing. But relatively little is known about the impact of drugs on driving ability and little is known about the combined effect of drugs and alcohol on driving ability. A number of current surveys are being conducted by the Federal Office of Road Safety and these are beginning to reveal some alarming statistics on the levels of drug usage among motorists. I mention, for instance, that a recent survey of Melbourne motorists-not Tasmanian but Melbourne motorists-showed that 13.7 per cent of them admitted using alcohol, medications or both. I am referring to prescribed preparations and across the counter preparations. The incidence of drug taking is twice as high among drinking drivers as among non-drinkers. Eighty per cent of the drugs taken by those drinking drivers are known to impair driving skills. The preliminary results of another survey, the final results of which I hope to be able to release in a few weeks, show the presence of drugs in 30 per cent of the drivers and pedestrians who have been killed in road crashes. A danger not recognised by most people is the unwitting mixture of alcohol with sedatives or tranquillisers. Such drugs as serepax or valium or sleeping tablets such as mogadon are often innocently mixed with alochol. It can often be the case that somebody has taken a valium or a serapax earlier in the day, forgotten and later partaken of alcohol. That combination is disastrous. We know from research that the mixture contributes to such things as an impaired sense of direction, an impaired sense of distance and an impaired ability to manoeuvre a motor vehicle. The problems raised by the honourable member for Phillip are indeed serious ones and, in accordance with the high priority that has been accorded to the issue of road safety by this Government, and in accordance with our determination to reduce the carnage on our roads, I have asked the Federal Office of Road Safety to step up its efforts in identifying the role of drugs in crashes and the development of counter-measures. In addition to that we have already commissioned a survey, or rather a preliminary study, into the effect of cannabis on driving. I conclude by making an appeal to people who are in the practice of using tranquilliser drugs to take care and to remember that they should not drive if they have taken a combination of alcohol and either of those tranquillisers. I appeal to members of the medical profession and of the pharmaceutical profession that when they are prescribing or dispensing those drugs they mention to people the dangers of using them in association with driving. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Special Minister of State. But I simply say, in regard to the earlier question I asked the Foreign Minister, that I thank him for the information he conveyed to the House. I have had the broad terms of the resolution put before me before I came in, and that follow-up action I appreciate. I add that, had I been Foreign Minister, I would have directed a vote against the resolution. I ask the Special Minister of State whether he is aware of the following statement on corruption in New South Wales made by Premier Wran in an interview with Channel 10 Sydney, reported in today's Australian newspaper and replayed on this morning's AM program: I had what you might call a briefing, just like Senator Chipp. I ask the Minister to advise the House who has been briefed on the contents of these highly sensitive Federal Police transcripts and not just advised as I was as to intercept dates and that no information was gathered. Who has been briefed on the contents of these highly sensitive Federal Police transcripts? Mr BEAZLEY —I am aware that last night Premier Wran made certain statements. I have not in fact seen that particular aspect of the statement. Senator Chipp has received a briefing on the matters, to my recollection not dissimilar to the one the Leader of the Opposition received. Mr Peacock —That is dates and lifting-- Mr BEAZLEY —On dates and lifting of taps and the like. I cannot exactly recollect from the occasion when that briefing was given the extent of the course of discussion with him. It may have been more extensive than that. I think it occurred at a later date than the Leader of the Opposition's briefing. In response to some of the points he put to us we gave him a more extensive briefing than the Leader of the Opposition received. I am now relying on my memory in that regard but I think that is the case. In the circumstances I think that is wholly appropriate. I think it is appropriate that the Leader of the Opposition was briefed. If he wishes to be briefed to the extent that Senator Chipp was, that would be appropriate too. Mr Anthony —Does he get privilege over the Leader of the Opposition? Mr BEAZLEY —No. My recollection is that the briefing he received was substantially the same as the briefing the Leader of the Opposition received though likely to have been a little more extensive, occurring as it did at a later date. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is directed to the Minister for Science and Technology and arises out of the draft reports of the Industries Assistance Commission brought down last week on computers, machine tools, robots, et cetera . I ask the Minister whether these reports will present themselves as an obstacle to the Government's commitment to the development of sunrise industries , particularly in high technology fields? Mr BARRY JONES —I regard the three draft reports as extremely disappointing and rather lacking in intellectual vitality. The report on computers did not just cover hardware and software but also miscellaneous office equipment, including typewriters, calculators, recording media and even staplers. It was shortsighted to have considered computer hardware and software only as office equipment like rubber bands or white-out and not placed in the broader context of the information explosion with its revolutionary or counter-revolutionary capacity to change the configuration of power, our perceptions of the world, our culture and our technological autonomy. None of these factors is given even a mention in the majority report. However, the newspaper coverage of these three reports was somewhat exaggerated. The computer report rejected tariff protection and bounties by majority and said that most requests were for access to venture capital, increased research and development grants and government purchasing preference. All three are in hand by this Government. The Commission said that it would not propose any specific additional measures to those three introduced by the Government; nor, I might add, are we proposing any. It should be made clear that with the possible exception of personal computers tariff protection has not been seriously proposed for any of the sunrise industries. They are aimed at filling niches in the world market and if they do not succeed in doing this they are dead anyway. Tariff protection for items such as computer software would be pointless because the software does not have to be sent to Australia in a package; it could be transferred just as easily by telephone and we cannot apply tariffs to that. The metal working machine tools report did suggest a bounty for six years starting at 50 per cent and running down to 40 per cent. For robots the Industries Assistance Commission suggested a bounty of 30 per cent of value added. All three are draft reports. There will be no Cabinet response until the final reports are in. But it is fair to say that the IAC plays, essentially, a devil's advocate role. It is just one source of advice to the Government. I hope it does not sound too sexist to repeat, that perhaps, as I said the other day, it plays the role of the candid friend one might consult before getting married but one would not necessarily have as the best man. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. I refer to the Minister's reply yesterday to the Leader of the Opposition in which he said that there was no material in the possession of the Australian Federal Police which would sustain the type of suggestion put forward by Mr Bottom. Will the Minister now agree that it is for the New South Wales judicial inquiry and not the Federal Police Commissioner to decide whether the information in the transcripts will sustain those allegations? Will the Minister, therefore, make available to the inquiry all the information in the possession of the Federal Police which in any way concerns the allegations and not have the matter prejudged by a non-judicial officer in the manner he indicated yesterday? Mr BEAZLEY —In the course of answering this question I want to add to the answer I gave to the Leader of the Opposition. Now, having had an opportunity to reflect on what I said, I recollect the extent to which Senator Chipp was briefed beyond the extent to which the Leader of the Opposition was briefed. Senator Chipp was more extensively briefed than the Leader of the Opposition was , as I recollect, on the degree of the Government's concern about compromise of Federal investigations. That was the essential difference between his briefing and that of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —It is a very significant difference. Mr BEAZLEY —It is not, in fact, a very significant difference at all. Mr Peacock —We might take that further another day. Mr BEAZLEY —If the Leader of the Opposition wishes to be briefed on the extent of the Government's concern about the possibility of the compromise of a Federal investigation I am happy to brief him. That is okay. It is all right with me. Mr Dobie —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I believe that at the moment the Minister is making a personal explanation during Question Time. Mr SPEAKER —I think honourable members appreciate that he is adding to an answer given to the Leader of the Opposition and then will be answering the question asked by the honourable member for Boothby. Mr BEAZLEY —The answer to the honourable member for Boothby's question is this: The problems I referred to yesterday still stand. The honourable member for Boothby ought to be aware of the considerable constraints imposed on the Federal Government by that legislation as to whom information may be passed to and in what way that information may be used. It is properly constricting legislation devised by the Opposition. Mr Steele Hall —That is not the substance of your answer yesterday. Mr BEAZLEY —No. It is properly constricting legislation. What I have said is this: I want to be able to pass on to the New South Wales judicial authorities everything that can possibly be passed on to them in order that they can complete their inquiries. I was pointing out yesterday that in pursuing that desire I may find myself in a degree of trouble with the Act I am obliged to administer. I said yesterday that if I find myself in a degree of trouble in terms of the administration of that Act amendments may possibly be required. When we learn what exactly is intended by the New South Wales authorities in whatever Act they bring into Parliament, or whatever administrative process they set in train to achieve that, we will know better the extent to which there are problems with our own Act in relation to it. When we know that we will make a determination on what amendments might have to be made in pursuing that matter further. There is no embarrassment on my part in passing over to the New South Wales authorities anything related to the questions involved with the early release scheme. As I have said, if we find ourselves having problems with the administration of the Opposition's Act-I do not want to bag its Act because I think the way in which it has phrased it is perfectly appropriate-when we come to considering what has to be passed on, we will have a look at that. What I said yesterday in relation to the allegations by Mr Bottom still stands; that is , when I was requested by the Attorney-General-in fact I did this on my own initiative-to see whether anything was available to sustain the allegations Mr Bottom put forward, I checked on that with the Police Commissioner. The Police Commissioner advised me at that time that nothing in his possession or knowledge sustained those allegations. I have been since advised that he sticks by that original judgment. Mr Steele Hall —And you accepted that? Mr BEAZLEY —Yes, I do accept the judgment of the Police Commissioner. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Burke. Order! I call the honourable member for Burke. Honourable gentlemen on my left seem to feel that they can chat across the chamber after answers have been given. I ask them to respect the procedures of the House and allow other members to ask questions. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the continuing civil strife and military activity in the Lebanon and to the many inquiries that I and other honourable members have had from relatives and friends of people in the Lebanon. I ask: Can the Minister inform the House of any special migration and visitor arrangements the Government proposes to take to assist people from the area? Mr WEST —The honourable member may remember that on 6 September I announced a range of measures to assist relatives of people in Australia who are currently affected by recent civil strife in the Lebanon. The honourable member may remember that this related to giving priority to processing of family reunion cases in the Lebanon and waiving the two-year residential requirement for sponsors in Australia. Further, I directed that those cases that failed the family reunion points system-that is, failed the socio-economic system they are assessed under-would be further considered if it was proved that they were directly affected by fighting and civil strife; that is, that we would implement a sort of de facto special humanitarian program component and give consideration to those people. I also said that we would give priority as far as we could to processing applications for spouses, fiances and parents and that we would put through applications from the Lebanon, if necessary and if we could, ahead of full processing. I also said on 6 September that those Lebanese visitors who were already in Australia on visas would not be forced, on the expiration of their visas, to return to the Lebanon. Clearly, that would have been very hard to do anyway, the airport being closed. We will not do that. I said that we would review the matter on 31 October. It has been reviewed and the time for the expiry of visas has been extended to 31 December. All Lebanese visitors with relatives in Australia who wish to stay after the expiry of their visas should go to their nearest regional office of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I conclude by saying that the Australian Labor Government is very sympathetic to people in the Lebanon and to their relatives in Australia. The House should understand that my Department is having great difficulty in processing applications inside the Lebanon because it can never be quite sure when it will be able to do any work in Beirut. A lot of the work has to be done through Damascus. However, we will continue it and do the very best that we can. I will keep the situation under continuous review. Mr ANTHONY —I direct my question to the Treasurer. Will he inform the House when he expects to be able to announce the Government's decision on future foreign investment policy? In particular will he say what progress has been made on achieving what I believe is a bipartisan and trans-Tasman objective, that overtime, under the umbrella of the closer economic relations agreement, the governments of Australia and New Zealand be able to treat domestic and trans- Tasman investment on an equal basis? Mr KEATING —The Leader of the National Party of Australia used the word bipartisan in his question. I think it is fair to say that there has been a bipartisan attitude-indeed a bipartisan agreement-on the part of the two major parties in this Parliament to the overall policy approach to foreign investment. I also think it is fair to say that there has been a significant contribution in economic terms by foreign capital to the development of Australia under a policy which at the same time has allowed significant opportunities for Australians to participate in their development. In the course of the question the honourable gentleman asked me about the review of foreign investment policy that the Government announced that it was undertaking. I simply add that that review is virtually complete and ready for submission to Cabinet. I expect to be able to make an announcement in respect of that matter in the next few weeks. Investors should not be expecting any major changes in foreign investment policy. My experience in implementing the existing guidelines indicates that that policy is generally working well and in a satisfactory way. Perhaps any differences in the review which will be undertaken will be in emphasis rather than in substance. I refer now to the second part of the question which relates to New Zealand. I recognise the honourable gentleman's prime role in the development of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand and also his obvious continuing interest in it. The honourable member will recall that the CER agreement does not address the issues of separate foreign investment policies operating between the two countries. However, there was an understanding that where proposals for trans-Tasman investment had favourable implications for the two countries they would be taken into account as an economic benefit when applying the economic benefits test. I have been implementing that approach in respect of New Zealand proposals. Since the CER agreement was signed, apparently there has been some dissatisfaction with the current arrangements in New Zealand and there is a desire to advance this aspect of the review proposed for 1988. Under the original arrangements a review of the foreign investment aspects was proposed for 1988. As honourable members know, the Prime Minister of New Zealand effectively placed an embargo on Australian investments in New Zealand pending progress on this issue. I had discussions with Mr Muldoon in Washington on the occasion of the International Monetary Fund meetings. We agreed that both countries needed to take action to prevent tension to ease the situation and to develop some progress on the issue. I understand that today the New Zealand Prime Minister will be making an address in Perth indicating further progress on this issue. I have undertaken that the Foreign Investment Review Board and I will look again at certain New Zealand investment proposals which have been unable to proceed. I will consider future proposals sympathetically on a case by case basis having regard to the objectives of the closer economic relations agreement in a corporate sense. On the broader issue of the review scheduled for 1988, Australia is constrained by its non-discrimination treaty with Japan. However, I am currently examining whether some aspects of the proposed review can be advanced to the immediate future. I know that the honourable gentleman plans to go to New Zealand next week and no doubt he will be asked about this question. It is welcome that the New Zealand Prime Minister is now approving proposals which were held up in accordance with their procedures. As I have said, we are going back over some proposals which were held up here and we will examine how and in which way we can at this time advance some of the considerations involved in the 1988 review. Mr MAHER —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has he received a letter, the contents of which were published in one newspaper, from the Catholic Archbishop of Canberra and Goulburn raising possible interpretations of various sections of the Sex Discrimination Bill, which has not yet been debated in this House? What action is he taking in relation to the Archbishop's comments? Mr HAWKE —Yes, I have received a lengthy letter-I will not say epistle-from the Archbishop in which he does raise matters of concern. From my first study of the document I think there are some matters of substance in respect of which, at least prima facie, I would like to consider the possibility of some degree of accommodation. Because I take the contents of the letter seriously and because I hold the writer in very high esteem I have arranged to meet with him and his representatives in the near future to discuss the matters raised by him. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. The Minister will recall a meeting that he had with officials of the Transport Workers Union on 21 October to discuss proceedings being taken by the Trade Practices Commission against the union. Before that meeting the TWU assistant secretary said that he was seeking three commitments from the Government, namely, the immediate withdrawal of the proceedings, payment of $10,000 in costs and a guarantee that there would be no similar prosecutions. In the light of the TWU secretary's subsequent statement that the action would be withdrawn and the costs would be paid, I ask the Minister: Has the Government contacted the Trade Practices Commission about this case? What was the basis of this approach? Who is paying or contributing to the union's legal costs? Has any assurance been given that no similar action will be taken by the Trade Practices Commission against the TWU or other unions? Mr WILLIS —Yes, there was such a meeting involving the Attorney-General and me in Melbourne on about the date that the honourable member mentioned. At that meeting we discussed the case which had come before the Federal Court of Australia as a result of action taken by the Trade Practices Commission. This resulted in about 11 days of hearings before the action came to an end. The union has put forward various proposals to us which are of the order that the honourable member has mentioned. It is true, as he is aware, that we agreed to pay the costs, involving around $10,000, and to withdraw the action. However, it was also agreed that we would take action in the future to try to remedy the operation of the Trade Practices Act in respect of trade unions. It is Australian Labor Party policy to repeal sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act, but this case did not involve those sections. It involved the use of sections 45 and 47 of the Trade Practices Act in relation to trade unions. This is a unique situation. As far as I am aware, it has not previously been the case that those sections have been used against any trade union. In those circumstances we agreed to review the Trade Practices Act to see whether we could ensure that those sections of the Act would not apply to the trade union movement in the future. Mr Howard —You have gone further than the Prime Minister did. Mr WILLIS —Would the honourable member please let me finish the answer? As the Prime Minister said, in answer to a question some time ago, before the end of this session we will be putting forward an exposure draft of the revised Trade Practices Act. That exposure draft will be there for comment. It will be introduced this year. It will not be put through the Parliament until the autumn session next year. There will be plenty of time for Opposition members who oppose what is in that draft to make their opposition known and for others in the community who are concerned about it to make their views known to the Government. We will consider the recommendations that we receive on that exposure draft and then put forward the final Bill, which will go through the Parliament next year. I think that is as far as I can go in my answer. Mr BLANCHARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Aviation. In view of the fact that the next defence of the America's Cup-which perhaps we should call the Australia's Cup-will be held in Perth, can the Minister assure the House that the present improvements to the Perth Airport will be completed in time for the expected influx of visitors? Mr BEAZLEY —I have been waiting in vain for a few weeks for an aviation question. I cannot give the categorical assurance that the honourable member desires, though I wish I could. In fact, the plans that have been announced thus far for the completion of the new international terminal at Perth Airport do not have a completion date in time for a challenge in early 1987, which is, as I understand it, when the challenge is to be. Needless to say, upon seeing the very considerable success of the people associated with the Australia II project, I have immediately set in train in my Department an examination of how it might be possible to complete work on the new international terminal in a reasonable amount of time prior to the date of that challenge in early 1987. My Department is working on that at-I am assured-a very rapid rate. After it has done so, I will approach the Government with whatever my Department has managed to discover in that regard. Of course, whether we proceed along that line and have that international terminal completed will be a matter, in the final analysis, for the Government to determine within a Budget context. Mr ALDRED —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. The Minister will be fully aware of the serious concern felt by Japan's iron ore importers at the effects of serious, long-standing industrial disputation in the Pilbara area of Western Australia. Is the Minister aware of reports of a new outbreak of disputation at the main loading wharf of the Mt Newman Mining Co. Pty Ltd at Port Hedland, where operations have been crippled for a fortnight? What steps will be taken to ensure that Australia's reputation as a reliable supplier of iron ore, already seriously jeopardised, can be regained, with the apparent failure of the new Commonwealth-State arrangements for resolving industrial disputation in the Pilbara? Mr WILLIS —I think the dispute to which the honourable member referred occurred recently at Mt Newman over the non-payment of a strike levy by one member of the work force at Port Hedland. I understand that that dispute is now over and that it was resolved through the Western Australian Industrial Commission. The terms by which it was resolved, as I understand it, were that the Western Australian Industrial Commissioner, Commissioner Halliwell, recommended that the company suspend the person involved until an application could be brought to the Commission to see whether there was a ground on which he could be dismissed. That was the basis on which, as I understand it, the dispute was resolved. The people are now back at work and the dispute no longer exists as far as stoppage of work goes. As far as the future of the Pilbara goes, let me say that we are greatly concerned to try to ensure that industrial relations in the Pilbara are improved . Over the years there have been periods of substantial breakdown of industrial relations in this important area-not least of which occurred fairly recently- apart from the dispute we have just been mentioning which involved lengthy stoppages. I and some other Federal Ministers, including my colleague the Minister for Trade, were involved in trying to bring some sense to the situation . As a result of that stoppage and our concern to ensure that there is no future dispute of that kind, which posed grave potential damage to future contracts and indeed, in this case, involved a loss of substantial tonnage, we have been concerned with the Western Australian Government to try to establish a system of industrial relations in the Pilbara which will be much improved in the future. In the very near future in co-operation with the Western Australian Government we will be announcing a series of initiatives relating to the Pilbara which, I believe, will open up a new area of industrial relations in that important region and guarantee that in the future we do not have the kind of substantial industrial trouble which has marked that area in the past. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members I present a report to the Attorney-General by the Administrative Review Council on Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees ) Act 1971- Amendments. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the annual report of the operations of the Centre together with financial statements for the years 1981-82. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of the House I present the annual report of the Official Establishments Trust for 1982-83. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, I present the annual report for 1982-83 of the Insurance Commissioner. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : States (Works and Housing) Assistance Bill 1983 Northern Territory Grant (Special Assistance) Bill 1983 Migration (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 1983 Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1983-84 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Discussion of Matter of Public Importance Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr ( Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The growing community concern at the arrogant and provocative actions of the Government in relation to taxation and other measures for which it has no mandate. 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 PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.50) —I have raised this matter of public importance because there can be no doubting the increasing community concern and, indeed, alarm at the arrogant actions of this Government in introducing measures for which it has no mandate, for taking steps which at no time before the 5 March election did it foreshadow, and in many cases it specifically promised not to take those steps. I have in front of me an extremely long list of actions taken by this Government without any mandate. The list is far too long for me to be able to deal with it comprehensively in the time available. Mr Steedman —Sit down then. Mr PEACOCK —I will ask leave to table it, and I hope it will be incorporated in the record. The list is too long to be dealt with comprehensively, but it is a list that exposes all honourable members who support the Government as shameless , cynical hypocrites. It is a list that ensures that Australian electors will not again trust a Labor Party such as this. If this was not damning enough, it does not include the other side of the coin, which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) will deal with this evening; that is, all of those actions that have not been taken, notwithstanding specific election commitments that they would be taken. There are two ways of misleading people at election time. A party can tell people that it will do something and then not do anything about it-the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will deal with that tonight-or it does not tell them and then introduces punitive measures for which it has no mandate. That is what we are dealing with today. In the time available to me I will refer to two examples of the types of actions taken without a mandate by this Government. They are important examples and they are examples that illustrate graphically the arrogance, the cynicism and, indeed, the absolute duplicity of this Government. To see the type of government we currently have we need look no further than its approach to the aged and to taxation. Tuesday of this week saw the beginning of Labor's attack on the very aged in our community, those over 70. Let us look at the way the attack began. The Government did not move sensitively with our elderly citizens. It wrote them all a letter-a good bureaucratic approach-the basis of which was that if the Department of Social Security did not receive details of their income in a certain time, it would cut off their pension. What did the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) say when my colleague the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) raised this callous attitude with him in the House on Tuesday? The Minister said that the Department would reinstate the pension when it had an opportunity to assess income details. That is a measure of the Government's sensitivity. That is a measure of the Government's compassion. That is the extent of its caring for the aged, the most vulnerable group in our community. It does not matter that there may be no money for food or rent for the 16,000 elderly people that Press reports indicate will be affected. The Minister says: 'Not to worry, the pension will be reinstated in due course'. Did the elderly in our community and their families who care for them know on 5 March that this is what a Labor government would mean to them? No, they did not, because not one mention was made of this measure at any time before 5 March by any of Labor's spokesmen; nor was any mention made of the other attacks on the aged that this Government intends to pursue. There was no mention of a new tax on lump sum superannuation payments and there was no mention of an assets test on pensions. Where is the mandate for these measures? There is none whatsoever. Before the election Labor spokesmen talked often of caring; they talked often of compassion. Mr Goodluck —Care for the aged. Mr PEACOCK —They spoke of the need to deal sensitively with the needs of the aged, as the honourable member interjects. Of course, as he will recall, they spoke of the need to provide them with security and with dignity. But it was all just talk. The Government's actions have now been exposed as mere talk but, beyond that, as sheer hypocrisy and humbug. Our elderly deserve better than this . They know they will get a better deal only through the return of the coalition government, because we will repeal Labor's iniquitous tax on superannuation payments. We will repeal its arbitrary and highly discriminatory assets test, and we will give the elderly in the community the security and the dignity that they deserve. We will adopt, not the ad hoc measures that hit them, as the Government has done, but a comprehensive approach to retirement policies, and enable those least able to rearrange their affairs-the ones the Government is hitting-to be able to plan with certainty, and to live with dignity and in compassionate circumstances. We will put an end to the spate of ad hoc policy announcements that have caused so much concern to the aged and to their families . If members of the Government attend pensioners' meetings, and listen to their complaints, and beyond the meetings, listen to the statements that are being proffered throughout the community on this issue, they will realise that the aged in the community are crying out for some security and certainty in planning their retirement. They are crying out for policies which do not penalise them for attempting to look after themselves. Most of all, they are crying out for this Government to deliver what it promised and to stop taking actions for which it has absolutely no mandate. The aged are not the only ones in the community making such a plea. How many of those who voted Labor on 5 March knew that Labor would impose new indirect taxes and index them so that they would increase automatically every six months? How many knew that Labor would withdraw the home mortgage interest rebate, increasing the tax burden on all home owners? How many knew that Labor would withdraw the medical insurance rebate before the introduction of Medicare? How many knew that Labor would impose the new tax on superannuation payments, to which I have already referred? How many? The answer is none, absolutely none, because not one member of the Labor Party before the election warned the ordinary citizen that Labor was intent upon increasing the tax burden on ordinary Australians. What it promised was immediate tax cuts. Now all Australia knows what that sort of promise means from this Government. Not content with the deception already achieved in this area, the detail of which I have gone over; the Government has treated us to the kite-flying on a whole range of new taxes such as a resources tax, a capital gains tax, a wealth tax. Mr Steedman —Wait until you get the wealth tax. Mr PEACOCK —That is right, the honourable member cannot wait for it. Even the back benchers are joining the plethora of Ministers who want a wealth tax. Does the honourable member want a capital gains tax? Mr Steedman —Yes. Mr PEACOCK —Does the honourable member want a resources tax? Mr Steedman —Yes. Mr PEACOCK —Does the honourable member want a gift tax? Mr Steedman —Yes, but I do not want a Liberal government. Mr PEACOCK —Does the honourable member want death duties? Mr Steedman —Yes. Mr PEACOCK —He is not on his own because, let me tell the House- Mr Steedman —You had better ask the Treasurer about it; I do not speak for the Government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! The honourable member for Casey has had a fair go. I ask the House to come to order. Mr PEACOCK —This loquacious socialist who somehow or other injected himself into this forum is not the only man who speaks for all of those matters. Do not think it is just the back benchers who affirm those questions that I pose. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 16 February said: 'There will be no new capital gains tax '. The honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) did not like that. But he is not on his own because in June the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen), who was then the acting Prime Minister, said: There is a fair amount of income deemed to be capital which escapes taxation. A lot of people are calling income capital and getting away with it. You've got to look at what you really mean by capital. The Deputy Prime Minister, who was the Acting Prime Minister at the time, affirmed the views of the honourable member for Casey. But he is not on his own, either. What about the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins)? He refused to rule out the introduction of a capital gains tax at the very time that the Acting Prime Minister was using the words to which I referred. What about the Press conference on 10 September? The honourable member for Casey has more ministerial friends on this issue. They are piling up. Who are they? The Leader of the Government in the Senate, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button ), unambiguously advocated the introduction of a capital gains tax. He was quoted as saying: 'I have been advocating a capital gains tax for several years now'. He had already said, in a television interview on 29 July, that the Government would also have to consider introducing death duties. Remember the former Special Minister of State making a plea for a wealth tax? So it is not just that poor, inane, though loquacious, honourable member for Casey who affirms death duties and who affirms a capital gains tax; who affirms, in fact, all those taxes that I went through-death duties, wealth taxes, and a capital gains tax; a plethora of Ministers have joined in the same chorus. But not one of them, not even the honourable member for Casey, said before 5 March that that is what he wanted. That is what this matter of public importance is all about-introducing matters and taking action on them but having no mandate whatsoever for them. In case Government members should think that the honourable member for Casey is the only back bencher to get in on the act with the increasing number of Ministers, let me mention another one. The Greek ruin is not in the House at the moment, but let us look at the position of the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous), because he is not just a back bencher; he is after all the Chairman of the Caucus Federal Parliamentary Industry Committee, and in a speech to the Parliament in the first week of October he backed calls that were made at Australian Labor Party conferences for the imposition of a national death duties tax as well as a capital gains tax. He is Chairman of the Caucus Industry Committee and honourable members should remember what a capital gains tax does and whom it hits. It hits not just the home owner but small business in particular. That is what the Government is all about. And that is why we draw attention to this matter today. Indeed, I believe that there is an increasing obsession within the Labor Party to find new and interesting ways of confiscating people's incomes. The honourable member for Casey would agree with that, would he not? Mr Steedman —Not necessarily. Mr PEACOCK —What about confiscating their savings? Yes, the honourable member would affirm that. People's incomes and savings are confiscated. The people of Queensland recognise that Labor means big government; Labor means big taxes. I tell Government members that on Saturday the people of Moreton will show the Federal Government what they think of Labor and its high taxing policies, because it is now patently clear that Labor has no clear policy direction other than high taxation. Labor is not interested in helping people to look after themselves, to get ahead and to have a nest egg. If they get together a few assets, Labor says: 'Confiscate those assets; take them away'. What is the role of an Australian to be if it is not to improve his lot and have a nest egg with which to retire? But Labor wants to whack him at every step of the way. Its only interest is in distributing other people's assets-the assets of those who have saved for their future and those who hope to save for their future. These people now know that they have to beware of Labor's tax programs. The Australian people now know that contrary to Labor's rhetoric before the election, when the Labor Party talks of the 'wealthy' who must bear 'a fairer share of the burden', it really means ordinary Australians who have accumulated a few modest assets in their pursuit of security and financial independence. The Labor Government's tax on superannuation whacks at them as hard as anything else. The Labor Government has no mandate for these higher taxes and it knows that if it had put the sort of approach that I have elaborated today before the people on 5 March, it would have been defeated, as it will be defeated on Saturday. Labor knows it has chosen a deceitful approach. It promised tax cuts and it delivered new and higher taxes instead. I know that there will be a clear message to Canberra from the electors of Moreton of just what they think of Labor's tax obsession and its hypocritical election promises. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have been able to outline only briefly the way this Government has acted without a mandate in two important areas. They are examples only. In fact I have a list of 27 here. This list of such actions by this Government shows an arrogant contempt of the Australian electorate. It is an endless list. I would like to read some of it or perhaps the Treasurer (Mr Keating) who is at the table, might allow me to have it incorporated in Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —It is not the prerogative of the Minister to give leave in this matter. The requirement is that the proposal needs to conform with the requirements of the House. Subject to that I will consider the proposition. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.05) — Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a totally sham proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), who is depicted on the front page of this week's Bulletin as riding the dead horse of the Liberal Party of Australia, trying to hold it up, while his colleague the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), sits on the sidelines and Mr Valder pumps some money into the horse. Meanwhile, the ghouls of the National Party of Australia sit beside the Liberal Party members in this House, hoping for the day of the great rapprochement between the conservative parties: The bushrangers get together with the city slickers. We see the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) pressing his wares as the proper and true Opposition Leader or our dear and trusted friend, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Anthony), affectionately known as 'wheatbag' by members on this side of the House, who would also like to be Leader of the Opposition. Vying in that contest, no doubt with the events in Queensland very much in his mind and hoping against hope that the same will happen at the national level, is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, hoping that he might get the inside run on the Leader of the Opposition, who day in and day out, week in and week out fails to distinguish himself here but rather is extinguishing himself. He is burning himself out with mindless propositions like the matter of public importance he has raised today. Mr Deputy Speaker, he is more to be pitied than despised. We on this side of the House treat with complete contempt the proposals he has just put. One has really to ask oneself if indeed the Australian electorate in the years ahead will respond to an Opposition leader who has nothing to offer but simply makes sham attacks upon the policies of the Government, sees no virtue in anything the Government is doing and does not address the basic issues which face this country. The Leader of the Opposition says that his Government would repeal the superannuation tax changes. He says he would repeal the assets test. He attacks the Government for indexing the excise base of the Commonwealth, which we know had been eroding for so long. Indeed, I find it a very curious proposition that the leader of the party which is supposedly arguing for economic prudence can be arguing that an important element of the tax base of the Commonwealth-the excise base-should diminish over time and that there should be no indexation of that base. He says that the only consequence of that, particularly in these times, would be that we would have to run much larger Budget deficits than we would hope to run in the future and that the whole problem of trying to deal with the structural Budget deficit, which is a problem not just for Australia but for other countries, would be diminished by adopting the policies expressed by him. He attacked the Government for withdrawing the housing interest rebate. That rebate was a piece of political tomfoolery thought up by the former Prime Minister to try to save his skin at the last election. What it amounted to was the subsidisation of middle and higher income earners of mortgages on existing properties. We did abolish one rebate and we make no apologies for abolishing it . We have turned some of those funds to the first home owners scheme in order to give people who have no accommodation a roof over their heads and a chance to be able to afford a mortgage or to afford the deposit gap. One can see in recent weeks just how well the Government's housing policies are working. In fact in the housing industry the pick up in building and in home loan lending is indeed one of the encouraging signs in the economy this year. On the matters mentioned in relation to the repeal of superannuation and the assets test, it is worth recalling a research report of the Australian Mutual Provident Society of 22 February of this year. It states: In 1981, less than 10 per cent of the population was over 65 years, but by 2021 it is expected that around 15 per cent of our population will be in this age group. The report continues: Thus, while in 1981 there were seven Australians of working age to 'support' every aged person, by 2021 only 4.5 people will be in the productive age group for every aged person. The report further states: If account is taken of the fact that the 'normal' retiring age for women is 60 years, by 2021 there will be only 3.5 persons of working age to each retired aged person (compared with 5.5 now). I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would indeed have been complimenting the Government on taking an initiative at this time which, over time, could come to deal with this very acute problem which will emerge in terms of supporting the retired aged people of this country and the demands which will be placed upon those who are in employment. Yet all that is brushed to one side. I do not think that anybody in business, in the professions or in academia, or the public at large, will in any way be attracted to, or remark positively on, the sorts of policies espoused by the Leader of the Opposition because there was no forethought, no longer term view, no focus in them. It was just a resort to the shabby sort of politics of attacking every initiative which the Government takes, particularly those which he thinks will earn him a few Brownie points with the electorate; a particular part of the electorate which may be peeved about one aspect of policy from time to time. The Leader of the Opposition called into question growing community concern. Let us just analyse his charge of growing community concern. When we look at this week's Bulletin, which I have before me, we see that the latest gallup poll shows support for the Government at 52 per cent. This is 2 1/2 per cent above the result of the last election and 11 per cent above the coalition parties' support. All this concern we are hearing about, all these crocodile tears that are being shed about community concern at the Government's policies, are not being reflected in the public opinion polls. In fact, the public opinion polls are showing support for the Government's policy. People know that the Government is here for the long haul, looking at the long term policies which will matter. Indeed, the merits and the marks will go to the parties of Australia who look at the long term political problems, the long term economic issues, and try to deal with them, rather than to those who adopt the short term approach we have been hearing about from the Leader of the Opposition since he accepted the Leader of the Opposition mantle. All these claims of growing community concern are just baseless. The Leader of the Opposition attacked the Government on taxation. He said that the Government is a high tax party. Let me just analyse people's attitudes to taxation. They also were expressed in a poll, on which there is a report in this week's Bulletin. It indicates that the proportion of people who think tax levels are unreasonable has fallen 14 per cent since August last year. Under the Liberal Government 28 per cent of people thought tax levels were reasonable. Under this Government already up to 40 per cent of people believe that tax levels are reasonable. Again, this sham and hollow concern about taxation is not borne out in the most recent test of public attitudes on this question. I submit that on the broad question of taxation policy there is a very wide acceptance of the policies which the Government has been supporting. We regard as an absolute sham the arguments which are being put up by the Leader of the Opposition about growing community concern, taxation or anything else. The Leader of the Opposition went on-this is the greatest piece of hypocrisy of all-about our mandate. Of course, no party-in particular, no member of any party -should ever talk about mandates. But, if the Opposition wants to deal with mandates, I point out that we had a mandate to introduce bottom of the harbour legislation. What did the Opposition do with that? It defeated that legislation twice in the Senate. So the Opposition should not go on about its respect for mandates. It has no respect for them. Let us look at the former Government's record on mandates. Let us look at the 1977 tax cuts. In 1977 the former Government went to an election with a promise of tax cuts. Honourable members will remember those phoney advertisements: 'Ring up and find out how much your tax cut will be'. The Fraser Government had the most specific of all election mandates for a tax cut. It gave the tax cuts in November and took them away the following May, in 1978. So Opposition members should not talk to us about mandates. What about the crude oil levy which created the greatest growth in taxation receipts for years-the $3 1/2 billion which comes from the crude oil levy? Where was the mandate for that? I do not remember any of the phoneys opposite going to the people at the 1977 election and saying: 'We will tax petrol and we will lift receipts by $3 1/2 billion'. But, of course, they did. Honourable members opposite have no integrity whatsoever. Yet they are talking to us today about mandates. I turn now to talk about the most important thing, the Fraser Government's receipts, the taxation levels. I want the Leader of the Opposition to listen to this. Under the Fraser Government taxation levels-that is, total Commonwealth Budget receipts-rose from 25.1 per cent of gross domestic product in 1975-76, that awful period when the Labor Government was supposed to be ripping money off everybody under the tax system, to 27.7 per cent. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has the temerity to come into this chamber and lecture me about tax. What a humbug the Leader of the Opposition is. Let us look at this Government's record. In the first Budget of the Hawke Labor Government the incidence of taxation has been reduced from 27.7 per cent to 27 per cent. On the only measure which one can apply-that is, Budget receipts measured against gross domestic product- Mr Howard —Do not take refuge in that. Your gap is lower. Mr KEATING —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes points about the GDP. The only measure that matters is Budget receipts measured against GDP. Budget receipts have fallen. So by any measure the first fall in the taxation level in five years has been achieved in this Government's first Budget. Let that be well understood: The lowest share of GDP in Budget receipts since 1980-81 has been achieved under this Government. Let us not talk about the hypocrisy of taxation, what the Opposition will do about its mandates or anything else. Let us just look at our mandate to bring in Medicare, which will be introduced in February, the community employment program and the first home ownership assistance scheme. It does not matter where one looks, one sees that Labor governments do as they say in respect of these matters. We do what we believe is feasible and desirable. We have increased social security payments as well. The fact of the matter is that in the election campaign we had the big trick perpetrated by members of the coalition. The Budget deficit figure that they indicated we would be looking at was about $4 billion lower than we finally found it to be. We found, on coming to office, that the prospects of implementing many of the initiatives we proposed to implement were circumscribed by the disastrous economic inheritance left to us by the former Government. One is staggered by the lack of credibility of the Leader of the Opposition, who persists in wearing himself out and wearing down what is left of his reputation in his own party and the National Party by his performance in this House, by embracing these sleazy proposals he brings in, picking up every cheap political point and not being able to get above the muck and look at the long term issues and policies which really matter. It does not matter whether one looks at opinion polls, at consumer confidence or at business confidence, one sees that interest rates are coming down, inflation is coming down and growth is under way and accelerating. Where is the evidence for the claims of the Leader of the Opposition? The fact is that there is no evidence for his claims; they are just the hollow rantings and ravings of someone whom everyone believed was a politician with great potential but whom we see in office is in fact a declining force. I am sure that the honourable member for Bennelong will let the Leader of the Opposition wear himself out on this Government while we see an upswing in the business cycle as a result of the success of the Government's policies. The honourable member for Bennelong is smart enough to make the judgment to let the honourable member for Kooyong wear himself out with these mindless proposals. He will focus in on the longer term issues. In the meantime, the barnyard bullies, the Leader of the National Party and his deputy, will be sitting on the sidelines talking about the days when that awful proposal was started with Bruce and Page back in 1921, when Page slunk up the back steps of the Prime Minister's house to sign the dirty deal for the coalition. They are hoping for the day when they can all come back in one great conservative party and then these two gentlemen will challenge for the leadership. We absolutely reject this matter of public importance. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Leader of the House)(3.20) —I move: That, unless otherwise, ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Routine of businessStanding order 101 be amended to read-101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Tuesday1. Giving notices. 2. Questions without notice. 3. Presentation of papers . 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday1. Presentation of petitions. 2. Giving notices. 3 . Notices and orders of the day. 4. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 5. Presentation of papers. 6. Ministerial statements, by leave. 7. Matter of public importance. 8. Notices and orders of the day. General business-priority to noticesStanding order 109 be amended by omitting '' for 2 hours after the meeting of the House'' and substituting ''until 9.30 p.m.' '. This proposal is purely machinery. It in no way diminishes the importance of parliamentary business. We propose simply to alter the time at which petitions will be read on Tuesdays. Petitions will still be forwarded to the responsible Minister in accordance with standing order 132. I might allay the fears of honourable members if I say that the inclusion of Friday in the proposed sessional order is simply to cover the eventuality of a Friday sitting and the routine of business which would be allowed. It in no way implies that the House will sit on Fridays, at least for the present. I do not want to delay the House. The motion also seeks to amend the standing order relating to General Business to provide for the automatic calling on of General Business, orders of the day, 1 1/2 hours after the commencement of General Business. It will bring the provisions of the original standing order into line with the current sessional order. The proposed changes will take effect from next Tuesday. The proposed pattern of sittings for autumn next year should be circulated to honourable members this afternoon. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(3.22) —The Opposition does not object to these changes . I am pleased that the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) agreed with my suggestion that on Tuesdays the giving of notices should remain at the commencement of proceedings. That is as it should be. Equally, I am pleased for the sake of those who have been worried about their Fridays that he has removed some of the uncertainty. I am glad to see that at least he does not consider that we might sit on Mondays as well. A couple of points need to be made. I hope that in any summing up which the Leader of the House might see fit to give he will tell us whether he is yet at the stage of resolving the uncertainty about the conclusion of this sitting period. A few honourable members would be glad to hear any indication that the sittings may not be according to the present program schedule. It would help their planning if he were to do so. I have no further comment about the details of the alterations. One observation which I raise and which is increasingly concerning honourable members on this side of the House is that the present sitting hours, I believe, are an abject failure. The Wednesday night arrangement seems to be uncertain for most. Quite a number of honourable members on the coalition side really find it not particularly convenient to have that late dinner adjournment. In fact, the House itself rises at 8 o'clock, which makes planning a little difficult. The fact that this change has been proposed today suggests that really all is not well with that early Wednesday rising. However, I understand that the Leader of the House wants to give it a trial until the end of the year. I hope that by then he will have been able to persuade a few within his Party who still think that it has advantages that the old sitting hours were not all that bad. It has always been difficult to establish a pattern of sitting times which meets everyone's convenience. The difficulty about Wednesday nights is that the Senate is sitting. While committees meet during the Senate dinner hour-and I know that the Leader of the House has attempted to accommodate the differences between the two chambers-it seems to me that the advantage of that so-called early rising on Wednesdays is highly illusory. In my view, we would be better sitting as we used to after dinner on Wednesdays and adjourning when we customarily do. However, I have always felt that a two-hour dinner break has significant advantages over an hour and a half in that respect. Apart from those comments, the Opposition offers no fundamental objection to the proposal submitted by the Leader of the House. Mr PORTER(Barker)(3.25) —I support the comments of the Opposition Leader of the House, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), especially in relation to the proposal to sit on Fridays. Whilst I acknowledge that the Leader of the House (Mr Lionel Bowen) has indicated that really this is only an emergency provision, I ask him to take into account that it is not as easy for the large number of members who represent country electorates, especially those on the Opposition benches, to get back to their States and out into their electorates as it is for members of the Australian Labor Party who in the main represent city seats to which they can return quite easily at the weekend. I ask the Leader of the House to take into account that concern of those of us who represent larger country electorates. With the uncertain sitting times, it is not easy to organise our programs. I also support the comments of the Opposition Leader of the House in relation to sitting hours. Whilst we are now not sitting on Wednesday nights, that seems to be a rather uncertain matter. We have sat on some Wednesday nights and the Leader of the House has now indicated that we may have to sit on Fridays. The early rising on Wednesday nights has meant that Government Business has not been achieved and, therefore, that we may have to sit on Fridays. I see that as a waste of time. If I have to be away from my family and my electorate to be in Parliament, I would rather work on a Wednesday night than have the night off. The Government may consider Wednesday nights to be a good opportunity to hold committee and other meetings, but they can be held during dinner breaks, as they were in the previous seven years. The current sitting hours are totally unsatisfactory. I hope that the Government will give that matter consideration when it reviews these matters at the end of the year, as I understand it will be doing. I hope that next year we will have better sitting times which will take into account those of us who have to come from further away than Melbourne and Sydney and those of us who represent large country electorates where the problems of servicing are much more difficult and onerous than for those representing city electorates. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Leader of the House)(3.28) —in reply-I again assure honourable members opposite that there is no intention of sitting on Fridays. The Clerks and those who understand what can happen in parliament say that we will be bereft if we do not have any sessional orders for a Friday sitting should it be essential in an emergency. It is put in the proposed sessional orders only on the basis that we need to have some order of procedure should we need to sit on a Friday. I assure honourable members that Government Business will go through as expeditiously as possible. In answer to the question raised by the Opposition Leader of the House, I am of the view that this sitting period could finish by about 8 December. That is only a personal view. It is programmed to finish on 15 December but, as the right honourable gentleman would know, there are problems naturally associated with the drafting of legislation. The Parliamentary Counsel have had enormous pressure on them, particularly in respect of what are called the electoral Bills , which have now been introduced. An enormous number of hours have been put in. I think 8 December is a chance. Certainly we would not want to go too far past that date. I might say in advance that I will not be here at the time-I have to go to the Middle East-but I hope honourable members understand the position. I can understand the concern raised by the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter). There is no intention of sitting on Fridays; let me assure him of that. If there were to be some reason to sit on a Friday this session it would have been for the Medicare legislation in which Opposition members quite fairly wanted to participate. It took 12 hours and 40 minutes which is a record time for debate on legislation. Mr Sinclair —What about the restrictive trade practices legislation some years ago? I think it went a bit longer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, all right, it was a record in recent years. Members of the Opposition, quite fairly, wanted to participate in the debate. I always want to give them a chance to do that without the guillotine or gag being moved. Again, we were anxious to get the Family Law Amendment Bill through. We did sit for a little longer because Opposition members particularly felt they wanted to make some contribution, from memory, to the divorce by post aspect. In other words, we do have in the Parliament certain pieces of legislation that can encourage a lot of debate. I am able to be persuaded that the Wednesday sittings are not successful. I make this point: The concept of sitting through to 8 o' clock was to allow a free period instead of having the dinner break. I understand there is an objection from senators who feel they still want to have dinner with members of the House of Representatives. Members on the Government side have not noticed the need to have such a compatibility at all hours of the day and night. But I think we felt it would be better to have an opportunity for people to have a meal at 8 p.m. which was not deemed to be too late, and also give them an opportunity for committee business. I am very mindful of members who have a long distance to travel and I am certain my own colleagues, particularly those who represent Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell), the Northern Territory (Mr Reeves) and Grey (Mr O'Neil) would be vying with the suggestion that they do not represent outlying districts. I am very anxious that members also have a chance to get to those districts. There is no question of sitting on Fridays, but it is there just as a safety valve because we need to make some appropriate reference to it. I find the Wednesday evening reasonable except on the two occasions I have mentioned; that is, the Medicare debate and the family law debate. This occurred because of the need to get the legislation through. If honourable members feel they would rather have a dinner break and then still come back and sit here until half past ten or 11 o'clock I do not quite know the merits of the two as against stopping at eight. Mr Lusher —If you don't stop at night there has to be a certain other time to stop. You cannot make arrangements and then have a different sitting time. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be a certain stop. I know the honourable member will not mind me saying it, but we did have a promise that the Family Law Amendment Bill would go through. A number of members were very anxious. They were member of the Opposition. They raised a number of matters to which there had been no previous circulation. Mr Ruddock —You would not have been surprised with the family law legislation. It went through in a day. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, it got through in a day. Mr Ruddock —But you should have expected that. It only went through the Senate after weeks. I would have thought more people here would have wanted to discuss it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I would have thought that when the honourable member was leading for the Opposition we could have got it through in a day. Quite clearly, the debate was rather weak in the areas that kept us here from half past seven until 9 o'clock. Mr Ruddock —I would agree with that. I was very disappointed with it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —However, I know we all get disappointed. The Medicare debate occurred because the Government wanted the Bill passed and it had to be debated. It took 12 hours and 40 minutes for debate. I do not think that will happen again. I want to summarise the situation: The sitting hours for the autumn session have been circulated. They provide for a two-week break as the honourable member requested for the school holiday period. That will comply with the honourable member's request as well. In other words, I think I have been one of the most satisfactory Leaders of the House that honourable members have ever had. On that happy note, I thank the Opposition. Mr Sinclair —Can you announce the commencement date of the Budget session yet? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will find that out. I thank honourable members for their co- operation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Reference of Work: Public Works Committee Act Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.34) —I move: That in accordance with the provision of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Garden Island, NSW, modernisation stage 2- Surface preparation and preservation facility and oily bilge waste treatment plant. The proposal involves the construction of a building to accommodate a surface preparation and preservation facility and an oily bilge waste treatment plant. The surface preparation and preservation facility will enable the bulk of grit blasting to be done under cover, thereby substantially reducing dust and noise pollution. The oily bilge waste treatment plant will enable these wastes to be pumped directly from ships for treatment and disposal in accordance with New South Wales State Pollution Control Commission requirements. The proposal is substantially similar to the one which was referred to the former Committee on 27 May 1982; that is the former Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works in the last Parliament. Additional information required by the former Committee was not available before the thirty-second Parliament was dissolved on 4 February 1983 and the reference lapsed. The proposal was referred on 26 May 1983 to the present Committee. It has now tabled its report and has recommended that the work proceed with some changes which are acceptable to the Government. The estimated cost of the work reported on by the Committee is $5,675,000 at April 1983 prices. In reporting favourably on the work the Committee asked that details of the reasons and purpose of any expenditure from the special provision of $2,500,000 for design development, which is additional to the estimated cost, be given in the annual report of the Department of Housing and Construction. This will be done. Honourable members may recall the Department commenced publishing design, construction and supervision costs of completed major works in its 1980-81 annual report. It is still the only major public authority, State or Commonwealth, known to do so and should be commended I believe-even though it is my Department-for its initiative in this area of greater public accountability and for facilitating analysis of its performance in terms of its achievements. If the House agrees to support this motion, planning can proceed in accordance with the recommendations of the Public Works Committee. I commend the motion to the House. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(3.38) —When the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) tabled the report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works relating to Garden Island, modernisation stage 2, I noted the Committee's assurances in the section dealing with impact on local residents, that the measures proposed to deal with complaints about air pollution, water pollution, odours, noise and so on were satisfactory; that is to summarise it and leave out certain qualifications. I pointed out that it would be another thing to assume that the local residents concerned would accept these assurances. This is the way it has turned out. The Potts Point Protection Association has again been extremely outspoken. Mr Mostyn, the Chairman of the association, has written to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Mr Keogh —He is the only member of it, is he not? Mr COLEMAN —No, he is not the only member because I have been to meetings of the association which were certainly quite crowded in a neighbourhood sense. Mr Mostyn has written to the Prime Minister and given me a copy of his letter. I will not read the whole letter, but I will refer to th points that he makes. I preface it by saying that I do not agree with the tone in which he outlines his case. I think it probably weakens his case. I certainly do not agree with all of the points made when he refers to the advent of a Labor government as the nation 's windfall. But, nevertheless, I will quote the letter to indicate something of the community concern or at least the concern of some people in the neighbourhood of Garden Island. I also accept the fact that it is unlikely that there will ever be a cessation entirely of neighbourhood complaints while Garden Island remains. Mr Mostyn in his letter to the Prime Minister refers to the '$6m monstrous industrial structure', to an 'environmental act of vandalism', to ' deceitful and covert actions by the bureaucracy', to a 'seriously flawed if not false environmental impact statement' and to suitable alternatives not being properly investigated. He asks for further public hearings and deferrals of decisions. He refers to the 'strategic lunacy' of having the Garden Island base in the middle of Sydney, 'ruining' the beauty and tranquility of Potts Point, Rushcutters Bay, Elizabeth Bay and Darling Point. In one paragraph he says: To our astonishment and fury after this 3 year battle a Parliamentary Committee appointed by your Government this year without further hearing of our case and presumably based on one site visit plus bureaucratic summation of previous evidence has recommended approval of the project. The Committee accepted Departmental evidence after the hearings without our knowledge of it or opportunity to respond to it. The letter to the Prime Minister concludes: Please direct that the matter be deferred to allow a further public hearing by your newly elected Committee. Could anything be fairer? As I said, I do not like the tone of part of this letter but I think it is fair that the people in the neighbourhood, in Potts Point and nearby suburbs, who are affected be given the sort of answer that Mr Mostyn and the Potts Point Protection Association deserve. Obviously, they are not satisfied with the answer given, I am sure that many locals, on reading the report of the Standing Committee on Public Works, will be satisfied, but many obviously are not. I hope the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) will make some comment on these grievances and complaints. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Housing and Construction)(3.42) —in reply-I am pleased to respond to the request of the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) and to say something about these complaints. I hope Mr Mostyn's concerns will not be realised. I have no doubt that some matters will be of concern to him as this project is developed, but I assure him, through the honourable member representing that district, that my Department will do all it can to accommodate the wishes of the residents' association. I point out that every one of the points raised by the honourable member, which were included in a telex to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), which Mr Mostyn was good enough to copy for me, were examined by the Public Works Committee not only of the last Parliament but also of this Parliament. Admittedly, the Committee of this Parliament did not have a public hearing on this issue because it had already been covered by the Committee in the last Parliament, but the present Committee was able to look at great length at the transcript of the meetings that had been held. There was not just one meeting. When, after a preliminary report, the concerns of the Potts Point residents association were voiced again, the Committee had a second meeting and undertook a second study of the situation. I repeat that those matters are of concern to me as well. I have had a discussion about those matters with the relevant officers in my Department. We shall do all we can to lessen the concerns of the residents, and of Mr Mostyn in particular, as this project is developed. The whole development of Garden Island has reached such a stage now that this aspect must be developed as part of the total project, but I repeat that the details will continue to be examined so that the residents' concerns are accommodated to the greatest extent possible. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(3.44) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will amend the income tax law in a number of respects, primarily to modify the prescribed payments system and to implement some of the Government's measures announced in the Budget and the May economic statement. The modifications of the prescribed payments system were announced on 5 October 1983 in response to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations. They will simplify the operation of the system by significantly reducing the paperwork burdens for many payers and payees and by making compliance generally easier. Included in the Bill are measures to exempt from tax the open employment incentive bonus payable after 1 October 1983, and the remote area allowances payable from May 1984. It also exempts, from 1 March 1984, the additional benefit paid to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries caring for children, and the supplementary allowance paid to sickness beneficiaries to assist towards rent costs. The Bill also provides for the remote area allowance received by a taxpayer to be deducted from any income tax zone rebate otherwise allowable to the taxpayer, and for the spouse carer's pension, which is to be introduced from 1 December 1983, to be taxed on a similar basis to a wife's pension. Other measures being implemented include the phased withdrawal of the tax exemption for pay of part time members of the reserve defence forces and termination of the deductions for certain capital expenditure incurred in the clearing of primary production land and in respect of the cost of insulating a first home. Other provisions abolish the rebate on up to $1,000 of dividend income of individual taxpayers and terminate the deduction for losses from tax exempt businesses. Modification of the averaging system applicable to primary producers and an increase from $1,590 to $2,000 in the expenditure threshold for the tax rebate on concessional expenditure are also included. The Bill will also restore the position relating to rebates of tax in respect of dependants temporarily resident overseas that had existed before it was disturbed by the Domicile Act 1982, and will free certain trustees for non- resident beneficiaries from liability for provisional tax. Finally, the Bill provides the basis for calculation of provisional tax for the 1983-84 year of income. I will now address the provisions of the Bill in greater detail, dealing first with the amendments of major significance concerning the prescribed payments system. Prescribed Payments System On 5 October 1983, the Acting Treasurer informed the House that the Government had decided to introduce amendments in line with unanimous recommendations in a report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Government Operations which was tabled in the Senate on 4 October 1983. These amendments will refine certain of the system's administrative aspects so as to reduce paperwork burdens on some taxpayers and to facilitate taxpayer compliance with its requirements. They do not, however, put at risk the essential anti-evasion objectives of the system, nor will they have any effect on revenue collections. The Government is aware of some criticisms of the prescribed payments system and, while these have generally exaggerated the true position, it recognises the need to monitor the operation of this new system of tax collection. This is being done. The present amendments evidence our willingness to meet valid concerns about the operation of the system on an ongoing basis. Put briefly, the changes proposed by the Senate Committee, and accepted by the Government, will virtually take outside the system payments to payees who hold exemption certificates on the grounds of good tax compliance. They will also allow payees to lodge a deduction form at any time during the month preceding the month of payment. This will be of particular benefit to payees operating cycle billing systems. For a payment that is deferred, other changes will relieve the payee from lodging a fresh deduction form. Finally in this area, the amendments will ensure that a payee will not need to prepare and furnish more than an annual deduction form to a payer if the payer assumes the responsibility of completing the forms on the payee's behalf. This will particularly assist payers with computerised accounting systems incorporating high speed printers, and will also reduce the paperwork burden on payees. A technical amendment is also to be made to the provisional tax self-assessment provisions to simplify calculations for taxpayers wishing to vary provisional tax on account of income subject to the prescribed payments system. Unemployment, Sickness and Special Beneficiaries A number of Budget measures, together with others announced in the May economic statement, are directed at re-establishing priorities in favour of those in the community who are among the most disadvantaged. One of these is an increase in the rate of payment of additional assistance for the children of pensioners and beneficiaries. When paid to pensioners these amounts are already exempt from tax . This Bill, by making payments of such assistance to unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries also exempt from tax, will establish uniformity of tax treatment in this area for all pensioners and beneficiaries caring for children. At present, payments to pensioners to assist with their rent, lodging or board and lodging costs are exempt from tax. The Bill will ensure that payments for the same purpose to sickness beneficiaries are also exempt. Both amendments apply to payments falling due on or after 1 March 1984. The estimated cost of these taxation measures is $22m in a full year. Single unemployment, sickness and special beneficiaries with dependent children will also be eligible from 1 May 1984 for the mother's or guardian's allowance now payable to single pensioners, including supporting parent beneficiaries, with dependent children. This allowance, which is already exempt from tax in the hands of pensioners, will be exempt when received by beneficiaries as a consequence of the amendments contained in this Bill. Spouse Carer's Pension A recent amendment to the Social Security Act 1947 provides for the payment of a spouse carer's pension from 1 December 1983. This pension will assist men providing constant care and attention at home for their age or invalid pensioner wives suffering from a severe physical or mental disability. The spouse carer's pension is proposed to be given the same taxation treatment as is now given a wife's pension paid under the Social Security Act to a woman because she is the wife of an age or invalid pensioner. The effect of the existing income tax law, together with the amendments proposed by this Bill, will be to exempt the pension from tax except where the man is 65 years or older or his wife is 60 years or older. Accordingly, a man in receipt of a spouse carer's pension will be taxed on it only if he or his wife is of pensionable age. Similarly, a man caring for a wife suffering a disability may qualify for a service pension under the Repatriation Act from December 1983 if his wife is a service pensioner. This service pension will also be exempt from tax if the wife is in receipt of a service pension equivalent to a social security invalid pension and neither the man nor his wife is of pensionable age. In other circumstances the service pension is to be taxable. Open Employment Incentive Bonus Assent has already been given to a Bill to amend the Handicapped Persons Assistance Act to allow for the payment of an open employment incentive bonus as an incentive for handicapped people to enter the mainstream of the work force. This once only payment of $500 is to be made to recipients of sheltered employment allowance of six months standing or more who move to full time paid open employment, or self employment, and remain so employed for a continuous period of at least 12 months. The Bill will ensure that the bonus, which is payable to persons who complete their period of open employment on or after 1 October 1983, is exempt from tax. Remote Area Allowance On Budget night I announced the Government's decision to introduce from May 1984 remote area allowances, which are to be exempt from tax, for persons living in income tax zone A who are in receipt of certain social security pensions or benefits or repatriation pensions and whose incomes, in most cases, are too low to enable them to benefit from the income tax zone rebate. The existing income tax law dealing with the exemption of various pensions, allowances and benefits is framed in such a way that a remote area allowance to be paid to a social security pensioner or beneficiary is exempt from tax, whereas a remote area allowance to be paid to a repatriation pensioner is not. This Bill will amend the law to ensure that remote area allowances, whether paid under social security or repatriation legislation, are exempt. To avoid doubling up of benefits under the remote area allowance and the zone rebate, the Bill will also alter the income tax zone rebate so that any zone rebate otherwise allowable is reduced by the amount of remote area allowance received. This amendment will have negligible effect on revenue in 1983-84, and is expected to yield $2m, as an offset to the cost of the allowances themselves, in a full year. Part Time Members of the Reserve Defence Force Honourable members will recall that in the Budget Speech I announced the Government's decision to phase out by 1 December 1984 the present exemption from tax of the pay and allowances of part time members of the reserve defence forces and the emergency reserve defence forces. This Bill also will give effect to that decision. One half of payments in respect of service on or after 1 December 1983 and before 1 December 1984 will remain exempt but payments for service on or after 1 December 1984 will be taxable in full. The tax exemption available to a part time member of the emergency reserve defence forces on a gratuity received by reason of being called out for continuous service will be phased out at the same rate. This measure is estimated to save $5m in the current financial year and $20m in a full year. Income Tax Rebates for Certain Dependants of Migrants On 20 June 1983 the Minister for Finance announced the Government's decision to amend the income tax law relating to rebates of tax in respect of dependants to restore the position that had existed before it was disturbed by the Domicile Act 1982. One of the rules relating to tax rebates for dependants, which has special relevance to a migrant who precedes his family to Australia, is that both the taxpayer and his or her dependants must be residents of Australia. Under the old laws of domicile, the domicile of a wife and dependent children followed that of the husband and, provided arrangements had been made for them to come to Australia within five years, they were accepted as residents of Australia for income tax rebate purposes. The Domicile Act 1982 changed the situation by giving a wife and children over 18 years an independent capacity to acquire domicile, with the result that such dependants could not be considered to be residents of Australia until such time as they had actually taken up permanent residence in this country. The amendment to the rebate provisions to be made by this Bill will restore the earlier position of migrants awaiting the arrival of their dependants from overseas and will apply from 1 July 1982, the date on which their position was changed by the Domicile Act 1982. I also note that the amendment is framed to ensure that the same rules apply should it be a wife who precedes her husband to Australia. Rebate in Respect of Certain Dividends Paid to Residents One of the measures announced in my economic statement in May was the abolition of the rebate of tax on up to $1,000 of dividend income of resident individual taxpayers which had been introduced in the previous Budget. As I indicated in May, the Government does not consider the rebate to be an appropriate or equitable response, if one were needed, to criticism of the taxation treatment of dividends resulting from the interaction of the personal and company tax systems. Under provisions contained in this Bill, the rebate will be abolished with effect from 1 July 1983. This is expected to increase revenue by $75m in 1983-84 and $105m in 1984-85. General Concessional Rebate The present income tax law makes available a tax rebate of 30 per cent of the excess over $1,590 of expenditure on certain eligible items such as superannuation contributions, life insurance premiums, net medical expenses, education expenses and private rates and taxes. This Bill will increase the threshold amount of eligible expenditure to $2,000 with effect from the beginning of the 1983-84 income year. This measure is estimated to save $11m in 1983-84 and $70m in a full year. Home Insulation Expenses The Bill also gives effect to the Budget proposal to terminate the deduction for expenditure on the thermal insultion of a first home. The deduction will not be available for thermal insulation costs after 23 August 1983 except where they are paid under a contract entered into on or before that date. The estimated revenue saving is $6m in 1983-84 and $7m in a full year. Exempt Business Losses Another measure announced in the May economic statement now being given effect by the Bill is the withdrawal of the deductions against income from other sources for a loss incurred in carrying on a gold mining business, the income from which is exempt from tax. The rationale for this deduction is questionable and its potential use for tax minimisation purposes has become apparent. The deduction will be withdrawn in respect of losses incurred in the 1983-84 income year and subsequent years of income. In the interim, the statutory requirement that loss deductions allowed in any of the three income years preceding a year in which profits are derived from the exempt business will continue to apply, where relevant, in respect of deductions allowed in the 1982-83 income year and earlier income years. The exemption from tax of profits from gold mining in Australia is not otherwise affected by the Bill. Expenditure on Land Clearing, Swamp Drainage, et cetera As announced in the Budget Speech, the deduction over 10 years for capital expenditures on such things as land clearing and swamp drainage in preparing land for use in primary production is being abolished. Expenditure incurred after Budget night, 23 August 1983, will no longer qualify for deduction on this basis unless it is incurred under a contract entered into on or before that date . This measure-which will not disturb the basis of deduction of capital expenditure on soil or water conservation or of revenue expenses of established primary production business-is estimated to save $3m in a full year and will remove the encouragement, through the tax system, of environmentally and economically unsound activities. Averaging for Primary Producers I turn now to changes to the primary producer averaging system which were foreshadowed in my economic statement of 19 May 1983. The changes will mean that , commencing with the 1983-84 income year, the tax liability on primary production income will be determined every year on the basis of the tax rate on average income and not-as has been the case since the 1977-78 income year-only in years when this would reduce the tax payable. The existing arrangements go beyond the reasonable objective of removing undue tax effects of fluctuations in incomes that typically arise in the primary production sector. They give taxpayers with access to averaging a clear advantage over other taxpayers. The essential basis of operation of the existing system will be preserved in the new system and an averaging rebate will continue to apply in years when taxable income exceeds average income. In years when average income is greater than taxable income there will be a complementary adjustment to bring the tax on primary production income up to that determined on the basis of averaging rules. It is estimated that this change will yield $15m in 1983-84 and $20m in subsequent years. With the reintroduction of automatic averaging year by year the Bill also affords primary producers the right of election to withdraw permanently from the averaging system if they wish. A similar election was available under the comparable averaging provisions in force before 1978. Collection of Tax Payable by Non-Residents Provisions introduced into the income tax law in the autumn sittings to facilitate collection of tax from non-resident beneficiaries made trustees primarily liable for tax, including provisional tax, in respect of trust income distributed to such beneficiaries. Many trustees affected by those measures have claimed that, because other existing provisions of the income tax law, in effect , authorise and require them to retain from any distribution to a non-resident beneficiary an amount sufficient to pay the tax on that income, it is not appropriate for them to be also subject to payment of provisional tax. These trustees have also claimed that these arrangements give rise to difficulties for them because they are obliged to incur additional expense in establishing separate trusts in which to accumulate the amounts retained until assessments are issued. To meet these representations the Government has decided to amend the income tax law to free trustees from liability to provisional tax in respect of income distributed to non-resident beneficiaries. To avoid the need for the creation of separate trusts, while preserving the application of a pay as you earn principle to such income, the trustees affected will be required to remit promptly the amounts deducted from distributions to non-resident beneficiaries to the Commissioner of Taxation when the distributions are made. The amendments will have a negligible effect on revenue in 1983-84 and, since they affect the timing and not the amount of tax payments, will not have any revenue effect in the long term. Provisional Tax As provisional tax is part of the broad pay as you earn system and is designed to collect tax on non-salary or wage income within the year in which it is derived, it is generally accepted as reasonable that the amount charged should approximate as closely as practicable the amount of tax actually imposed for the year. Incomes for 1983-84 are expected to be higher than those for 1982-83 and effective rates of tax for 1983-84 will be lower than those for last year. Accordingly, as in past years, it is proposed to vary the basis of calculating provisional tax for 1983-84 to be notified in assessment notices to issue this year. The Bill thus provides for 1983-84 provisional tax to be calculated on the basis of 1982-83 taxable income as increased by 11 per cent and applying to the adjusted amount the lower rates of tax to apply for 1983-84. The changes to the averaging system for primary producers, as outlined earlier, will also be reflected in the calculation of 1983-84 provisional tax, if appropriate. Generally, the amounts of the rebates allowed in 1982-83 will be taken into account in the calculation. However, where a taxpayer with dependent children was allowed a rebate in his or her 1982-83 assessment, based on the higher maximum amount allowable for a spouse, daughter-housekeeper or housekeeper, or was allowed a sole parent rebate , the relevant rebates-including zone rebates where appropriate-will be based on the increased 1983-84 amounts. Where a rebate for concessional expenditure in excess of the $1,590 threshold was allowed in a taxpayer's 1982-83 assessment, the amount to be allowed in calculating provisional tax will be determined on the basis of the increase in the threshold amount-from $1,590 to $2,000-and at the 1983-84 standard tax rate of 30 per cent. Any pensioner rebate allowed in the provisional tax calculation will reflect the higher 1983-84 maximum amount. Also, the dividend and health insurance rebates, and the rebate for home loan interest in excess of 10 per cent per annum, all of which were abolished from 1 July 1983, will not be allowed in calculating 1983-84 provisional tax. An amount for provisional Medicare levy will be added to the provisional tax otherwise payable where it appears from the information available in the taxpayer's 1982- 83 return of income that he or she will be liable to this levy in 1983-84. It is also, of course, open to taxpayers who consider that their taxable income for 1983-84 will increase by less than 11 per cent, or who consider that sufficient rebates have not been taken into account, to 'self-assess' and have the provisional tax for 1983-84 recalculated on the basis of their own estimates. As usual, a technical explanation of the provisions of the Bill is contained in a memorandum that has been circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.09) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is related to two income tax measures announced in the May economic statement. One of these is the modification of the income averaging provisions for primary producers and the other is the reduction in the income threshold at which special rates of tax become payable on certain income of children. Income Averaging Provisions for Primary Producers Under this heading are amendments complementary to the changes to be made to the primary producer averaging system which I mentioned in speaking to the previous Bill and which restore that system to one of automatic application each year. The amendments will establish the rate of complementary tax that is to be payable by way of averaging adjustment where the average income of a taxpayer for a year exceeds his or her taxable income for that year. The complementary tax is the obverse of the averaging rebate which is allowed in years when the average income is less than taxable income. Its effect is to adjust the tax payable to the amount appropriate to application of average tax rates to taxable income from primary production. As I indicated earlier, the revised system is to apply for the 1983-84 year and subsequent income years. Special Rates of Tax Applicable to Minors The income tax law currently provides for tax at the rate of 46 per cent or higher to apply to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. As indicated in May, the $1,040 income threshold at which these rates become payable has come to be exploited in many tax minimisation schemes and is to be reduced by this Bill to $416 with effect from 1 July 1983. The shading-in arrangements for incomes marginally greater than the threshold amount are also being appropriately adjusted. In introducing these amendments I want to make clear one point that has been the subject of media comment, and that is that these special rates of tax apply only to certain types of income derived by some unmarried minors. The relevant legislation-Division 6AA of the Income Tax Assessment Act, which was enacted in 1980 to discourage income splitting by diverson of income to children-contains a number of important exclusions. One of these is for particular classes of children who are not subject to the measures at all-for example, children who are handicapped, disabled, orphaned or in full time employment. The other exclusion covers specific classes of income such as salary and wages and other remuneration for services rendered, income from a business genuinely carried on by a minor, income from damages awards, compensation, divorce settlements, deceased estates and the like, where no avoidance arrangements are involved. It is therefore quite clear that the provisions do not apply to children's earnings attributable to their own part time or full time work. To refer to it in such terms as the newsboys' tax is absolute nonsense and a grave misrepresentation of its true nature. The particular amendments proposed will yield nothing in 1983- 84 but are expected to increase revenue by $70m in 1984-85. Provisions of the Bill are explained in detail in a memorandum that has been made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.12) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This is an annual measure which formally imposes personal income tax rates for the current 1983-84 financial year. The rates imposed by this Bill are those declared for that year in the Income Tax (Rates) Act 1982 as proposed to be amended by the accompanying Income Tax (Rates) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1983. The Rates for 1983-84 reflect for the full year the changes made to the personal income tax rate scale with effect from 1 November 1982. These will result in a reduction in tax payable, on equivalent taxable incomes, on 1983-84 assessments as compared with 1982-83 assessments, for all resident individual taxpayers. The reductions in tax will be reflected in provisional tax payable for 1983-84 which is also formally imposed by this Bill. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill will formally impose income tax for 1983-84 on the 1982-83 taxable income of companies and unit trusts treated as companies for tax purposes, as well as on the taxable income of superannuation funds and the trust income of non-resident company beneficiaries of the current year. The rates of tax are also declared by the Bill and, except for the increase, as announced in the 1981 -82 Budget, in the rate for friendly society dispensaries to the general company tax rate of 46 per cent, they are the same as for 1982-83. The provisions of the Bill follow the same lines as in other years and details of the various rates are set out in the explanatory memorandum that has been made available to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.13) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to increase the basic rate of tax payable by a company under section 126 of the Income Tax Assessment Act on interest paid on bearer debentures where the company does not disclose the names and addresses of the debenture holders to the Commissioner of Taxation. This provision has existed in the income tax law as an anti-avoidance measure for many years and the rate was last increased in 1974. It is considered opportune to increase the rate to one more appropriate to the provision's purposes. For interest paid or credited on or after the date of commencement of this Act, the rate of tax will be 60 per cent-a rate equivalent to the special rate applicable to accumulating trust income assessed under section 99A of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The technical aspects of the Bill are explained in the memorandum that I have had circulated to honourable members. I commend this Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. TAXATION (UNPAID COMPANY TAX) ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT BILL 1983 [No. 3] Bill presented by Mr Keating, and read a first time. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer)(4.16) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. On Budget night my colleague the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) introduced into this House a Bill by this title which itself was a revision of an earlier Bill by the same title. The major purpose of those earlier Bills was to give effect to this Government's election undertaking to recover personal tax avoided by former owners or companies that were the subject of bottom of the harbour schemes. In addition, the Bills were designed to strengthen and improve in several identified areas the legislation passed by the Parliament last year to recoup the company tax that was evaded by the use of these schemes. The Bill introduced on Budget night was estimated to yield $60m in 1983-84 and $270m in total. The rejection of this important part of the Government's Budget in another place must have the effect of transferring the burden of taxes avoided by bottom of the harbour scheme participants-which the Bill sought to recover-to the ordinary Australian taxpayer. As foreshadowed in my statement of 26 October 1983 the Government is now submitting to the Parliament a Bill that deals only with measures to strengthen and improve the recovery of evaded company tax. The present Bill proposes to strengthen and improve the company tax recoupment measures in the same areas as were proposed in the Budget Bill passed by this House but rejected by the Senate . I shall outline them to this House once again. In addition, the Bill will provide new provisions for anomalies relief in cases where a public company was interposed in the chain of ownership between the stripped company and the person seeking relief. I turn now to the details of the Bill. Post-sale Avoidance Schemes The recoupment tax legislation contains a let-out provision that operates where the stripped company was the subject of an unsuccessful post-sale scheme to avoid tax. Under this escape clause there is no liability to recoupment tax on the people who benefited by non-payment of the company tax. This provision was inserted by the former Government for reasons which are best known to it. In our view it defies logic and nothing that has been said in recent months in any way dissuades us from that view. It is our announced policy to abolish it and this is to be done by the Bill. Pre-sale Avoidance Schemes Consistently with the removal of the post-sale avoidance scheme provision, this Bill will also ensure that, in ascertaining the potential tax liability of a company for the purposes of determining whether the recoupment tax legislation applies in relation to it, any pre-sale scheme which is ultimately established to be ineffective of its tax avoidance purpose is to be disregarded. Anomalies Relief An addition to this Bill is the provision of an additional avenue of relief from recoupment tax payable under the present legislation, in cases where a public company was involved in the chain of ownership. The existing law gives the Commissioner of Taxation a power, the non-exercise of which is subject to a full review by independent taxation boards of review, to eliminate, but not to reduce, a particular recoupment tax liability. This power to give complete relief may be exercised where the amount otherwise payable is less than $100 or in other circumstances of a special kind. In administering the existing relief provisions, the Commissioner views as a basic ground of relief that the person liable for recoupment tax and closely connected persons have not in any way benefited from the evasion of company tax giving rise to the recoupment liability. The new provisions to be inserted by the Bill will enable full or partial relief to be granted in cases where relief is not available under the existing law. The provisions will assist people in cases where their recoupment tax liability was traced through an interest in a public company, that is, where they are well removed from the actions giving rise to the recoupment tax liability in question. In such cases, the proposed provisions will allow an appropriate level of relief from payment of recoupment liabilities. The situations to which the provisions could apply are varied and intended application of the provisions cannot be explained by arithmetical formulae or the like. However, they would, for example, mean that a public company shareholder unconnected with the scheme who received only a relatively small benefit from the evaded company tax could have his or her recoupment tax liability reduced so as to appropriately reflect the benefit received. In the first instance, the Commissioner of Taxation will consider whether a person is entitled to this anomalies relief on the basis of the guidelines laid down in the Bill. It is to be expected that by far the majority of cases will be dealt with in this manner to the full satisfaction of the people concerned. If the Commissioner does not grant relief to the full extent that the person concerned desires, there are rights of objection, review and appeal that may be exercised. In particular, a claim refused by the Commissioner may be reviewed independently by a taxation board of review, which for this purpose is to sit as a recoupment tax anomalies tribunal. Where a person has already paid company tax or recoupment tax from which relief is granted by the Commissioner or an independent tribunal, an appropriate refund of the tax paid or part thereof will be made. Other Changes Moving to other aspects of the Bill, there are several further amendments designed to improve the administration of the legislation or to correct technical deficiencies. The Bill proposes to remove one of the pre-conditions to liability for recoupment tax-the requirement that the company was by a stripping scheme rendered unable to pay its tax-which was inserted by the previous Government, it seems for presentational purposes. The element that the requirement expresses is, in substance, present in all cases of pre-tax profit stripping to which the legislation applies. A specific reference to it is quite unnecessary. The stripping scheme test and an associated provision requiring full disclosure by the Commissioner of known details of it is being exploited by some taxpayers as a means of delaying issue of recoupment tax assessments. It is also proposed by this Bill to re-insert in the recoupment tax legislation a provision removed by the previous Government which authorised the Commissioner of Taxation to report to this Parliament the names of persons who fail to meet their liability for vendors or promoters recoupment tax. The Commissioner is already required to provide in his annual report to Parliament details of breaches or evasions of the taxation laws and it is consistent with that duty that he be authorised, where he considers it appropriate, to report details of failure to pay recoupment tax by the people concerned. A still further change in this Bill, not contained in the earlier Bills, will enable a former owner to whom a refund of company tax is made as a result of a successful objection or appeal against the company assessment to receive interest under the Taxation (Interest on Overpayments) Act on the amount refunded. Finally, I explain an amendment to an evidentiary provision of the recoupment tax legislation. The provision in question reflects the settled policy of the tax law in these matters and seeks to ensure that persons liable for recoupment tax can contest the correctness of the underlying company assessment only through the established objection and appeal procedures against the company assessment itself. For this purpose it provides that a certificate specifying the amount of a company's liability to company tax is to be conclusive evidence except in an appeal concerning the assessment of the company. Some technical deficiencies in the provision need to be corrected and the Government has, with an eye to a particular constitutional question, decided to press ahead with other amendments as well. Honourable members will know that the recoupment tax legislation has been under constitutional challenge, on a number of grounds. One of them concerns the evidentiary provision and reflects a legal argument that the Commonwealth cannot validly levy a tax that is uncontestable. It is said that there are circumstances where a certificate that is conclusive evidence would render the tax uncontestable. Obviously it cannot be predicted what decision the High Court of Australia will reach on the particular point, but the Government has concluded that it should solve the difficulty by legislating so that the certificate represents only prima facie evidence, with the result that the matters that are the subject of it will therefore clearly not be uncontestable. In providing to that effect, the Bill also proposes that such a certificate would, in appropriate circumstances, represent conclusive evidence if a provision in the Bill that re-instates its conclusive nature were to be proclaimed. A decision on whether to make the proclamation, and thus have the provision revert to the conclusive evidence form that is reflective of settled policy, will be made in the light of any High Court decision on the underlying constitutional point. The measures contained in the Bill are estimated to yield about $40m in respect of the strengthening provisions, while the anomalies relief would entail a revenue cost of about $5m. In the 1983-84 year, the net revenue collected would be about $20m, or about one-third of the amount which had been expected from the Budget Bill defeated in the Senate. As usual with amendments of the taxation laws, an explanatory memorandum giving details of the amendments contained in the Bill is being circulated to honourable members. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Howard) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Duffy, and read a first time. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.28) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill proposes to amend the States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act 1965 to enact the legislative changes to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme announced by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in his Budget Speech. The petroleum products freight subsidy scheme subsidises the cost of transporting certain petroleum products so that consumers in non-metropolitan areas pay no more than currently 1.1c per litre of the freight costs. In his Budget Speech, the Treasurer announced that the Government has decided to amend the scheme. Over the years the scheme has become complex, difficult to administer and more open to abuse. The proposals announced by the Treasurer emanate from a review of the scheme instituted by the previous Government. Proposals for which legislation is not required involve removing from eligibility for subsidy those locations where there is no retail site. Subsidy rates for these locations will then be based on the rate applicable at the nearest location with a retail site or, for a location at sea, at the port of loading. Effective from 1 January 1984, this Bill proposes the removal of power kerosene from subsidy eligibility. The usage of this fuel has dropped considerably in recent years, and its removal will result in a small saving in subsidy payments. The other fuels, motor spirit, automotive distillate and aviation fuels, will remain eligible for subsidy. Provision is also made in the Bill to recognise the need to include the Northern Territory under the Commonwealth Act, which was originally drafted to provide assistance to the States. In the early stages of the scheme, special financial arrangements were made to provide equivalent assistance to the Northern Territory, which enacted its own legislation along similar lines to the Commonwealth Act. With self-government now in place in the Northern Territory, it is appropriate to accord the Northern Territory Government the same level of recognition under this Act that applies to all the other States. Proclamation action of the Commonwealth amendments is proposed as soon as complementary State-type subsidy legislation is enacted by the Northern Territory Government. As an interim measure, the changes in this Bill relating to power kerosene will, by the operation of clause 10, extend the measures covered by this Bill to the Northern Territory pending the introduction of its new legislation. Clause 5 of the Bill, also effective from 1 January 1984, will strengthen existing legislation to specify delivery to be a requirement which must be met before subsidy payments are made. This clause also includes a provision to assist in determining rates of subsidy for certain locations which would not automatically qualify for subsidy under the normal location listing criteria. In this regard, the Petroleum Products Pricing Authority sets the freight differentials for each place. These are subsequently used to calculate the subsidy rates for those places. The Authority does not, however, set differentials for all Australian places where a sale occurs. It is therefore necessary to have a mechanism to enable subsidy to be paid at those places. Under the provisions of the Bill, subsidy will, for example, be able to be based on the rate upon which sales occur at the nearest place. It will also enable a rate of subsidy to be set for remote farms and isolated communities where the rate of subsidy for the nearest place would not be appropriate. The changes as announced by the Treasurer to the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme are estimated to save $2m in 1983-84 and $4m in a full year. I commend the Bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Moore) adjourned. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Duffy: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr MOORE(Ryan)(4.33) —The Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Amendment Bill supports the decision of the Temporary Assistance Authority in its recommendations of October 1982 and gives support to an industry which certainly has found itself in some difficulties in recent years. Originally Kelvinator Australia Ltd approached the previous Government, and through a Trans Australia Airlines reference in October 1982 a similar bounty was made payable to the company. On this particular occasion the TAA report has not only recommended the continuation of the payment; the Government has gone further insofar as it has imposed a quota applicable to imports which is 55 per cent of that pertaining to the 1982-83 calendar year. In relation to that, the principle of imposing quotas retrospectively is something with which businesses would quibble. I have always been implacably opposed to anything retrospectively imposed which imposes a penalty. If it is retrospective in terms of a handout or benefit, I guess it is done with everyone's eyes open. The position of Kelvinator has deteriorated quite dramatically. Production in 1981-82 was some 59,356 units, whereas the estimated production for 1982-83 appears to be about 24,800 units-quite a substantial decline in this area. Needless to say, this has had a dramatic effect on the financial position of Kelvinator. I suppose that such a production fall would substantially affect unit costs, as production costs on the declining turnover would inevitably rise. If we look at the market place, we find that sales of air-conditioning components in 1982 reached a level of 261,000 and in the nine months to the end of March 1983 were already running at 216,000. The most evident fact is that local production as a percentage of sales has declined from 60,000 out of 261, 000 units to 22,000 out of 216,000 units. It is quite evident that the Government took this into consideration in bringing in the quotas as well as the bounty payment. It is noted that the advice to the company is that the bounty assistance will be applicable until 30 June 1984; in other words, it is a sink or swim situation after that time. I should draw attention to some of the comments made by the Government about employment when it was in opposition. I will not go down that alley because I happen to think that industries in Australia have to compete and have to meet competition, providing it is fair. It is because of that view that I have always thought that the dumping provisions are the ones that should be looked at and that a company should be given an opportunity to restructure, meet competition and make its investments, but in no circumstances should it be looking for an everlasting handout. For that reason, I think that the approach taken in this Bill seems to be fair and because of that, the Opposition will not oppose the Bill. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(4.37) —The Bounty (Room Air Conditioners) Amendment Bill is an example of the kind of approach which we need to take to industry policy as a whole, a matter that I will address a little later. In this case, the only remaining Australian company producing room air-conditioners has been faced with severe import competition. As a result, there was a real possibility that the company would soon be forced to close. The company took its case to the Temporary Assistance Authority and a recommendation was made that we continue bounty assistance for the year 1983-84. This will cost $1.5m. In addition, because the local market has been flooded with foreign air-conditioners, it has been decided to impose a quota on imports for the coming year. The situation of imports pouring into Australia and putting enormous pressure on domestic manufacturers unfortunately is not an isolated incident. Indeed, from 1980 to 1982 imports into Australia increased by $6 billion, while exports increased by less that half a billion dollars, which had a significant impact on the balance of payments. In many cases the foreign companies were using unfair practices such as dumping of products at prices lower than the cost of production in the home country. The Government is currently looking at the dumping situation. During the period when we were experiencing a most serious depression throughout the Western world, Australia seemed to be a particularly favoured place in which to dump products. In other cases we have also had price cutting by foreign companies and this has been used to squeeze domestic manufacturers out of the market. The rub is that once that has been achieved, prices have then skyrocketed. So the domestic manufacturer has been squeezed out and prices have gone up again. One wonders what would happen in the case of air- conditioners. The previous Government scandalously ignored this situation to the point where 100,000 jobs were lost in manufacturing in its last year in office. In my view it stands condemned for totally ignoring this situation of the misuse of trade and the inhumane consequences on industry policy. Indeed, the previous Government took no account, while this was all happening around it, of the social consequences of its actions. The involvement of this Government in industry policy development will have to be a necessary feature in order to have a coherent industry policy. We often hear calls from the Opposition-indeed recently the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) made a strong statement in this regard-for the Government to get out industry development. Mr Deputy Speaker, there is no country in the industrialised world in which the government is not heavily involved in planning and the associated processes in relation to industry policy. Without such involvement and without a coherent policy on things such as protection, one cannot have an industry policy which works. No country has been able to establish or develop its industrial base without two preconditions: Firstly, protection from excessive and unfair import competition-I emphasise those two factors, excessive and unfair-and secondly, direct government assistance to those industries which are viable and which can survive in a fair, competitive climate. 'Fair, competitive climate' does not mean unfair practices. This is a matter which has to be looked at again and I believe that the thrust of the Government's industry policy is based on those two principles. Indeed, if one were to look at the Labor Party's platform on industry development one would see that it is based on the notion that in areas where private enterprise fails, for example, to invest, the public sector must come in in a dynamic way and either assist in the investment of the private sector or carry out the investment itself. The question of investment is a crucial one, especially for industries which are facing having to close down altogether, as is happening in this case. It is very unfortunate that, for example, instead of having all of the production of air- conditioners carried out in Australia, we are facing the possibility of having no production of air-conditioners in Australia unless the Government acts in relation to this matter. I would not emphasise this point if this were an isolated incident, but many companies are facing this situation. You may recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Treasury papers predict a downturn in private sector investment in industry of the order of 14 per cent for this forthcoming year. I put the question: How can we therefore look towards substantial improvement in industrial development if the Government does not get more involved through providing direct assistance, indeed in some cases through public equity? Both factors are important aspects of the Labor Party philosophy for the creation of long term employment and for turning around manufacturing industry generally. I shall speak on other occasions about various forms of government intervention which are required to support the manufacturing sector. However, let me on this occasion refer to the measures being used in this Bill-bounties and quotas, which are forms of protection. These forms of protection are often attacked by those who believe in the myth of free trade. I say 'the myth of free trade', because it is indeed such a myth. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore), who spoke a few moments ago tried to emphasise the usual get tough method: 'We are not going to protect these industries for much longer. If they don't get on their feet, they will be left to the wolves'. This kind of approach and rhetoric which we hear so often in regard to industry policy in this country has become boring and ridiculous. It is time we grew up and stopped using rhetoric to replace sober and scientific analysis of the realities of the situation. If one were to make a sober and scientific analysis of what is happening in the real world, one would find that the world of Milton Friedman and other characters who talk about the total free trade situation and the free market does not exist. What exists is a situation in which other countries are gaining advantage over us as a nation because we are failing to face the realities of the trade situation and the protection issue. To those people who constantly attack protection, protection of one's own industries is seen as a kind of narrow, nationalistic approach to a world-wide problem. As I have mentioned, in some idealistic world one could perhaps put forward that argument. If such an ideal world existed, it would be good to have total free trade and no barriers of any kind, but this world does not exist and indeed most of Australia's trading competitors and the nations with which we trade have very different philosophies and a very different and much tougher approach to their national interests. It might be thought that Australia is some kind of absurdly highly protectionist country. The fact is that in overall terms our protection levels have been reduced. Indeed, the Australian protection measures when considered in totality, when considered vis-a-vis all of the protection measures used by other countries, and not just tariffs, are very poor indeed. In fact, totality of the protection of our manufacturing industry is of the order of only 14 per cent. It is not exactly a massive amount of protection or some kind of huge impost on the nation, as some people who have talked on these matters would like us to believe . This point is not generally understood. When people look at the protection measures used in Australia, they look at tariffs and tariffs alone and they say: 'Oh, we have high tariffs compared with those of other countries'. They do not look at the fact that in these other countries many other protection devices are used which we have never used and indeed in some cases we have never even heard of. For example, the European Economic Community uses literally thousands of different devices of a non-tariff kind to keep out goods from other countries which it does not want. Yet at the same time the EEC engages in very vigorous dumping practices, including dumping primary products on the third World countries to the disadvantage of Australia. We have to face up to the reality of this situation. We cannot continue to look simply at the protection issue on the basis of tariffs alone or even on the basis of tariffs and quotas; we have to look at other means which we can use to protect our industries from unfair competition. In this regard, as I mentioned earlier, I am very concerned to see that the revision of the dumping arrangements be carried forward as quickly as possible. Not only a revision of the dumping arrangements is required; some of the procedures need to be gone through also in order to establish that dumping has taken place. One of the things that came out at a recent meeting that the Caucus Industry Committee held in Brisbane with the Metal Trades Industry Association of Australia and the metal trades unions was the extraordinary difficulty companies are having in establishing that dumping has taken place because the onus is put on them actually to establish that dumping has taken place. The onus is on the domestic company to establish that this is the case. This basically means that the Australian company then has to get access to information about the kinds of costs involved in the production process in a foreign country. In the case of some countries this is very difficult indeed. Imagine an Australian company having to get information about the cost structure of a private company in a place such as Taiwan and then having to put forward a case that dumping has taken place. I think this matter needs to be looked at in greater detail. We need to ask ourselves whether we will allow to continue a situation in which many companies are claiming that dumping is taking place but are finding it difficult to prove their case because of insufficient access to the kind of data base from which it would be possible for them to establish their case. I believe that the Government can play a role in assisting with the data base in relation to these matters. In fact, I think something ought to be done about the onus of proof in these matters. I am not saying that the whole onus ought to be put on the importer, but perhaps we ought to see what the Government can do to resolve this problem of the onus of proof in relation to cases of dumping and other unfair trade practices. The argument that is usually put up in relation to this matter is that, of course, we have an obligation to support the poor people of Asia. I am one of the first persons to indicate strong support for assistance to the Third World countries of Asia. I must say that the Opposition, when talking about these matters in trade terms, tends to like to make a distinction between some Asian countries and others, in terms of which ought to get assistance and which ought not. The distinction is drawn more on the basis of its political beliefs than on the basis of genuine humanitarian assistance. Genuine humanitarian assistance is one thing, but trade with an Asian country which benefits the multinational foreign corporations which are owned not by the Asian country but by Americans, Europeans or Japanese, with the profits and benefits of that trade going not to that Asian country but to the multinational corporations and owners, surely is a very different proposition. We should make a greater examination of where the benefits of trade lie. We should cast a more critical eye over engaging in trade with Asia on the basis of simply allowing products to come into this country without our entering into bilateral agreements. Bilateral agreements can be a very important way of preserving the national interest in these matters. It need not be the only way. There is no contradiction between having some multilateral arrangements and some bilateral agreements. But I emphasise that, if we are to have trade relations with other countries, those relations should be based on an honest and a balanced approach rather than on the kinds of practices adopted in the past, which have led to situations such as that faced by the room air-conditioner industry, in which the last company is about to go to the wall. The company involved, Email Ltd, is based in South Australia. Can there be any State which has suffered more from the run down of our manufacturing industry than South Australia? Can there be any State which has suffered more from the sort of process that I have described at some length in this House than South Australia? In South Australia one industry after another has been collapsing. In South Australia long term unemployment is not some abstract concept but a concrete reality. Recently I visited Adelaide as Chairman of the Industry Committee. I was stunned by the crisis atmosphere in relation to a variety of manufacturing industries about which people spoke to me. The Government, in my view, has an obligation to support industries in that State. Indeed, it has an obligation to help to develop new ones. I shall be urging it to do so. I believe that this Bill makes a small contribution to that process. I urge the house to support the Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry and Commerce)(4.57) —in reply-I thank the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) and the honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) for their contributions. As was indicated, the purpose of this Bill is to continue bounty assistance during 1983-84 to the manufacture in Australia of certain refrigerated room air-conditioners. As was outlined by the previous speakers, the concern relates particularly to the Email Ltd-owned Kelvinator Australia Ltd plant in Adelaide, which has been subjected to severe import competition. The extension of the bounty is designed to assist the company to secure sales of its locally produced air-conditioners. However, given existing high levels of imported stocks, the bounty may do little to assist Email contain competition from new imports in 1983-84. Accordingly, the Government has also introduced import restraints for 1983-84 by a tariff quota limiting imports for that period to 55 per cent of the 1982-83 level. These combined temporary measures-bounty and tariff quota-are considered essential if the local industry is to regain economies of scale to ensure its future viability. The honourable member for Ryan raised the question of retrospectivity. It should be pointed out that it does not apply in the way in which he may have felt it applied. In this case importers involved in servicing the room air- conditioners market should have been well aware of the need to exercise caution in placing orders and entering into financial commitments. The first reference to the Temporary Assistance Authority on assistance for the manufacture of room air-conditioners was announced in August 1982 and the second was announced in April 1983. Both announcements carried an explicit warning to importers. Future viability of local manufacture depends on regaining a market share of around 30 per cent and increasing production to an economic level. Import quotas are necessary to achieve this. Imports should still account for about 70 per cent of the 1983-84 market. The market is likely to remain highly competitive. If hardship concessions are allowed this will frustrate the purpose of the tariff quota. But the honourable member for Ryan may be interested to know that, if evidence emerges that local production and quota imports cannot adequately service the higher market demand, the Minister can authorise some relaxation. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 November, on motion by Mr Cohen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(5.00) —The main purpose of this Bill is to amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 to enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to give effect to principles agreed between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments relating to the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. It will in effect accomplish the agreement reached between the Fraser Government and the Queensland Government in June 1979. Accordingly, the Opposition supports the Bill. These agreed principles, which have been endorsed by the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council, comprising representatives of both governments, provide for the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service to carry out the day to day management of the marine park, subject to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority; for the Commonwealth to fund 100 per cent of an initial capital works program required to establish management of the marine park on a sound basis, with all other capital and recurrent costs of management of the park being shared equally between the two governments; for the Commonwealth and Queensland to meet in equal shares the recurrent costs for management of Queensland national and marine parks within the outer boundaries of the marine park; and for Queensland to fund 100 per cent of the costs of capital works required in the management of the Queensland national and marine parks within the marine park other than those capital works included in the initial program referred to earlier. In addition to that, the Authority is to administer the funds provided by the Commonwealth and Queensland for the purposes outlined in the Act. Expenditure programs are to be developed by Queensland in consultation with the Authority and approved by it for submission to the Commonwealth and Queensland governments for consideration in their budgetary contexts. There has been growing governmental interest in the Great Barrier Reef since as early as 1922 when the Great Barrier Reef Committee was established. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), in his second reading speech yesterday, also noted the close interest taken by Liberal Prime Ministers Holt and Gorton in the development and protection of the reef. The first major legislative action of this Parliament, however, was in June 1975 when the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was passed. It allowed for the declaration of a marine park within the Great Barrier Reef region and allocated some 382,000 square kilometres, which in effect makes it the largest marine park in the world . It established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to research the park, to make recommendations on the areas to be part of the park and to make recommendations governing the use of the various sections of it. It was laid down that one of the three members of the Authority would be nominated by the Queensland Government. The Authority established by this legislation provided an avenue for consultation between the Commonwealth and Queensland at officer level . The Chairman of the Authority, in evidence to the House of Representatives Environment and Conservation Committee in 1981, said: So far the Authority model has been successful. Because there is a degree of automatic co-ordination built into the arrangements . . . I believe it would be a useful model for joint management programs which have major relevance to both Commonwealth and State responsibilities. In this context, it is worth noting that this model could well be applied to other World Heritage listed areas throughout Australia. The continued interest of the Fraser Government was demonstrated on 4 June 1979 when the Prime Minister announced the Commonwealth's decision that 'there should be no further exploration for petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef region'. This was on the basis of the report by the Joint Royal Commission into Exploratory and Production Drilling for Petroleum in the Great Barrier Reef Region. On 14 June of the same year the Prime Minister and the Premier of Queensland signed an agreement establishing the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The then Minister for Science and the Environment, Senator Webster, described the Council as a clearly recognisable forum for consultation and co-ordination at ministerial level. It goes without saying that over the years it has worked well . I join the Minister in complementing the Chairman of the Authority, Mr Graeme Kelleher, for the outstanding work he has done to make that an accomplished fact . It was decided that the Council should comprise Commonwealth and State Ministers representing marine parks, tourism, conservation and science. Both the Prime Minister and the Premier confirmed in their joint agreement that it was the policy of their respective governments to prohibit any drilling on the reef or any drilling or mining which could damage the reef. They agreed that the Authority should continue to have responsibility for declaration of areas of marine parks, for zoning plans and for research; and that after the proclamation the day to day management of sections of the marine park would be undertaken by officers of the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service who, in discharging those duties, would be responsible to the Authority. In October 1979 the Capricornia section of the Great Barrier Reef, comprising some 12,000 square kilometres, was also declared and added to the park. On 8 July 1980 the Great Barrier Reef region was entered into the register of the National Estate maintained by the Australian Heritage Commission. On 14 September 1980 the Great Barrier Reef was nominated by the Prime Minister and the Queensland Premier for inclusion on the World Heritage List. It was placed on the list in October 1981 by the Fraser Government. In October of the same year the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation recommended that the entire Great Barrier Reef region be immediately declared a marine park, excluding sections of the five kilometre strip along the Queensland coast where there are not strong environmental or other reasons for the marine park to be extended to the low water mark. It is worth noting that Labor members dissented, calling for the park to be extended to the low water mark along all the coast. It is also worth noting that the Labor Party in government has not met its commitment in this regard. In November 1981 the then Fraser Government, overrode objections of the Queensland Government about the western boundaries of the Cairns section, declared that section-another 36,000 square kilometres-and set 30 per cent of the western boundary at the low water mark off the Queensland coast. This proves that the Fraser Government was prepared to assert itself in an area of genuine environmental concern and is yet another example of the coalition's record of performance in the environmental area. In August 1982 the Fraser Government announced increases in its allocation to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority in the 1982-83 Budget to enable it to accelerate declaration programs during that period. In November 1982 the Ministerial Council communique issued after its sixth meeting stated: Council agreed today that the declaration of the park should be accelerated . . . The intention is to move to declare the major parts of these three remaining areas-the Whitsunday area, Townsville area and the far north area-as soon as practicable and at the same time. The Council asked the Authority to bring forward recommendations to the next Council meeting, due in March 1983, for the boundaries of the park sections in those three areas for agreement. The point must be made that, contrary to the published statements of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), both in Brisbane last weekend and in this place yesterday, it is only fair to say that interest in the Great Barrier Reef existed long before the Whitlam Government and certainly following the Whitlam Government. I should also emphasise that in this House it has been a bipartisan view that the Barrier Reef is to be protected, that should now be an accomplished fact. However, there was a change of government in March 1983. At that time the Labor Party went to the Australian people with a policy in relation to the Great Barrier Reef which covered four points: (a) Immediately declare the entire Great Barrier Reef region as a marine park to the low water mark on the Queensland coast. (b) Extend the region northwards to the Papua New Guinea border in the Torres Strait and declare this area a marine park, subject to Papua New Guinea approval . (c) Amend the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act to enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to prepare zoning plans sequentially to properly manage the entire marine park. (d) Allocate additional funds to expedite the development of zoning plans after the declaration of the entire Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Of those four points the Hawke Government has more or less achieved one; and, of course, we live in hope of seeing the other three. Yesterday the Minister, in a statement on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio, as usual, claimed all the credit for this achievement, he said: It has taken us years to negotiate this and get it amicably. I remind him that it was the former Liberal-National Party Government which negotiated with the Queensland Government over the last seven years. The present Labor Government can take little credit for what we achieved during that period. The outcome of our achievement was in fact that statement made by the Minister in Brisbane last Sunday when he stated that now over 98 per cent of the reef is effectively part of the National Park. Those agreements were already well on the way to achievement at the time of the change of government. May I say how disappointed I was that the Minister in his second reading speech did not see fit to mention the work of the former coalition science and environmental Ministers, namely, Senator Webster, the Hon. Robert Ellicott, the Hon. Ian Wilson, the Hon. Tom McVeigh and the Hon. David Thompson, all of whom worked assiduously in the interests of the Great Barrier Reef region, nor did he mention the work of the Queensland Government, the Premier Mr Bjelke-Petersen, and his Minister responsible for National Parks, Mr Tony Elliott. One cannot forget that this was a co-operative effort between these people, all of whom worked diligently to achieve the expansion of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which the Minister was so happy to announce on Sunday as his creation. It will be an historical fact that he was fortunate to be the Minister at the time when this took place. I think it would be only fair for him to be at least statesmanlike and to give credit where it is due to the others who did so much to make his accomplishment a reality. In the application of the policy of the Australian Labor Party as I have noted, the Government to date has been less than consistent in regard to the Great Barrier Reef. In October 1983-I mentioned this point earlier-three members of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation dissented from the major report which recommended that the entire Great Barrier Reef Region be immediately declared a marine park, excluding sections of the five kilometre wide strip along the Queensland coast where there are not strong environmental or other reasons for the Marine Park to extend to the low water mark. The three dissenters were Dr Jenkins, now the Speaker, Mr Stewart West, now the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, and Mr Brian Howe, now the Minister for Defence Support. They all called for the Park to be extended up to the low water mark all along the coast. It is interesting to note the Minister's comments when declaring the Townsville and inshore southern areas of the reef region on 30 October. He stated: There has been some criticism that the Great Barrier Reef has not been declared up to the low water mark along the whole coast. Had we done so, it would have created a bureaucratic nightmare of unprecedented proportions. It would have meant that every time the State Government, a local council, a port authority or a private individual wanted to take some minor action . . . permission would have to be sought from Canberra. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority advised me that it was not necessary to control the region to the low water mark along the major part of the coast. Recently criticism has come from the Australian Conservation Foundation and the Australian Littoral Society. I was very surprised to notice yesterday in the Minister's speech how he was happy to give credit to Mr Eddie Heggerl of the Queensland Littoral Society for the work he has accomplished. Yet he was happy to denigrate him on radio the other day and use language which I thought was somewhat inappropriate for the occasion. Nevertheless, many environmentalists are concerned. They do believe they have not yet received an adequate explanation from the Government as to why it is necessary not to declare the Park to the low water mark along the Queensland coast. It is up to the Minister to explain it more satisfactorily to them. In the Australian Broadcasting Corporation program the World Today the Minister enforced a point which the previous Liberal-National Party Government had made on several occasions in the past. He stated: The responsibility for that part of the protection lies with the Queensland Government . . . the sovereignty of the Queensland Government is concerned. It is interesting to see that the Minister recognises that some States do have sovereignty. Perhaps he has now recognised, somewhat after the event, how the people of Tasmania felt on the particular subject of sovereignty. The Opposition is concerned that the Hawke Government will, in time, tend to weaken the principle of co-operative federalism with the Queensland Government in regard to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef, a principle which was in the forefront of all negotiations between the former Federal Government and the Queensland Government and which was abandoned when the present Federal Government introduced the World Heritage Properties Conservation Bill 1983 into this place. Bringing additional areas within the Park is consistent with the intentions of the previous Government and of course of the Opposition. I hope it will not be long before it is possible for the Minister to announce that the Torres Strait area, that is, the area south of the international boundary between Australia and Papua New Guinea, will also be included in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I am concerned as to whether the Authority has the resources to complete the new zoning plans which involve a very detailed study of the areas as well as public participation in that study. I ask the Minister whether he can assure the House that the Authority does have the resources available. Has adequate provision been made in the Budget which will meet these requirements? The previous Government, following a bilateral agreement between Queensland and the Commonwealth ensured that the new areas to be zoned as part of the Park were adequately protected in advance. My concern is that full protection will not operate until zoning plans have been prepared and accepted. The Minister's action in declaring additional areas as part of the Park does not, in itself, guarantee full protection. Lest this be no more than just a symbolic gesture to meet an election commitment made some eight months ago, the Minister must give a firm commitment for the protection of the Great Barrier Reef. A number of matters of concern for the future need to be commented on in this debate. The Minister, in a letter to the Australian Financial Review of the third of this month, noted the criteria used to determine the western boundary of sections of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. He was answering various criticisms that had been made by the Queensland Conservation Council. He mentioned that there were some five elements involved, as follows: Areas where there are significant fringing or inshore reefs or areas of coral growth. Areas adjacent to land areas which are subject to conservational management, such as national parks. Critical habitat of endangered species, such as major dugong feeding areas and turtle nesting areas. Areas which are important to the conservation of species of the Great Barrier Reef region, such as breeding or nursery areas of fish, or of prawns and other invertebrates. Heavily-used tourist areas associated with the natural resources of the Great Barrier Reef region. It is on the fifth point, 'heavily-used tourist areas' that I have some concern and a query which I would like to put to the Minister. I find difficulty in understanding his definition of 'highly-used tourist areas'. It would appear that in the context of the announcement last weekend a number of areas which would apparently fit that definition have in fact been excluded. I refer specifically to Fitzroy Island, in the Cairns region, which was omitted from the Park. Yet it is undoubtedly and indisputedly a tourist resort. Similarly we have the Iwasaki proposal in the Yeppoon area. That was also omitted from the proposals last weekend. I refer now to Hamilton Island. Mr Cohen —It is not in the region. Mr CONNOLLY —If the Minister reads the map he will see that it is, quite clearly , in the region. I will pass the map to him for his benefit. Mr Cohen —It is not in the region. It is on the land. Mr CONNOLLY —I am talking about Hamilton Island. It is still affected. Yeppoon's existence can affect the region; that is the important thing. Regarding Hamilton Island the Parliamentary Committee on Conservation and Environment in a recent visit to north Queensland to observe the reef and see how the Authority was operating was somewhat concerned to see developments which had taken place on Hamilton Island. When we returned the Chairman took the matter up with both the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and also the Department of Aviation. It is a matter of some concern to us that the Department of Home Affairs and Environment stated in its response that in February of this year it became aware of a project which, in fact, received authority from the Queensland Government and local government authorities in October 1981. Hamilton Island is within the Park area and must be administered in accordance with the interests of the Park. I do not wish to discuss here the advantages or disadvantages of the Hamilton Island development because the Opposition does support, in principle, tourist development in northern Queensland for obvious reasons. But the case must be studied because of its implications in relation to the long term questions which it raises in relation to the protection of the Great Barrier Reef region. Firstly, it casts doubts as to whether the Authority can adequately defend the interests of the Park and whether the Commonwealth is prepared to use its power in fields such as civil aviation to ensure that future island developments in this region are subject to environmental impact statements. The correspondence which I will seek leave to table from the Department of Home Affairs and Environment and the Department of Aviation to our Committee gives reason for real concern in this regard. I ask the Minister: Can he assure the House that he will ensure that all development plans relevant to the Marine Park are brought to the notice of his Department at the planning stage? Can he further assure the House that he will, as the responsible Minister, do more than just use hyperbole? I remind him of his statement made last Sunday at the Brisbane meeting of the Wilderness Society and the Queensland Branch of the Australian Conservation Foundation. He said: I will make Mr Williams put back every grain of sand if he extends his airstrip without permission. The letter signed by Dr McMichael states that his Department became aware of the Hamilton Island development late in February 1983. I remind the Minister that the election took place on 5 March. Clearly, therefore, the present Government must take some responsibility for the fact that nothing has been done. Secondly, of even greater concern is the total silence from the Minister about whether the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act will be applied by his Department to similar developments in the future. Will the Minister commit himself to ensuring that Hamilton Island is not used as a precedent for similar developments on other islands which could have a negative effect on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, development which could have a major impact upon the reef's environment and the marine park itself? I must emphasise that we believe that developers have every right to know in advance the requirements that must be met in order to receive the necessary approval. If we fail to achieve this the potential of the reef for tourism will obviously not be met. Therefore it is essential that the Government lay down criteria, in agreement with the Queensland Government, which will ensure that there is no uncertainty in policy. The Opposition believes that while ensuring environmental protection, especially for World Heritage areas, it is essential that all development proposals be consistent with world heritage protection. To achieve this, potential developers must know in advance the contents of management plans and their impact on possible developments. These matters are of great concern not only to the people of Queensland but to all those who have grown to know and love the reef. It is now a matter of outstanding importance. It is indeed something which Australians hold dear and which I believe the Minister should be prepared to support with all the power at his disposal, if he is prepared to put substance in the place of hyperbole. I seek leave to table the two letters from the Department of Aviation and the Department of Home Affairs and Environment. Leave granted. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(5.23) —The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill establishes a legislative basis for a number of agreements made between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments relating to the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. As a result, the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service will now carry out day to day management of the marine park , subject to supervision by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. Furthermore, the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, will totally fund an initial capital works program necessary to ensure management of the marine park. All other capital and ongoing costs of management will be shared equally between the Federal and Queensland governments. In addition, the Federal Government will be responsible for half the recurrent costs of management of the Queensland national and marine parks within the outer boundaries of the marine park. The existing Act does not enable the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to pay to Queensland Commonwealth funds for the Federal Government's share of ongoing and capital costs associated with areas outside the marine park. Equally, the Authority cannot receive and disburse moneys paid by the Queensland Government for Queensland's share of such costs. The amendments set out in this Bill will enable the Authority to carry out the agreements made between the Federal and State governments. I take the opportunity of speaking to the role that the Great Barrier Reef plays in the tourism industry of Queensland and with respect to the recreation and commercial activities along the Queensland coast. The Great Barrier Reef is about 2,000 kilometres long, stretching from Bundaberg up to Papua New Guinea. It extends from the low water mark on the Queensland coast to as much as 200 kilometres eastward. There are more than 2,500 individual reefs, ranging in size from less than one hectare to more than 100 square kilometres. The reef region covers an area of 348,700 kilometres, which is roughly the size of the United Kingdom or of the State of Victoria. There are several hundred islands in the reef, including many large continental islands, one of which is the world's largest island national park, Hinchinbrook Island, just off Townsville. More than 1500 species of fish have been identified on the reef and about 400 species of hard coral. Our present reef started about 16,000 years ago, at the end of the last Ice Age when the sea level was more than 100 metres below where it is today. Because it was tied up in ice, and as the ice melted and the sea level rose, the reef has grown with the surface of the sea from its old foundations. It reached its present level about 2,000 years ago. The reef is formed from the limestone skeletons of the ancestors of the coral polyps which are the chief reef building organisms. These are animals. They are closely related to sea anemones. The reef polyp is a small animal that lives in a colony. Each species builds a limestone skeleton of a characteristic shape. Within each coral polyp there is an organism which is called zooxanthellae. It is a form of algae, and the algae plant and its host, the polyp, work together to produce the calcium carbonate of which limestone is composed. So the reef coral grows very slightly at the roots, not exceeding a few millimetres per year. Even at these rates the total accumulation of calcium carbonate every year is immense. Until 1975 the Great Barrier Reef was used increasingly for various commercial and recreational activities. Beche-de-mer and trochus fisheries have operated periodically on the Great Barrier Reef and have at times been extensive and involved considerable work for the people involved in the fishing industry. The Aborigines have used the Great Barrier Reef from time immemorial. They fished and used various islands of the Great Barrier Reef as ceremonial grounds. In 1970, there was a proposal to use the Great Barrier Reef for limestone and a proposal to drill the Great Barrier Reef for oil. Following a royal commission into oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act was passed in 1975 with the support of all political parties. The Act provides for the establishment, control, care and development of a marine park in the Great Barrier Reef region. The Authority's Chairman, Mr Graeme Kelleher, has led the Authority with confidence and diligence and has exhibited himself as a most able Chairman. The 1975 Act created the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, now located at Townsville. One task of the Authority is to advise the Federal Government on what areas of the Great Barrier Reef region should be included in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Another task of the Authority is to prepare zoning plans which divide each section of the marine park region into zones which define what uses are permitted within each zone and the conditions under which those activities can proceed. One major function of the Authority is to carry out research or arrange for others to carry out research relevant to the marine park. Furthermore, an essential aim of the Authority is to provide for wise use of the Great Barrier Reef in perpetuity. Therefore, in making zoning plans the aim is to provide for sustainable use, that is, a level of use which can be carried out for ever without threatening the natural characteristics of the Reef or its environs. This is obviously in the interests of all of the users of the reef whether they be commercial or recreational and indeed, in the interests of all Australians. The Capricornia section of the Marine Park has been in full operation for more than two years and in that time no major problems associated with the zoning plan have been identified. The zoning plan for the Cairns section and the small Cormorant Pass section will come into effect in the near future. The zoning process for the far northern section has commenced and the Authority has asked user groups and the public to provide information about how that section should be zoned. The Authority's policy is to minimise restrictions consistent with conserving the reef and this project has led to support of the program by every major group. As I indicated earlier, this Bill amends the principal Act in two ways. Firstly , it allows the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to administer funds for capital works and management of the marine park. Secondly, it also ensures that zoning plans are tabled in Parliament within 15 sitting days of the zoning plan being accepted by the Ministers and reduces the parliamentary disallowance period from 20 to 15 sitting days. The marine park program and concept have received international acclaim and that system is being promoted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. Also, the reef has been inscribed on the World Heritage List and, increasingly, the Authority is being asked to advise other countries on ways to set up similar management systems, particularly in Asia and the Pacific. I should mention that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is the only active marine park of its kind in the world at the moment, although one would expect that, in the near future, similar legislation might be introduced in other countries. I repeat that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is by far the world' s largest marine park. This Bill is important in that it allows the Authority to administer funds in respect of capital works programs related to the marine park that are funded either by the Commonwealth or the Queensland Government and which are capital works projects built on Queensland-owned land. The Bill will allow the establishment of a complete management regime covering areas of jurisdiction of the Queensland Government, as well as that of the Federal Government. It will allow the whole of the Great Barrier Reef region to be managed as a single ecological system. Further, the Bill will, if enacted, allow the full implementation of the agreements that have been reached between the Federal and Queensland governments and the better operation of the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council. The Great Barrier Reef is attracting more and more tourists each year. Their number, accomodation and transportation will have an effect on the reef. Such effects can be minimised by proper zoning and management. There are a number of threats to the reef: Oil pollution from tankers; runoff from the agriculural land on the Queensland coast increases the turbidity of the sea inside the reef; overfishing by both commercial and non-commercial fishermen; poaching of giant clams and other sea life from the reef; crown-of-thorns starfish outbreaks over areas of the reef, and uncontrolled development. The marine park covers only the sea and seabed up to the low water mark. The intertidal region and the Barrier Reef islands are under the control of Queensland. It is essential that these areas in the marine park have complementary management to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The Queensland Marine Parks Act was passed partly to cover the international gap but to date there has been no declaration of the many parks in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Area. When the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park region was placed on the World Heritage list so were the Queensland Islands, so they fall within the ambit of the World Heritage Properties Protection Act passed in May 1983. The Federal Government has an obligation, therefore, to ensure that the islands as well as the reef are protected. The Great Barrier Reef provides some of the most spectacular scenery on earth and is of exceptional natural beauty. The Great Barrier Reef provides major feeding grounds for large populations of endangered species. In this regard, I again urge the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to ensure that adequate steps are taken to project any endangered species in the marine park area. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen), who has exhibited such illustrious interest, experience and competence in the issue of the Great Barrier Reef, said in his second reading speech that tourism is a growth industry with the Great Barrier Reef and adjacent mainland centres attracting two million visitors per annum, of which 150,000 go to island resorts. He mentioned that the Ministerial Council was examining the matter of island tourist development and alternative access to the reef. I take this opportunity to call again on the Queensland Government to proceed with the establishment of the Florence Bay resort on Magnetic Island to provide suitable and adequate accommodation for international visitors who will continue to come through the Townsville International Airport. I commend the Bill to the House. Indeed, it is a commendable step in the continued development of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park as a true wonder of the world. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(5.37) —In speaking to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill 1983, what surprises me about the whole attitude so far is that in the second reading speech of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment ( Mr Cohen) and in the comments of the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), no recognition is given to the part played by the Queensland Government in respect of the co-operation extended in order to make this zoning possible and the marine park work. I take up a comment that was made by the honourable member for Herbert about the Queensland Government being urged to do something with Florence Bay. Under the policy of his party in Queensland, the Tourist and Travel Corporation would have been disbanded and such a project as that would not have been feasible. I give him some hope that perhaps Florence Bay might go ahead after the development at Airlie Beach, which is another project that is on the scales. I see, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you are looking at me as I am not relating my remarks to the Bill, so I will get back to it. It is unkind that the efforts of the Queensland Government in this regard have been overlooked because I am pretty sure that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment would agree with me, after his brief period in the position, that such a declaration as has now been made could not have been done without the-- Mr Cohen —You are absolutely right and I apologise if I forgot to pay tribute to the Queensland Government's efforts. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Very good. It just goes to show that, while the Queensland Government in some ways is painted as anti-environmentalist, unco-operative and things like that, in some cases with Commonwealth influence such a project as this can be brought forward. I just put that on the record. The other thing I want to place on the record is my thanks to the Minister for making available to members in the adjoining area the experience and the advice of counsellors from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and also the provision of a lot of material that made it a lot easier for we who work in the electorates to understand what was going on so that we could associate what the Authority was doing and what the Minister was doing with what the aspirations of the Queensland Government and of the people living in that area would be. I made the comment at the time that I thought it absolutely essential, for this to be a successful declaration, that consultation with the onshore and offshore resort owners and interested people in the area be sought. In that regard I refer to the Minister's second reading speech, in which he stated: That Authority places great emphasis on establishing and maintaining liaison with the many and diverse user groups that depend on the resources of the Great Barrier Reef. He went on to state: The Authority recognises that regular users of the reef have a wealth of information which can supplement that of scientists and managers. In every respect I can only say 'Thank you very much' to the Minister and to the Authority for taking into account the very basic elements that are necessary to make the marine park work properly. I mentioned consultation. Many people who have worked on island resorts, tourist pleasure boats and such things have a wealth of experience. I think it would be fair enough to say that over the period of their stewardship, in the absence of this Marine Park Authority, they have done a tremendous job in making sure that their activities were compatible with the area. The Great Barrier Reef is I think, regarded as an Australian heritage, as I would like to think the America's Cup will become. The reef is a very important part of what we as a nation can claim as a heritage. It is something every Australian and every international visitor would want maintained in its present form. Mr Cohen —They can't win it off us, can they? Mr BRAITHWAITE —I was going to suggest in relation to the America's Cup that, with the declaration of the marine park, the Minister might give approval for the race to be conducted off the off-shore islands in the Whitsunday area. I put that to him as a suggestion to which he might respond. We have the best waters for the race. In fact, we have the sand, the sun and the surf the equal of which cannot be found anywhere else in the world. There is no better place to conduct that race in the middle of winter when the southerners will be happy to come up to Queensland. I put to the Minister that he might grant approval to such a request if it is made. I think it is necessary to mention also, in connection with the industries and the potential of the reef, the latest decision by the Commonwealth to install lighthouses within the Hydrographers Passage. That, of course, will improve the steaming time of vessels from the Far East to Mackay or other Queensland ports. At a time when competition in coal freights and exports is very much the name of the game I think that is a very welcome addition. At the moment a lot of things are going on with the reef to which I think all Australians can turn their attention. I believe the Hamilton Island resort has already been mentioned. I have mentioned people who, in the past, have helped with their tremendous experience. I suggest that perhaps they have more practical experience than has the Authority, or perhaps the National Parks and Wildlife Service rangers. Perhaps the Minister can clear up a point in relation to these people. Andre Maestracci at Hayman Island, John Mountney at Happy Bay and Tom McLean at Brampton Island at the moment have reefs adjoining the islands. I understand the reefs are Commonwealth property. What access will these people have? They have claimed, maintained and looked after these reefs over many years. They have been part and parcel of the island resort activity. I mention particularly, Hayman Island, which has actually attached to it a very fine reef which, I suppose, would surface at low tide. I am wondering what attitude is being taken by the Authority in relation to the regular use of these areas. They have been kept in first class order. A person can fish there now in an environment that is as good as it was 50 years ago. That type of reef has always been maintained. Mr Cohen —Who was the person you mentioned? Mr BRAITHWAITE —Andre Maestracci at Hayman Island. Mr Cohen —He is the manager? Mr BRAITHWAITE —He is the manager at Hayman Island. I know he would have a fear that with the declaration of parts of the reef these places may not be as available as they have been. They are a feature along the whole chain of those Whitsunday islands. There are also the people who use the reef regularly, the reef charter operators such as Air Whitsunday and the Elizabeth E. Cruises, run by the Evetts. The Minister has probably met them. I think he would agree, if he has met these people, that they have done a tremendous job in maintaining the environment. If anything, they have tried to improve it. Of course, these people would want to continue to have access in order that the tourist industry can continue to develop. There is also potential for the air traffic people. Amphibians are being used extensively. There is also potential of hovercraft. Mr Cohen —They are excellent, those amphibians. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Yes, and I hope they will be allowed. People on a whole stack of islands-Brampton, Hayman, South Molle, Day Dream, Linderman and Hamilton, all within the Whitsunday group-have played their part in the past in maintaining the environment. I think the people concerned need some reassurance in that regard, if the Minister can give it. I want to place on record also what a good reputation is enjoyed by the Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service. Only about three or four weeks ago I was a judge of wildlife and the environment in a competition run as an adjunct to that Service. A tremendous effort was made . The people in the competition are very well respected by the community. It is great to know that the maintenance of the park will be left in their hands, even though the maintenance and also the capital improvements will be funded equally by the State and Federal governments. The States rights issue has always haunted the declaration of the park. Fears have been raised with the Franklin Dam issue in the south. But in all respects I believe the solution that has been found in this case is excellent. It conforms to law. It also shows a spirit of co-operation between all parties. I am fairly sure that the Minister, in dealing with his counterparts on the other side of the State fence, would have found this too. The honourable member for Herbert expressed concerns about the use of the reef-about the Taiwanese plundering the reef and such things. I believe that whilst this has been a moderating influence over the last few years the Authority ought to be able to take firm steps in this regard. I am sure that any policing of that nature would only enhance the reef. I would appreciate it if the Minister can answer some of my questions. This legislation is a very good result. Provided the Authority keeps on with the consultations that have been promised in the second reading speech, I am sure that international asset, the Great Barrier Reef, will be maintained in its present form not only for the generations which come immediately after us but also so that the generations in a thousand years' time can enjoy what I believe is the best tourist spot and the best place for peace and quite one can find anywhere in the world. Mr GAYLER(Leichhardt)(5.48) —I am pleased to be able to contribute to the second reading debate this afternoon on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Amendment Bill. I have noted with interest the comments made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). It is quite obvious from what he said that he is commending the Government for the prompt action it has taken after the eight years of almost total inactivity by the previous Government. Mr Braithwaite —That is not what I said at all. Mr GAYLER —It is obvious that that is what he meant by implication. I commend him for that. Mr Braithwaite —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I did not make that implication and the comment is quite unjustified. I did not say that at all. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! There is no point of order. Mr GAYLER —The record clearly indicates that the Australian Labor Party Government has given total commitment to this Bill and to the Barrier Reef Marine Park Act of 1975. In fact, 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef was brought within the provisions of the Act of 1975 during the eight years following its introduction. It took eight years for the coalition Government to get just over 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef within the provisions of the Act. Within a matter of months this Government has brought some 98 per cent of the reef within the provisions of the Act. That is a commendable effort not only by the Government but also by the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) who has worked very diligently in this regard. The record clearly indicates that it was the Labor Government in 1975 that introduced into this House the initial Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Bill. I will quote part of what the then Minister for Environment and Conservation, Dr Cass, said in his second reading speech. It is a clear indication of the commitment, which has been in existence for at least the last decade, of the Labor Party. Dr Cass stated: The Great Barrier Reef, a vast collection of islands and coral reefs, extends along some 1900 kilometres of the Australian coast. This nationally and internationally important marine ecosystem encompasses many unique forms of sea life, and is the largest and most complex expanse of living coral reefs in the world-quite possibly the largest which has ever existed. It is an area of unique beauty and of irreplaceable scientific value. Most simply, the Reef is a significant part of the world's heritage-a priceless heirloom which we must safeguard for future generations. No previous Australian Government has demonstrated the conviction necessary to act on this obvious truth. Marine ecosystems, especially the rich inshore parts, are vital to the survival of many species-including man. They are the breeding grounds and nurseries of species upon which the world's commercial fisheries depend and of many other species vital to the complex food webs of the marine environment. As I have indicated, that speech was made over eight years ago. During the effluxion of almost all of that time Australian people have been governed by the coalition Government and it is significant that during that period only about 14 per cent of the Great Barrier Reef region has been included in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I listened to speakers on the other side and they did not direct their remarks to the contents of the Bill. They seem to have no knowledge of it or of the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act. Fortunately, the last speaker, the honourable member for Dawson, has at least some knowledge of the Barrier Reef. Over one-third of the Great Barrier Reef is off the coastline of my electorate and I profess to having some knowledge of the difficulties which have existed there. It is encouraging that different people with different views and different interests have come together-commercial fishermen, people who go there for recreation and tourists. Whilst there may still be some grey areas it is encouraging that people have been able to sit down and put together the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority to administer the reef and ensure its preservation for not only ourselves but also for our children and our children's children. It is of some concern to me, coming from the most northern part of Australia, that nothing has been done up to this point relating to the Great Barrier Reef in the Torres Strait region. The Great Barrier Reef is very rich. Some experts say that the Torres Strait region has more marine life and more species of coral than any other part of the Great Barrier Reef. I know that the Minister has the future of this area on board. Unfortunately, this question is interwoven with the question of settling the border treaty between Papua New Guinea and the Torres Strait people. I know that I speak on behalf of the Torres Strait people when I say that this matter is of some concern. We look forward to prompt action being taken by the Labor Government once again to finalise this question and bring within the Authority that part of the reef. I understand that the amendments in the Bill are in very short compass. They relate more particulary to machinery so that the 1975 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act can be more readily and more properly administered. The Bill relates to the day to day management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. I agree with the previous speaker, the honourable member for Dawson, that it is commendable that agreement on this matter has been reached between the Commonwealth and the State and particularly the fact that the Department of Arts, National Parks and Sport will take part in the management of the park. I commend the Bill to the House. As I have said, it is in very short compass but it will eradicate some of the difficulties that the Authority has run up against. It is commendable that this Government has acted so quickly in this regard. As I have said, after eight years of almost total inactivity on the part of the previous Government, it is very pleasing to see that is Government is prepared to bite the bullet and get on with the job. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith)(5.56) —I join in the debate this evening on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Amendment Bill. I have only a few minutes in which to speak because I know that the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) is anxious to reply and we have other business to attend to. However, it is necessary that I enter the debate in order to point out a few facts to the Minister. I hope that he will take them on board. When he meets with the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Council I hope that he will consider the remarks that I make this evening. I refer firstly to the tourist industry on the Great Barrier Reef. I think that the Minister is well aware that there are only four islands in the Great Barrier Reef which have tourist facilities. They are Heron Island, Lady Elliott Island, Green Island and Lizard Island. We all know that the Great Barrier Reef is one of the great wonders of the world and it should be able to be visited and viewed by people from throughout the world. However, we find that tourist facilities on those islands are very expensive indeed. Workingclass people should be able to view the Barrier Reef and the other islands without having to pay an arm and a leg as the saying goes. Millions of people go there to view the reef but unfortunately, due to the weather, they cannot get to it. Mr Lindsay —They get no assistance. Mr HUMPHREYS —They do not get any assistance from the Queensland Government. We all appreciate that fact, as my friend the honourable member for Herbert points out. I know that the Minister is very concerned about tourism. He has done a marvellous job, as we all know. He is a very good Minister and I congratulate both him and the Government. However, I ask him to ensure that the tourist complexes do not keep putting up their prices and thus make a visit to the area totally out of the price range of the working man. The Barrier Reef should be able to be seen by working-class people and I hope that the Minister will take that on board. I know that concern has been expressed about the commercial fishermen. My friend the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) referred to this matter and I know that the Government is considering it. Commercial fishermen were worried that we should be closing the whole of the Barrier Reef to commercial fishing. In 1979-80 their catch was worth $30m. The Minister will probably update that figure so that the Parliament will know whether commercial fishermen are very active on the reef. I want to talk about the Taiwanese fishermen who also have been very active on the reef. The Minister, in his second reading speech, stated: The underlying philosophy is management by education. It is recognised that there must be rules and regulations, and penalties . . . I want to refer to the penalties imposed on the Taiwanese fishermen. As recently as 20 August another Taiwanese poacher was caught. Admittedly, he probably would have come down from the Barrier Reef. He was not in the Barrier Reef zone. He was in the 200 mile fishing zone. We do not know exactly where he came from. He was apprehended. The boat is in Brisbane now, tied up at the wharf. I think that tenders close today. We know that we are spending $1.6m and that $500,000 is to be spent straight away. A very good way that we can start getting money back is by apprehending these people who are polluting and plundering our reef. They have been doing it for years and years. Admittedly, we have not caught as many in the past few years as we used to catch. They are becoming more cunning. I point out to the Minister that whilst we apprehend these boats, no Australian is allowed to purchase them. These ships are quite big, as was the one which was apprehended. It was stated that the ship would probably we worth $750,000. Someone else has valued it at $75,000. This will make it very easy for the Taiwanese to buy that boat back. I say that the money the Government can get should be coming back. The Government should get the money. The money that comes back from that boat should be going to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Council so that it can spend more money to protect the reef-especially from these people. In the daily aerial surveillance we should be able to include Navy and Air Force training. While they are practising they can be practising over those areas and checking on these plunderers and polluters. We are all well aware that one of the boats was caught on the Great Barrier Reef collected $20 per kilogram for clam meat in Taiwan and $44 per kilogram in Hong Kong. One of the vessels that was apprehended not so long ago was carrying 15 tonnes of clam meat. It was worth $500,000 on the market. The real tragedy-I hope that the Minister is listening to this-is that that 15 tonnes of clam meat represented 100 million years of clam life. We want to ensure that we catch these people. We want to make sure that when we do sell those boats, the money comes back to Australia. In regard to the boat that was apprehended recently and the catch, the boat can be used only for scrap and the catch can be used only for fertiliser, and rightly so. But if someone from overseas buys that vessel-I hope the Minister is listening-he can take the vessel back overseas and use it as a fishing boat. More than that, he can also buy the catch from the Australian Government and it will probably come back to Australia in tins. I know these matters are not quite in the Minister's area but they are matters at which he should be looking, taking them on board and speaking to other Ministers. This is a disgrace. We cannot sell the catch in Australia, but it can go overseas and come back here in tins. Is that not a disgrace? An Australian is not allowed to buy the boat and then sell it overseas . No, he can only buy it and use it for scrap. I think we should be looking at the legislation in that area. The Minister should listen to this. Papua New Guinea can teach us a lesson. An American fishing boat that was apprehended in its water was worth $12.9m. Papua New Guinea did not worry where it came from. It kept the boat. A fine was imposed. The penalties to which the Minister refers should be very heavy, heavier than those that have every been inflicted on these polluters and their captains before. The Papua New Guinea Government apprehended that boat and received quite a lot more money than we do. That boat was worth $12.9m. Yet one could not build the boat about which I spoke for $75,000. Yet we are going to send it back to the Taiwanese for $75,000. I hope that the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority will take that on board. I could go on and on. Concerns have been voiced from conservation groups. The Minister should take this matter on board. In fact he has taken it on board. I know that he is very concerned. However, I do not have enough time to pursue the matter further. I know that the Minister wants to reply, so we will get on with the business of the day. I sincerely congratulate the Minister and Government for doing a great job. From 14 per cent to 98.5 per cent of the reef has been declared in the last seven months. We know the problems. It is no good the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Baithwaite) saying that we did not have problems with the State Government, because as long as I have been here we have been arguing. The Ministers of his Government were trying to do deals with Joh. The honourable member knows what the problems were. I appreciate that the Queensland Government is co-operating now, but it did not do so during all that time and he knows that . Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment)(6.06) —in reply-I thank all the honourable members who participated in this debate, and simply say that it has been an interesting hour. I must say that the comments by the shadow Minister for Home Affairs and Environment were strange. He seemed to be determined to play the role of the Opposition spokesman and therefore had to criticise everything and find all sorts of imaginary things wrong with our actions. He criticised me for not paying tribute to previous Liberal Ministers. If he looks at my speech he will find that I paid tribute particularly to Prime Ministers Gorton and Holt for their roles. I did not mention all the Liberal- National Party Ministers responsible for science and the environment such as Senator Webster, Mr Thompson, Senator Greenwood, Mr Ellicott, Mr Wilson, Mr MacKellar, Mr Newman and Mr McVeigh. A succession of Ministers took over so fast I cannot remember most of their names. I will take up the point that has been made about the Opposition claiming the credit. Mr Connolly —Bipartisan. Mr COHEN —Bipartisan, but bipartisan when we were the Government which introduced the Act and the Opposition was the Government that did very little over 7 1/2 years. We were the Government that received 84 per cent-- Mr Connolly —That is nonsense. Mr COHEN —It is not nonsense. If the honourable member checks around he will find that while there was work done-I pay tribute to the previous Government for doing something-the previous Government was slow. It did not push the issue as quickly as it might have. There is no question that the matter has moved much faster this year because the Authority and this Government have made sure that things happened a little more quickly. I take up the point made by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite) about the Queensland Government. He is right. I should have paid tribute to it, because it has been co-operative, particularly in the last 12 months. However, it was not so co-operative earlier. It is now recognising the benefits. I apologise for that omission. Let us make one thing clear about Hamilton Island. The work that was done on Hamilton Island by Mr Keith Williams was done before this Government came to office. I point out that it was not in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park until last Sunday. This feigned anguish about what is happening at Hamilton is all very well, but it was done under the Fraser Government. Honourable members opposite know well that this is true. Mr Connolly —We ask that it not be a precedent. Mr COHEN —We will certainly give the assurance that it will not be. I make the point though that the sovereignty of the continental islands-whilst those islands are obviously in the park-remains with the Queensland Government. Up to the low water mark it is our responsibility. What happens on Hamilton Island will be the responsibility of the Queensland Government. However, if Mr Williams decides to go out over the low water mark, and he does it without seeking and obtaining permission from the Authority, we will act. I have great admiration for many of the things that Keith Williams does. But occasionally he tends to be a bit of a buccaneer when it suits him. He does things and asks permission afterwards. If he wants things done in that area and if he is going to go into the marine park area he should consult with the Authority first. If he intends to do things we will have an environmental impact statement to see whether it is appropriate. In regard to the honourable member's comment about the America's Cup, I am not so courageous as to suggest that at the moment we should take it away from Fremantle or Perth. I have a lot of courage, but it does not extend to alienating all my Western Australian colleagues. Perhaps a Queensland boat will enter the America's Cup race, become the challenger, win it and then the next challenge will be over on the east coast, in the barrier reef area. I thank the honourable member for Dawson very much for his contribution. He was very gracious. He raised questions about the fringing reefs on Hayman Island. They are likely to be zoned to fit in with the operations of the existing enterprise. We depend on the operators to encourage protection of their reefs, to help their enterprises and to help preserve them. I was on Hayman Island a few weeks ago, for four days. I met Andre Maestracci, the gentleman to whom the honourable member referred. He was a bit nervous, about what might happen. We now have two years of consultation and planning before the zoning plan is ready. It may be even a little longer than that. There will be two years of consultation with the tourist operators and with the fishermen-the recreational, professional and commercial fishermen-to work out a zoning plan. I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but our object is to work out a plan that will enable the tourist operators to continue and to look after the reef, as the honourable member pointed out, in the way that it has been looked after in the past. I make one or two final points. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) mentioned that I had praised Eddie Heggerl and then criticised him. I pay tribute to Eddie Heggerl's very important role as the guardian of the reef and recognise the contribution he has made. That is not to suggest that I have to agree with everything that Eddie Heggerl says. I admire a lot of the work he has done. I think he has made an enormous contribution, but I do not have to go along with everything he says. The honourable member for Bradfield suggested that the Bill does not guarantee full protection of the reef. I said it on Sunday, I said it the other day, and I will say it again: The honourable member is absolutely right. Of course it does not guarantee full protection. A whole range of people must be involved in protecting the reef. I am only the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment. I am not God. I cannot guarantee that nothing will ever happen to the reef. Many things need to be done. The Queensland Government has a role to play in protecting what happens on-shore. The flow of pesticides and insecticides that come down the rivers from farms needs to be looked at. The flow of discharge from processing and mining operations on the mainland and from any other operation must be looked at. Of course, that is the Queensland Government's responsibility. Mr Connolly —That is precisely why the environmental groups are concerned about the areas that have been excised, because they cannot be looked at on that definition. Mr COHEN —I have explained it once, twice, three times. How many more times do I need to explain why we have not gone on to the reef? I ask the honourable member whether he would have done so. Let us not forget that the Cairns section was declared under the previous Government and the previous Government did exactly the same thing. Obviously, the Fraser Government accepted the advice that it was not wise to go to the low water mark in all of that area. We have followed that pattern. We think that was right, I think that was right. Mr Connolly —That was not your policy, though. Mr COHEN —The honourable member is right; it was not our policy. I think that that was a mistake. Since we came to government I have listened to the advce of the Austhority. We have discussed it in Cabinet and in Caucus, and on reflection we think that the decision was the right one to make. I do not want to nitpick about that. Mr Connolly —To your credit. Mr COHEN —I think that we made a mistake. We have learnt from those mistakes. With regard to the Iwasaki development at Yeppoon, one of the criteria is that an area must be environmentally important and have important natural qualities. Some people may think that Yeppoon has important ecological significance. I, for one, do not. I am not denigrating it, it has a lot going for it, but it is not one of the most important areas. I had some differences of opinion about this with the environmental movement when I was the shadow Minister for the Environment. I think I have covered most of the points that were raised. The honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), the Government Whip, raised a question about Taiwanese fishing boats. He was right; it is not my responsibility. It is mainly the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). However, I will take up the points he raised with the Minister for Primary Industry. By the way, Australians are not clam meat eaters, so the clam meat is not likely to return to Australia. However, many of the other points that the honourable senator raised were very reasonable and I will have an inquiry made into all of those points and obtain a reply for him. One other point that the honourable member for Griffith made related to the cost of tourism. Costs are reasonably low on Lady Elliott Island and there are a lot of camping facilities on the reef. However, we must accept the fact that the construction of reef resorts is very expensive. We have to provide landing facilities, wharves, electricity and water. Food must be shipped to the islands and accommodation must be provided for staff. Mr Braithwaite —Penalty rates are very heavy. Mr COHEN —Penalty rates are very high in the reef areas. All of those matters make the construction of resorts on the reef much more expensive than is the case on the mainland. We must accept that, for the ordinary investor, in the future costs of construction of reef resorts will be high. The only way that cheap accommodation will be provided is by way of government subsidy, and something that perhaps we ought to look at is the provision of facilities for those people who cannot ordinarily afford a reef holiday. I also hope that the Authority will provide ways in which people can visit the reef, such as at Green Island. Some proposals have suggested that people could go out to the reef for the day, and then return to stay on the mainland. Mr Deputy Speaker, time has run out. I thank the House and all those who have contributed to the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Cohen) read a third time. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I present the 208th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts relating to Finance minute on report 194- Expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1980-81). I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr CADMAN —The 208th report of the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts contains the Department of Finance minute on the Committee's earlier report No. 194 on expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, Appropriation Acts 1980-81. The Department of Finance minute is the formal mechanism used by the Government for responding to the Committee's recommendations. The Committee's 194th report, which examined departments' expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance, was tabled in Parliament on 20 April 1982. In accordance with normal practice, the Committee obtained from departments 129 explanations relating to items from the Advance to the Minister for Finance in 1980-81. Four departments-the Department of Defence, the Department of Finance, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Australian Federal Police-were selected for public examination, and additional written information was requested from a further 12 departments. The only charge to the appropriations for the Advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional Appropriation Bills Nos 3 and 4 and the close of the financial year. In its examination, the Committee seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or additional Estimates. The Committee concluded that in most cases, expenditure was used according to the accepted guidelines. Notwithstanding this, the Committee resolved to act in closer consultation in future with the Department of Finance in examining departmental requests for funds from the Advance and their final explanations of expenditure. The Committee is satisfied with the Department of Finance response to the 194th Report and notes that, as a result of the Committee's inquiry, policy revisions were effected to establish new procedures to apply to departments submitting applications for funds which will remain a final charge to the Advance in a certain year. The Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) has agreed that copies of all departmental applications for funds will remain a final charge to the Advance to the Minister for Finance at 30 June and be sent to the Public Accounts Committee as soon as possible after approval is granted. Unsuccessful applications for funds from the Advance classified as 'non-approved' by the Minister for Finance will not be sent to the Commitee. This arrangement supersedes the current after the end of the financial year procedure which requires departments to submit to the Committee explanations in respect of each amount that remains a final charge. To assist the Committee in its assessment of the need for recourse to the Advance to the Minister for Finance, it will be necessary for departments to supply information which contain detail or which is supported in detail. Estimates explanations relating to the particular appropriation item as submitted to the Parliament in the Budget, and additional Estimates are suggested as possible supporting documents. Where an advance is for a new item, similar information is suggested. The applications submitted are to continue to justify the urgent and unforeseen criteria. Applications which do not address the criteria will not be approved. I commend the report to honourable members. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro) —Mr Deputy Speaker, on behalf of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, I present the Committee's report on the 81st series of variations to the plan of layout of the City of Canberra and environs together with extracts of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr SNOW —by leave-The report I have just tabled on the 81st series of variations to the city plan covers 19 variations and recommends the approval of work valued at $7m. The Committee in considering these proposed variations took evidence from several organisations including a community group, as well as from a member of the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly. The Committee approved the variations contained in the 81st series of variations except variation 19. Variation 19 concerns the village of Tharwa and the Committee has agreed to defer examination of this variation so that further studies can by undertaken. The Committee has approved a variation which will allow the completion of the duplication of the Federal Highway between Wells Station Road and the Australian Capital Territory-New South Wales border. This duplication is to be completed in time for the bicentenary celebrations in 1988. The new Parliament House will be opened early in that year and a large influx of visitors is expected for the opening and for a considerable period after the opening. However, during the inquiry, the Committee was informed that on present indications the duplication of the New South Wales section of the Federal Highway will not be completed before 1988. While the Committee understands that New South Wales has other priorities in highway construction, the Committee is disappointed that the duplication of the Federal Highway will not be completed by 1988. The Committee therefore recommends that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) confer with the New South Wales Government to endeavour to have the duplication of this major access road to Canberra completed for the bicentenary. One of the major reasons for the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) and I serving on the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory is that many of the decisions it makes have an impact on the surrounding region. The Federal Highway is an access route to Canberra for residents of the Eden-Monaro, Macarthur and other nearby electorates. Other access routes including trunk roads 92 from Braidwood to Nowra and 51 from Queanbeyan to Bateman's Bay and access to Bathurst are of interest to the region as well as to Australian Capital Territory residents. The Committee has been receptive to regional considerations, and I look forward to continued activity by the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory, which also deals with the south east region of New South Wales. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —by leave-I wish to address myself to the matters raised in the comments of the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) in regard to the duplication of the Federal Highway. That road is obviously a very important road to Canberrans. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory I must say that I was absolutely devastated, not just disappointed, when I heard that there was the possibility of the Commonwealth spending large amounts of money in duplicating the Federal Highway between Wells Station Road and Canberra, yet the New South Wales Government was not going to make funds available to complete that part of the highway between Goulburn and Canberra between now and 1988, the Australian bicentennial year. Of course, that is the year in which the new and permanent Parliament House will be opened. I think that will be one of the most significant events in that very important year. I am sure that all honourable members would be equally disappointed to know that the New South Wales Government will not make funds available for that part of the highway. When we are involved in the business of collecting large amounts of taxpayers' money from the taxpayers of Australia and imposing a new levy to ensure that an Australian bicentennial road development program could be put in place, it seems incredible to me that in relation to bringing people to Canberra for bicentennial celebrations and for the opening of the most prestigious building, that bicentennial road funds will not be made available to ensure that the roads are adequate to get people to come to Canberra. I could not speak more critically of the New South Wales Labor Government for allowing that to be the case. The honourable member for Eden-Monaro, who spoke before me, spoke of the New South Wales Labor Government having other priorities. I do not know what those other priorities might be. I would be pleased to be advised, but I have been told that roads between Sydney and Newcastle seem to get greater priority under these sorts of programs than do any others. The question of road access to Canberra is a very important one, as transport is generally. The Canberra Association for Regional Development has brought down a very worthwhile report, which it has made public and has given to the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) to assist him. The report is entitled 'First Steps: Toward and Economic and Social Strategy for the Future Growth of Canberra and the Region'. As honourable members might suspect, it deals with a large number of matters, particularly the importance of private sector confidence in Canberra's future and the sorts of policies that ought to be put in place to ensure that confidence. It also has some comments on the question of transport links. I think honourable members ought to be aware of those comments. The report states: Canberra, as the Nation's Capital, should be easily accessible for all Australians, as well as for an increasing number of overseas visitors. Canberra's existing transport links with other Australian cities and towns are inadequate and not of a standard appropriate to Australia's Capital City or for a city of the size and importance of Canberra, the seventh largest city in Australia. Improvement of these links is now essential and overdue. It must be stated unequivocally that, in CARD's view, it is the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government to provide adequate access to the National Capital. The report offers some comment on the sort of access that is essential. It states: That sufficient funds be provided to the A.C.T. (for example under the National Roads Grants Act) to ensure that road links are provided connecting Canberra to the regional and national road netword at a standard appropriate to the National Capital and a large regional centre. Specific recommendations in this regard are : continuation of the present program of upgrading the Hume, Federal and Barton Highways; and that greater priority be given to the provision of funds for the improvement of the King's Highway, Tumut Road, and Boboyan Road. It also mentions the need for funding for Canberra's airport to enable it to handle not only the increasing internal services but also international services . It also mentions the need for adequate rail access. It is in this context that I think we have to have regard to the Committee's comments and its disappointment that funds will not be available under the bicentennial road development program to ensure the duplication of the Federal Highway between Canberra and Goulburn and that it is most unlikely that that project will be completed in time for the bicentennial celebrations in 1988. I regard it as an absolute disgrace. I have put questions on notice to the Minister for Transport in order to get further information on this matter. I think it is important that the Minister take this matter up urgently on behalf of the people of Canberra. It is important that Canberra's members of Parliament take this matter up with their colleagues in the New South Wales Labor Government. I cannot imagine how the situation can continue whereby Labor governments in New South Wales and in Canberra would allow Canberra to be treated in such a shabby way. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(8.03) —Mr Deputy Speaker-(Quorum formed) I move: That this House deplores the cavalier approach of the Government towards so many of its election promises. On Friday, 2 September, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) gave a very important interview to Mr Russell Barton of the Melbourne Age. During that interview the Treasurer made a very interesting comment. I think this particular comment sums up better than most the attitude of this Government to so many of the commitments it made in the weeks that led up to the election on 5 March this year. I would like to quote the words of the Treasurer during his interview with the Melbourne Age about the subject of indirect taxation. That of itself is a fairly remarkable subject for a Labor Treasurer to be giving an interview in very lyrical terms about, considering what his predecessor, the former shadow Treasurer and present Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who is now seated at the table, and his former Leader used to say about the undesirability of shifting the Australian taxation base towards a greater reliance on indirect tax. But I will put that aside for just a moment. I shall quote the most important thing that the Treasurer said on this occasion. I ask all honourable members to listen because this, better than anything that I could say or anything that honourable members could say, sums up the cavalier attitude of the Government. He said this: The views I've put at Labor Party conferences were views I put with the aim of getting into government. The debate has moved on. We are now the government. What could more cynically encapsulate the attitude of this Government than those words out of the mouth of one of its most senior members, the present Treasurer? In a totally cynical manner he said: 'Forget about what we said before we got into government, chaps. We are now in government. We have got the Treasury benches. All bets are off. Everything is back on the table and now, free of the constraints of what we promised in the lead-up to the election campaign, we can do whatever we like'. I think that comment should be coupled with those immortal words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I have to quote them in setting the scene for what I want to say tonight. Honourable members will remember those beautiful words of the Prime Minister in his policy speech when he said: I believe the Australian people have had enough of election promises made only to be broken. I offer no fistful of dollars to be snatched back after the election. Those are the great words of the Prime Minister. Having said that he then offered a fistful of dollars to 99 per cent of the Australian community. We all know what happened to that. I will come to that in a moment. I rest my opening remarks, on moving this motion, on the supreme cynicism enshrined in those remarks of the Treasurer, of how seriously the present Government of this country takes the commitments that it made before the election. Of course it has rested the whole of this catalogue of repudiated promises on two excuses which I will deal with during my remarks. I will mention a couple of matters that have not been mentioned on the subject of that debate over the last few months. The Government rested all its excuses upon alleged deceptions about sizes of deficits and the rejection by the Senate of some so-called bottom of the harbour taxation legislation. I have mentioned the commitment made by the Prime Minister, presumably in the name of all his colleagues, in his policy speech at the Sydney Opera House. He said that he offered no fistfull of dollars, that he was not going to snatch them back as soon as he got into government, that he was going to keep the faith with the Australian people and that he was going to deliver on the promises that he made during the election campaign. But having got elected he gave reality to the words that in a moment of total candour his colleague, the Treasurer, was to mention to the Melbourne Age on 2 December. His philosophy simply was: 'You promise anything to get into government but once you are in government all bets are off and everything is back on the table'. That really has epitomised the cavalier approach taken by this Government. That is why it has problems at both ends of the spectrum. It has problems with people in middle Australia who are a bit cranky because it is dabbling with things such as a superannuation tax that it did not promise, it has broken its commitment on tax cuts, it has broken its commitments on the assets test and it has broken its commitment on the income test. In its own ranks it also has a few problems with something called a uranium policy, on which it has tried to be all things to all men. On the one hand it has offered something that is supposed to placate its business supporters and on the other hand it is offering something that is ambiguous to try to seduce the support of its left wing. Those chickens are coming home to roost right at the moment. We know the tension that is going on inside this building within the ranks of the Government at the present time on the matter of uranium. That is a legacy of the sort of deception and misleading that went on and the being all things to all men that the Leader of the Parliamentary Labor Party endeavoured to be in the weeks leading up to the election campaign. Those chickens are coming home to roost. That is not a problem for us, that is not a problem for middle Australia; that is a problem for the dyed-in-the-wool left wing supporters of the Australian Labor Party who thought that they had a policy at that national conference. They adopted a policy on uranium. There are smart-Alicks in the Party such as the Treasurer, who has said: 'You say anything you like at party conferences in order to get in but, once you have got there, all bets are off and everything is back on the table'. Those people offered a uranium policy that they thought they could bend and twist and make malleable according to whatever the need is. Mr Steedman —What's your uranium policy? Mr HOWARD —Of course the time is now running out, as the honourable member for Casey knows. He does not like what has happened on the uranium policy. He thought it was malleable enough to satisfy his left wing. I wonder what the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is thinking about the malleability of that uranium policy at the present time? We would all love to be flies on the wall. Why do not honourable members opposite invite us to join them ? We will give the Prime Minister the numbers if we are asked along on Monday. We will help him out. We would be delighted to come along and help the Prime Minister. For once I could find myself totally on side with the Prime Minister of Australia and Leader of the Labor Party. I would love to support his position on uranium. I reckon all my colleagues would be very happy to go along the vote for the Prime Minister he needs a bit of stiffening on the subject because his position is not nearly good enough, but it is a darn sight better than the sort of policy than the honourable member for Casey (Mr Steedman) and his colleagues want to impose on him. That illustrates what trouble one can get into when one tries to be all things to all men in an election campaign. That is exactly what Mr Hawke tried to do. That is exactly what he was trying to do when he promised immediate tax reductions for almost six million Australians. That is what he wanted to be when he said that he was not going to impose any tax on lump sum superannuation payments. The remarkable thing about that commitment-it is relevant to all the charges about deception with regard to deficits-is that he made it not only before the election but also after the election. If all these terrible repudiations of commitments were due to the terrible things that I and other people said about the deficit, why did he repeat all those things after the election when he had all the information in front of him? Why did he mislead brother Barry Unsworth? Why did he mislead all the other senior officials of the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement at the National Economic Summit Conference, when he said: 'Do not worry, fellows. She's right. We will not do anything about that lump sum superannuation'? Of course, all the time he intended to repudiate that commitment. He said that he would maintain the home loan interest rebate. All the fellows opposite who represent those marginal, high mortgage seats and who campaigned on that issue before 5 March said in good faith: 'Do not worry. We will keep this terrific home loan interest rebate that the former Government brought in'. Within a matter of weeks that too was lying on the floor. The Prime Minister said that he would keep the health insurance rebate until the introduction of Medicare. He said that there would be no means testing of pensions for the over-70s. He said that he would not introduce an assets test. His colleague the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) said that he would abolish that pharmaceutical declaration form, but he has not done so. We all remember seeing those chemists waving bits of paper from somebody. They probably came from the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) who was pretty terrific before the election in sending out telegrams on behalf of the Leader of the Labor Party promising that all sorts of things would not happen. However, the Minister for Health said that that form was going to be abolished. I can remember attending a meeting in the electorate of Casey. I should have gone there twice and we might have kept the honourable member for Casey out. His colleague Senator Giles and I were on the same platform and we were asked by the gathering about the spouse rebate. She said: 'The Labor Party believes in the spouse rebate. We are going to increase it because Mr Hawke said so in the election policy speech'. That was another of the commitments. Far from increasing it, almost half the Labor Party was trying to get rid of it. We all know the sort of battling that went on before the Budget on that issue. We all know how much the Government fell short of a number of the commitments it made to primary producers. We know of the inadequacy of its response with regard to compensation for the Franklin Dam. We know about its failed commitement to reduce the price of petrol by 3c a litre. We know about its failed commitment to reduce charges for private patients in public hospitals by $60 a day. We know about its commitment that there would be no more job losses in the steel industry. One of the few areas in which the Government has been able to chalk up a success is a reduction in the rate of inflation. Everybody knows that that is due substantially to effects of the recession and the continuing beneficial effects of the wages pause, a wages pause which was totally opposed by the Australian Party in this chamber when it was introduced by the former Government. We need not look at only those failed promises I have mentioned. We can talk about that promise to lift the tax threshold to $5,893 for pensioners. I wonder how many people remember that promise. The policy speech was fine. The rhetoric of the policy speech was: 'It is all very serious and it is difficult, and we cannot promise you a great deal, but in case you are not prepared to take our word for that, we will promise you a whole lot'. Six million Australians, or 99 per cent of the Australian community, were promised immediate taxation cuts. This Government, eight months old, stands condemned as a government with a cavalier approach to election promises. This Government has adopted the dictum of the Treasurer in that famous interview reported in the Melbourne Age of which honourable members will hear a lot in the months and years to come. On 2 September he said: The views I put at Labor Party conferences were views I put with the aim of getting into government. The debate has now moved on. We are now the Government. In other words, he said: 'Forget about what we said before the election campaign . We are now in power and what matters is what we do in power. Having successfully conned the electorate and having conned our way into office, we are here and we are going to make the best of it'. Of course, one of the two great excuses of the Government is the alleged deficit. Members of the Labor Party paraded around Australia saying: 'Had Howard and Fraser, the former Treasurer and Prime Minister, continued in government we would have had a deficit of $9.6 billion'. That is what they all said. Honourable members opposite are all nodding their heads as if to say: 'Yes, that is exactly what we said'. It was very strange that that should be said, because in an interview recorded in the Sydney Morning Herald in July, when he was under attack for being too much under the influence of the Treasury, and when he was defending himself against the charge that $8.5 billion was too contractionary a deficit, the Treasurer said: 'Don't you believe it. I had a real fight with Treasury over that. Had Howard still been Treasurer, the deficit next year would have been $6.5 billion'. They are the words of the Treasurer. They are not my words. Of course, his forecast was borne out on 23 August when he presented the Budget in this Parliament. He wrung his hands and said: 'I have had a terrible struggle with this wicked fiscal inheritance that you people have left me with. After much blood, tears, toil and sweat we have had to take $1,200m out of your profligate spending proposals, but we have put $2,500m-worth of new ones in. It has been so hard that we have had to put $2,500m back in'. Marvel of marvels, if one takes $2.5 billion away from $8.4 billion, one gets $6 billion-precisely the figure which honourable members opposite claim was used so often during the election campaign but which was actually used only twice. Those word used by the Treasurer in that interview, when he was defending himself against attacks from his own left wing for being under the thumb of the Treasury, when the $8.4 billion was really tough and contractionary and when Howard would have had a deficit of $6.5 billion, and the figures in his own Budget of 23 August demonstrate how completely phoney and false is the constant excuse, resurrected again by the Prime Minister during the Moreton by-election campaign, for why the Government has broken so many of the promises on which it was elected on 5 March . They demonstrate once again the versatility of the integrity of the commitments made by the leader of this Government and the leader of the Australian Labor Party at present. The second great excuse is the claim that the Senate and the Opposition parties in some way have acted in an inconsistent manner in voting against certain taxation legislation. On three occasions as a government last year and twice as an Opposition this year we have voted against the so-called bottom of the harbour taxation proposals put forward by the Australian Labor Party. They are not proposals to recoup unpaid tax. They are proposals to impose a totally new, totally selective, totally discriminatory and totally penal taxation liability on a group of people who already are being forced to meet their taxation liabilities under legislation passed by the former Government. No amount of confusion and no amount of misleading of the Australian people will alter the fact that that legislation cannot be correctly described as recoupment legislation. It is totally indefensible, unjustifiable, penal legislation, and ought properly to be rejected by this Parliament and has properly been rejected by this Parliament. What we voted against twice this year is what we voted against last year because everything that the Government has put up this year was put up as an amendment to the legislation that we put forward to the Parliamant last year. So we have a situation on the eve of a very important by- election, eight months after the Government's election on 5 March. Of course, all by-elections are important. Honourable members opposite know that as well as I do. This is an important by-election, a very important by-election, and on the eve of it this is a good opportunity not only for the people in this Parliament but also for some of the electors of Moreton to take stock of what this Government has really done. It is a good opportunity for the people of Moreton to remember the expectations raised by the election of the Hawke Government. It is a good idea for honourable members opposite to remember what was promised and what has not been delivered. It is a good idea for them to remember the failed leadership of a Prime Minister who, if he had used his undoubted authority as a newly elected Prime Minister, may have been able to do something substantial about the jobless of Australia if he had continued the wage pause. It is a good idea to remember that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations who is sitting at the table and who will reply on behalf of the Government has, over the last few days, torpedoed the prices and incomes policy of his own government. The support that the Government has given to that building agreement cannot seriously be reconciled with a continuation of the prices and incomes accord. There may be calm, there may be peace, there may be reconciliation for a few months, but every person who understands the Australian economy knows only too well that sooner or later pressure is going to build up, that the lid is going to blow through on the wages policy in Australia. I am prepared to predict now that at the end of the Government's first term in office there will have been no significant reduction in the level of unemployment in Australia. There is a very serious probability that at the end of the Government's first term unemployment in Australia will be higher than it was when it took over. The Government will have only itself to blame for that because it had the opportunity, good will, capacity and support of the Australian business community in a way in which the trade union movement was not prepared to support some of the efforts of the former Government. If that is the Government's indictment and its epitaph at the end of its first year in office it will be its fault and its fault alone and people will then have a further opportunity to reflect upon the extent to which this Government has adopted a totally indefensible and totally cavalier approach to its election promises. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) -Order! Is the motion seconded? Mr Hawker —Yes, I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(8.25) — The 20 minutes we have just heard from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) was a pathetic effort to attack the Government before the Moreton by- election. During that 20 minutes he said that the Government had a problem. I would say that it is the Opposition that has the problem. If we look at the latest polls in the Bulletin we see 52 per cent in favour of the Australian Labor Party and for the Government, and 41 per cent for the Opposition. I think in those circumstances with our standing being 2 1/2 per cent above what it was at the last election, we are not the ones with the problem. The Opposition is the one with the problem, particularly the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) who is trying hard to smile and look comfortable. He is the one with the real problem. He is the one with his back to the wall. He is the one who will go under with the fellow sitting next to him, the honourable member for Bennelong ( Mr Howard) chopping his support away day by day. I must say in the last 20 minutes he has not done much to improve his standing in this place. One of the remarkable aspects of this Opposition is its extraordinary effrontery to come before this House after this Government has been in office for a little over seven months and accuse it of cavalier attitudes, of broken promises. Given its record as a government, a government of this country for over seven years, one sees that during that time there was an unparalleled list of broken promises, a period of broken promises which staggers the imagination if one tries to add up all the broken promises which occurred at that time. After seven months in office Opposition members come into this Parliament and accuse this Government of breaking its promises. Let me say that I think the previous Government's record could do with a little bit of re-examination. If we look at its record and just pick out a few of the major items we can see the extraordinary nature of the broken promises which occurred when the Fraser Government was in office. It is indeed appropriate that the man who seconds this motion tonight, the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker), is the successor to the previous leader of the Government. It is highly appropriate that the honourable member for Wannon should speak on an issue like this because it appears that the people for Wannon know a tremendous amount about broken promises. Let me go to a few of the extraordinary broken promises of the Fraser Government. In 1975 the Government said that a growth rate of 6 per cent to 7 per cent would be quite feasible. In fact, it achieved a rate of 2.7 per cent. In regard to wages it said: 'We will support wage indexation'. Of course, as soon as it came into office it sought to destroy the system of wage indexation. In the very first case it opposed full wage indexation. It said it would put an end to government extravagances and excesses. In fact, up to 1982 it spent over $12m on oveseas trips, $40m on two jets, $250,000 on renovations to the Lodge and $2m for upgraded television facilities in Wannon. The previous Prime Minister said: 'There will be no international safaris'. In fact, the previous Prime Minister made 28 overseas trips, a staggering record for an Australian Prime Minister. In regard to youth, the previous Government said that it would ensure that young people were given the opportunity to gain employment. It said that in 1980 . In fact, as we know, in the period that it was in office youth unemployment went from 4 per cent to 20 per cent. In 1977 it said that unemployment would fall from February and keep falling. In fact, unemployment doubled while the Fraser Government was in office. In regard to the unemployed, it said: 'We will be generous to those who cannot get a job and want to work'. In fact, it reduced the under-18 unemployment benefit over the seven years by about 71 per cent in real terms. The unemployment benefit for single adults was reduced by 27 per cent in real terms. In regard to taxes the Government said: 'We will clamp down on tax avoidance'. In fact, the number of identified tax avoiders rose by a staggering 2,500 per cent in the period from 1975-76 to 1980-81. This was an extraordinary explosion of tax avoidance which took place under the previous Government. From 1975-76 to 1981-82 taxes for ordinary wage and salary earners increased by 148 per cent whilst incomes of those people rose by 98 per cent. So there was a very substantial increase in the tax burden despite the fact that the Government in 1975 said: 'We will reduce the tax burden'. Of course, we all recall that in 1979 its double take on its taxation promises led to the incredible headline in the Illawarra paper of: 'Lies, lies, lies'. That headline epitomised the extraordinary record which the previous Government had on broken promises and particularly so in the area of taxation which was the responsibility of the man who has moved the general business item here tonight, the honourable member for Bennelong. In regard to government, it said that it would restore integrity to public administration. In fact there were 22 resignations, sackings and suspensions from the Ministry. In regard to interest rates, it said in 1977 that a 2 per cent reduction would be achieved in the next 12 months-can and will be achieved. Of course, as we know, interest rates increased to the highest on record. In regard to Aborigines it said: 'We will maintain present levels of assistance to the Aborigines'. This was said in 1975. What did it do when in government? In the next seven years it reduced real expenditure on Aboriginal programs by 36 per cent. It said: 'We will maintain Medibank Private and ensure that the standards of health services in this country do not decline'. In fact, it dismantled Medibank and increased the cost of health care dramatically especially for low income families. That is a quick run through of a few of the extraordinary lists of broken promises of which the previous Government was guilty. Yet Opposition members come in here attacking this Government for not fulfilling its promises and we have only been in office for a little over seven months. They talk about cavalier attitudes. The previous Prime Minister said on 1 May 1981: 'When you go into an election with a commitment in 1980 I think it's nonsense to suggest that a commitment made in 1975 on the same subject overrides the one made five years later'. So we know what the attitude of honourable members opposite was. They believed that if they failed to honour one of their promises in their first five years in government they did not have to honour it. Their attitude was: 'You simply replace your promises as you go'. That is an extraordinary cavalier attitude. I think it is quite clear from that quick run through of the record that the previous Government, the now Opposition, has no basis of credibility for attacking anyone about broken promises. Honourable members opposite are the experts. They have it on the record. Over seven years and a bit they showed that they were the masters in regard to broken promises. I turn to the process under this Government. We have been in office for a little over seven months and during that time we have achieved a tremendous amount. If the people in Moreton wish on Saturday to reflect on who they should elect, they will certainly reflect on the tremendous turnaround in this economy in the period in which we have been in government. We inherited an economy which was in very bad shape. If we look at some of the major indicators of the economy we see that things are dramatically improving. In the 12 months prior to Labor taking office there was a reduction in employment of 124,000. In the period since, employment has gone up by 80,000. We are certainly on track for the promise that we made to achieve 500,000 jobs in a full three years. I believe that we will be able to achieve that promise. We are taking action to ensure that that is the case not simply by reviving the economy but also by introducing such programs as the community employment program, which this year will create 40,000 jobs and in a full year 70,000 jobs. So employment is certainly on the move. We have turned the whole situation around from an enormous decline in employment to a substantial recovery in employment. Inflation is another extraordinarily important economic indicator, and inflation is falling. Now for the first time in ages the inflation rate is below double figures, down to 9.2 per cent. This Government's policies are now bearing fruit in that regard, and our forecasts are that the inflation level will come down further. We expect that in the course of this financial year the consumer price index will increase by around 5 1/2 per cent. That is the sort of figure we will be looking at in the course of this financial year. It is quite clear that the inflation rate will fall very considerably in the future under this Government's policies. Interest rates are falling at a rate of knots. It seems that almost every day we see a further indicator of declining interest rates. Only today we have seen a further reduction in the Australian Savings Bond rate and a further reduction in home loan interest rates for people borrowing from the Commonwealth Bank and the State Bank. Those reductions in home loan interest rates are, of course, extremely important for home buyers. A person with a $30,000 loan over 25 years will now save $22 a month because of those reductions. We expect that if the trend continues-we believe that it will-further savings will be made following further declines in interest rates. I believe that in those three important key areas of employment, inflation and interest rates the economy is clearly moving in the right direction, demonstrating how important this Government's policies are. Of course, interest rates are relevant to living standards, but so too is the level of wages. The wages policy of this Government has now given wage and salary earners a guarantee of maintenance of their real level of wages and an end to the process of decline in their real wage which the previous Government had set in train. That policy is thoroughly responsible economically and it will fit in with recovery in this economy, a growth in the economy this year of 5 to 6 per cent. Associated with that will be an increase in employment, becoming even stronger in the subsequent year, and declining inflation. It was another basic promise of this Government to introduce the Medicare system, a restoration of the universal health insurance cover which was destroyed by the previous Government. That will come into effect in February of next year and will reduce the cost of health insurance by an average of $10 per week. That is an extremely important development. It is important in the sense of what it will save individual people and it is important in the sense of providing a cover to all people and not allowing some millions of people, as is presently the case, to take the enormous risk of having no health insurance cover whatever. I believe that tremendously important developments are now in train in relation to the state of the economy and the living standards of the Australian people. The disastrous path on which the economy and the nation were headed when we took office has been turned around. Living standards are now being retained and improved and the economy is being turned back into an upward phase. The Leader of the Opposition said that we have not carried out all our promises , and of course he is right. We have not carried them all out yet, but give us time. We have been able to do less than we wanted to do because of the situation we inherited, particularly in relation to the deficit. Of course, the previous Treasurer, the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, does not like my saying this , but it is a fact that when he was the Treasurer he said during the election campaign that we would be looking at a deficit of $6 billion. As soon as we came to office we found that it was $9.6 billion, an extraordinarily high level. He stands condemned for misleading the Australian people, for giving the Australian people figures which were completely at odds with the advice he must have been getting. Mr Howard —Why did Keating say $6.5 billion? Mr WILLIS —I will get back to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition's $6.5 billion in a moment. The previous Treasurer is guilty of completely misleading the Australian people. Of course, when we took office and found that the deficit was $9.6 billion we were forced to trim our sails somewhat. We have done less than we wanted to to in various areas; we make no bones about that. We were forced to do less than we wanted by the Budget situation we inherited, which was much more disastrous than the previous Treasurer had ever let on to the Australian nation. Mr Howard —Well, you admit that I would have had $6.5 billion. He asks about the $6.5 billion he would have had. Mr WILLIS —Well, if that is his figure he can live with it. He would have achieved a figure of $6.5 billion only by increasing taxes by another $2 billion or cutting expenditure by another $2 billion. I ask him to tell us what taxes he would have increased by $2 billion. I ask him to tell us what expenditure cuts he would have made to get the Budget deficit down by another $2 billion. There is no doubt that had the Deputy Leader of the Opposition remained in Government as the Treasurer of this nation he would now have been bringing us to a disastrous state. If he was increasing taxes by $2 billion or cutting expenditure by $2 billion he would be further massively increasing unemployment and sending this economy further into the disastrous spiral into which he put it in his years as Treasurer. I believe that this nation would be in an incredibly bad state if he had had his way with it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(8.38) —I listened to the speech of the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and, quite frankly, I was a little disappointed. I must say in all sincerity that I have always been rather impressed with the way in which the Minister answers his questions at Question Time. He gives a genuine answer and he does not have to read it. However, tonight he spent most of his time living in and talking about the past. Frankly, that is history. Tonight we are talking about integrity, the integrity of this Government and, more importantly, the integrity that the people of Australia expect of their government. It is through the integrity of government that people in this country will be able to show respect for their Parliament, and it is the lack of integrity of this Government that has caused the sort of cynicism and lack of respect for the Parliament that we have heard here tonight. The first question we ought to ask ourselves is this: Why do we have this cynicism? One of the main reasons, in fact the major reason, is the new phenomenon that we find today-the Australian Labor Party's approach to elections . The Labor approach to elections is promises, promises, promises. It is all just one big con. We have seen it in New South Wales and we have seen it in South Australia. We have seen it in Victoria. We saw in in Western Australia. But the worst offender was this Federal Government in March. The pattern in all these cases is the same. Before the election it was promises-promises which the Government had no intention of keeping. It is shameful that the people of Australia should be subjected to this. It is a great pity that parliament has been reduced to having to see this sort of behaviour. It is little wonder that Australians are cynical but it is also little wonder that the people of Queensland decided to reject this-and reject it they will again on Saturday in the by-election. Let us turn to the Australian Labor Party's policy speech given on 16 February this year; that great speech that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) got up to give us. Let us look at some of the quotes. What did he say when he was talking about a prices and income policy? He said: . . . in these great matters, as in everything else in this campaign and beyond, I am not in the business, and the Labor Party is not in the business, of making promises that cannot be fulfilled. Mr Howard —Was that Bob Hawke? Mr HAWKER —That is right, the Prime Minister. It is little wonder that the people of Australia are cynical? If we look at other parts of his speech, he talked about the gimmicks mentioned by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). He said: 'We are not in the business of offering gimmicks-a fistful of dollars to be snatched back'. Those were the Prime Minister's words-the words of a man who wants to be seen as a man of integrity. If we look a bit further down in his speech, he said: . . . we shall ask all sections of the Australian community to show the common restraint and share the common burden for the common national purpose. Common restraint, common burden, common national purpose: Who is showing restraint? It is certainly not the Prime Minister, certainly not the Labor Party , certainly not this Federal Government and, judging by the Victorian Labor Government, not the State governments either. It is just a double standard- restraint for the community but not for the Government. Just look at Labor's first Federal Budget. Real growth in outlays went up by 7. 2 per cent. That is real growth, not inflation. Mr Howard —That is right. The worst for eight years. Mr HAWKER —It is the largest expansion since 1974-75-the worst for eight years, as my Deputy Leader said. The year 1974-75 was that of the last Labor Budget. That is a strange coincidence. So much for common restraint and so much for sharing the common burden; obviously this does not apply to this Government. What about payments to the States? Is there common restraint? If we turn to page 241 of the Budget Papers we find payments to the States up by 12.2 per cent; so much for common restraint! Let us look at local government which seems to be the poor relation in all this. It gets 8.2 per cent. That sounds all right until one looks at what has been added to its burdens. There is the community employment program. Under this new job creation scheme local government is expected to fund approximately 30 per cent of all job creation. It has all been handed over to local government, the poor relation, to find that 30 per cent. But, having spoken to most of the councils, the impression I get is that it will be more like 50 per cent funding by local government because, by the time local government gets into supervision and administration, it will all rest on its shoulders. Let us go back to the policy speech that the Prime Minister made in February. What else did he say? This would have to be the classic. Under the heading 'Tax relief and tax reform', he said: Labor's program of tax relief and tax reform is a crucial element in our program for recovery. That sounds all right. If we look down a bit further, he said: Labor's tax reform program will have these objectives: to increase the real value of the pay packet . . .. . . . to prevent the erosion of after-tax income by inflation . . . Where is it? We have not seen it. On the next page, speaking of tax again, he said: Our Government's total income tax package is being released concurrently with this speech. It is very interesting reading. He continued: Its key elements include immediate reductions in income tax for almost six million Australian taxpayers, with the greatest tax cuts going to those on the lowest incomes . . . That was only back in February. A lot of people probably believed that and I wonder how they feel now. I guess it was very persuasive and I am sure it was welcomed by everyone, especially by those six million taxpayers in Australia. But I wonder where they are now? I do not know of any. If we go to the supplement that was attached to the end of the policy speech, what do we find? It is even more specific. It states: The new tax scales to be introduced in Labor's first Budget will be- They are all listed. It stated that in Labor's first Budget they would be introduced. Some promise that was! We heard this rather limp excuse about the deficit; that really the Government could not afford the cost of these tax cuts. But according to this same Labor party policy document the cost of those tax cuts was to be $630m. How can one compare that with the additional spending in this Budget of $2 1/2 billion. Where are the priorities? I think the Government' s first priority was not to keep faith with the Australian people and to keep a promise. That promise was valid only up until the day of the election. It is quite obvious that this Government had absolutely no intention of keeping those promises. If we look at the promises for small business, in the same policy speech the Prime Minister said: We propose a major new concession to the small businesses . . . We shall legislate to allow up to 100 per cent retention of profits by small business where these funds are to be used for genuine business operations. What have we heard about that since? Deathly silence. Let me go on to one which is even more blatant. It relates to petrol prices; on the next page the Prime Minister said: As part of Labor's anti-inflation package and in recognition of the burden of extra taxation levied by the Government on people afflicted by the wage freeze, Labor will reduce the price of petrol by cancelling the 1 January oil price increase of $3.23 per barrel. This will have the effect of reducing the price of petrol by the order of 3c a litre. Mr Wilson —Did the Government do that? Mr HAWKER —Did they do it? Mr Fisher —What about the fuel freight subsidy? Mr HAWKER —I am getting on to that. But now what has happened? We had the excuse of devaluation brought in so that the Government could not do that. Already the Australian dollar has revalued up to the same level it was prior to the devaluation. What have we got? Instead of a 3c a litre drop in the price of petrol we have had a price rise and we will get another one every six months. As the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Fisher) mentioned a minute ago, the petroleum products freight subsidy scheme has been cut out too. Of course, the people it will attack most are the country people, the people whom Labor cares about the least. Not only is it the price of petrol for cars, which for most people is one of the few ways they can move around, but it also affects the price of freight. Freight is one of our biggest costs in this country these days and it is quite obvious that this Government cares very little about that factor . Moving on to agriculture, not only have we had the petrol price rise but also the diesel price rise-again a direct hit at farmers. Let us look at Labor's rural policy-another fascinating document. The first thing we look at is the wool industry. The wool industry is one of Australia's most efficient industries . On this subject the Prime Minister said: Labor is committed to increasing government funding for wool promotion. What has happened in the Budget? Promotion funding for wool was frozen at $20m and, in real terms, of course, that is a cut. We can go further. In the speech the now Prime Minister made at Griffith on 20 February 1983 when he delivered the rural policy he made some other interesting observations. He spoke about soil conservation and said: An initial $4m a year funding will be increased steadily each year under Labor' s National Soil Conservation program, during the first term of a Labor Government. We feel compelled to make this contribution because while there is wide spread concern about environmental issues, the greatest environmental problem which this country faces is the continued degradation of farming land. Those were the Prime Minister's words-'the greatest environmental problem which this country faces is the continued degradation of farming land'. Mr Connolly —That is right. Mr HAWKER —That is right. I thank the honourable member. Yet, what happened in the Budget: The $4m promised was back to $1m. Mr Andrew —That is scandalous. Mr HAWKER —It is scandalous. Mr Howard —He does not like the bush. Mr HAWKER —He hates country people. We can look at the wine industry. Mr Andrew —Tell them about the wine industry. Mr HAWKER —Yes, I will tell them about the wine industry. What did the Prime Minister say in his rural policy speech? He said: The wine industry is beset with problems . . . Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wine. Mr Howard —Gee, I had forgotten; he said that, did he? Mr HAWKER —He said that in his policy speech. What has happened since? We started with a $2.50 per litre of alcohol excise on fortified wine. Following an outcry the Government very generously reduced this to $1.50. Mr Andrew —Just a token. Mr HAWKER —It is just a token, as the honourable member for Wakefield says. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) in his letter to the Australian Financial Review of 5 October asked this very pertinent question: When will this Government admit that it has made a mistake and remove this iniquitous, inequitable tax on wine. We can look at the citrus industry. This is a nice little one-liner from Prime Minister: The citrus industry is threatened by the Fraser government's decision to reduce its protection. A Labor Government will maintain existing protection levels. Is it no longer threatened? Existing protection levels have gone. We are back to where we were. I think the point about all this is that this Government has shown scant regard for the people of Australia and has dismissed everything that it promised. It made promises that it had no intention of keeping and I think that is a great disappointent to all Australians. I think all Australians can quite reasonably expect that the Australian Government should set an example to people in all walks of life. But how can anyone take this action as an example? It may be popular now just to do these things, but I suggest that this Government should wait until the next election because I believe the broken promises will haunt this Government. I suggest that a lot of Australians will remember. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.53) —I think it is important that we reflect upon some of the comments that have been made by honourable members opposite. One of the difficulties they are facing at present, and one can understand this, is that they really are having great difficulty in establishing a coherent policy. Or course, one gets transitions in going to opposition. We are seeing repeatedly evidence of the fact that honourable members opposite are having a great degree of difficulty in establishing a policy. One of the clear things that has to be pointed out is that we set out in March to establish a set of priorities that the electorate would adopt. We had the National Economic Summit Conference in April in which we managed to discuss with major industry, unions, State governments and other interested parties what we believed was a direction for the Australian economy. The important thing is that we have been able to follow the sort of strategy established by the Summit. I believe that when we look at the comments of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) we need to understand that it was important to undergo that exercise in April. Largely, members of the Australian commuity were disillusioned and they showed that disillusionment in their election behaviour. They voted out substantially honourable members opposite. More that that, the Australian electorate had had seven years of divisive policies. One of the things I can say about the honourable member for Wannon, who is present now, is that he certainly is a very pleasant and genuine person. In that sense he represents a marked improvement in terms of quality for the seat of Wannon. I commend the honourable member for Wannon in that respect. I think the history of this country under the previous honourable member for Wannon was really a history of divisiveness. Honourable members opposite have to face the fact that their policies, cloaked within this realm of monetarism, were really designed to create unemployment. They were designed to create a maximum amount of divison and they were certainly designed to do a lot about stirring up trouble in industrial relations. I have heard of some of the comments that have been made by honourable members opposite. It is true that when one introduces policies one does adjust policies. That is a sensible way to conduct government. If we were to be absolutely deaf to the comments of the electorate we in fact would be governing badly. I think honourable members opposite would have to concede that, in fact, one of the problems they faced in the last couple of years was that the electorate became increasingly disillusioned and realised that the then Government was no longer listening to it. One of the things we have done-we set out in April to do this-is listen to the electorate. I believe the first task of government, the first task of all of us in this place, is to listen to the electorate. Obviously we hear different things and obviously honourable members opposite will come into this House and say different things from what we will say. That is the nature of the activity we are engaged in. But I think one of the things that is clear and that came out in the election is that honourable members opposite had not listened enough. The electorate was disillusioned and that is the peril that faces all governments. We can say right now that we have gone through that exercise. We have listened to the electorate. We would not want to pretend that everything we do is perfect , or right. But we cay say-I will talk about this in a moment-that the general thrust of our policies is acceptable to the electorate and the general thrust of our policies is fitting together. That thrust was laid out at the Summit in April. Since then we have found a rather coherent set of circumstances that has been partly the responsibility of government and partly the responsibility of events that have fallen into place. Scenario C set out at the Summit in April certainly did envisage the sort of outcome we have had in terms of wages policy, which has been a full indexation of wages. We have seen a 4.3 per cent increase in wages. That has produced a degree of consensus and co-operation within industrial relations that was sadly lacking in the management of industrial relations and the economy by honourable members opposite. It is also true that when we go beyond that and look at issues such as housing, interest rates, construction and our dealings with the States we see that there are some very good factors that say that we have put together a coherent policy and that that policy is being accepted by the electorate. That is really what we are on about. The honourable member for Bennelong said that, in fact, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said: The views I've put at Labor Party conferences were views I put with the aim of getting into government. The debate has moved on. We are now the government. It has been said already in the debate tonight, so I will not labour it, that when we got into office we found that the real economic circumstances that confronted us were substantially different from those we had imagined we would face. To give due credit to the honourable member for Bennelong, in those latter days of the election we all know the desperate attempt he made to try to reveal to the Australian public the real deficit figure as it was told to him by the Treasury. We know that he was not able to in the context of the election. That is understandable. That is the electoral process. But I think that if we are talking about the real economic circumstances tonight, and we are, we must say that when we got into office we found that the books were a little different from what we had imagined them to be. I think we have to say that when one sets about establishing policy one has to recognise that the figures one faces, irrespective of who is in government, tell a story. The figures we faced were that the deficit, as projected, would have been larger than what we believed the Australian community and certainly the money market could have accepted. The Australian money market has accepted our deficit. That has been borne out by the fact that we have had two successive drops in housing interest rates, the most recent one in fact occurring today. We would not want to claim all the credit for that because obviously not all the circumstances that work in the monetary mechanisms are the result of government actions. But obviously if government is heading down the right track those events tend to parallel what government is doing and that has been the circumstance. The deficit we have been fortunate to have-a $8.5 billion deficit-has in fact been accepted by the monetary authorities. In fact, we have seen that the banking and building societies have acknowledged that that is a correct way to go. As I have said, the interest rate on Australian savings bonds was lowered tonight. There was an announcement by the Treasurer. We have seen a very quick response by the banks, which are now moving to drop their housing interest rates. If our strategy was not on track we could not have achieved that outcome. I say to those honourable members opposite who mentioned taxes and the need to cut taxes that, of course, there is always the desirability of cutting taxes. But the reality is that with two successive drops in interest rates-we have produced those-real money is now accessible to those who are borrowing from financial institutions. It is also true to say in the context of the Opposition's observations about tax rebates and the Government's housing policy that we have delivered the goods . The two successive drops in interest rates have done a substantial amount for people in the Australian community and they know that. People in marginal electorates, of which we in this place are always conscious, recognise that those two drops in interest rates have been valuable. I think that that has to be pointed out. I will talk about our housing policy generally. Undoubtedly our housing policy has been one of the major thrusts of our strategy. The reason for that is that it is a large employer. We have faced the major problem of unemployment. We inherited that problem from the former Government. To some extent part of its economic management created unemployment. We are doing something about trying to reduce unemployment and that is a very important objective. We are very fortunate. For example, I will quote some figures which I was given tonight. In October the Real Institute of Western Australia (Inc.) acheived 448 sales. That is a very substantial figure because in August for the first time it topped 400 sales. It topped 400 again in September and it has now achieved 448. The Institute indicated to me tonight that 48 per cent of those sales were to first home owners of whom 90 per cent will qualify for our first home owners scheme. That is a very important objective that is being achieved. Incidentally, that figure does not take into account the increased demand that has occurred amongst building companies. There has been a substantial improvement in building companies. To date, Australia wide, we have had 107,000 inquiries about the first home owners scheme. If we take that as being an indicator of our performance, the electorate is saying to us: 'We endorse your policy'. It is not a question of the Government trying to invent reasons why these policies are right. The electorate is telling us that currently our housing policy is satisfactory. People are seeking to take up grants that we are offering under the first home owners scheme. We believe that that is very important because not only is it getting people into houses but also it is creating employment, and we certainly need that in the Australian community. I indicate to honourable members and the people who are concerned with this issue that recently in my electorate we had the very good experience of one builder signing up a family to build a home. For five years this couple, who have two children, lived in a caravan. They met the income requirements of the first home owners scheme. The fellow said that it was the best day he had ever had in the home building business. He signed up a family to move from a caravan into their first home. I am not saying that to try to reflect all credit upon the government. However, our strategy is very satisfactory because this family, which has two children, was living in a caravan and was socially deprived. The fellow said that the remarkable part of the evening was when the kids ran around and around the caravan and said: 'We have got a home at last; we have got a home at last'. That is a very major gain. We believe that that is an important endorsement of our housing policy. It is creating jobs, it is creating sales, it is creating business activity, and at the same time interest rates are falling. Quite clearly that thrust of our policy is fitting together and working well. Another major concern that we have relates to the construction industry. Projections for construction in 1984 are not good. They show a 14 per cent decline in capital investment. What we set about doing in the Budget was aimed at increasing capital expenditure. Our expenditure on civil works, financed directly from the Budget, will be $390m for 1983-84, an increase of 16 per cent over expenditure for 1982-83. It is all right in the context of a debate such as this is to say that we have increased outlays in our Budget but we have recognised that government and industry have a partnership in this community and that partnership is designed to ensure that the activities we undertake match up with those in the private sector. We have increased civil works expenditure by 16 per cent because we can project a 14 per cent decline in construction expenditure. Quite obviously, the role of government as we see it is government in partnership. We established that role in April at the Summit and we are continuing to follow it in our policies. Unfortunately, the previous Government tended to see government and the rest of the community in some kind of antagonistic role. We have replaced that. We believe that we have a partnership with the wider community and we are fulfilling our role. I will speak very briefly on employment. Undoubtedly, the policies that we are adopting are having some effect on employment. That is a very important objective. During the previous Government's last year of office total employment fell by 159,000 and unemployment rose by 263,000. We are starting to get some turnaround in that situation. That has been our policy, that has been our objective, that has been our goal, and we are starting to realise it. Some indications have been given to me by the Master Builders Association of Western Australia. They show job vacancies advertised in the Press in Western Australia. There have been substantial increases in those commencing trades such as bricklaying, carpentering and concreting. We are also seeing increases in employment opportunities for painters, plasterers, and tilers. Quite obviously jobs are being generated and our policies are starting to take effect. We would not want to claim credit for miracles but we are heading in a satisfactory direction. I think it is important in the context of this debate to say that since the Summit in April we have tried to put up coherent policies, policies which have the endorsement of the community and policies which we believe we can operate in the best interests of the Australian community. We have listened to the remarks that members of the community have made and we have tried to take them seriously into our consideration. I think that that distinguishes us from the previous Government. Towards its latter days in office the previous Government behaved as though it had a monopoly on wisdom. We claim no such thing. We claim that Government is about partnership and that partnership is designed to ensure that the Australian community as a whole benefits. Honourable members opposite who sit here and take shots at the sorts of policies we put together will find that if they listen to the Australian community it is telling them that the general direction of our policies is fitting together. As I have indicated, the strategy that we have pursued in housing, the first home owners scheme, has received a substantial endorsement from the Australian community. We are finding that employment is increasing in terms of the goals that we have and that is a satisfactory goal. The Opposition has to face up to the fact that it created unemployment and that is not a very good record to have. We have moved in the construction industry because we believe that that is an important area in which to move. We are increasing spending in that area because we can project decreases next year. If we look overall at the thrust of our policies and reflect on what has been said by honourable members opposite, the point is that in terms of market mechanisms, such as interest rates, in terms of the electorate responding, particularly with respect to our housing policy, and in terms of the overall co-operation that we have tried to engender in the Australian community we have achieved a great deal in the short time that we have been in government. Quite obviously the business of government is to manage a lot of competing forces. It is a difficult task. I believe that so far this Government has shown good sense in the strategies that it has adopted. We believe that if we continue in this way the Australian people will continue to endorse our policies. Question resolved in the negative. Dr HARRY EDWARDS(Berowra)(9.08) —I move: That this House, noting that the Minister for Science and Technology was prevented by the Government from delivering a speech dealing with high technology and the Australian economy to the recent Economic Summit- (1) deplores the fact that as a result the Summit, among other shortcomings, did not systematically address the great challenge, opportunities as well as problems, which high/new technology presents for the future of Australia, and (2) calls upon the Minister to make a statement on his being precluded from addressing the Summit, and to table the speech in the Parliament. This motion was put down in the wake of the National Economic Summit Conference to which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), referred. It notes that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones), who is sitting at the table, was prevented from delivering a speech to that conference and, as a result, the Summit did not adequately or systematically address the challenges and opportunities of new technology and the importance of getting Australia 'into' advanced technology industrial development. I stand by that. I think that honourable members will be aware that I have previously acknowledged the Minister's contribution to lifting the awareness of challenges and opportunities of new technology and the importance of getting Australia more into this area. That capacity of the Minister is not at issue. What is-and I will come to this later-having raised people's expectations one has to deliver. That is just what the Government is not doing, as my colleagues in the previous debate pointed out in other areas. The motion deplores the fact. It also calls on the Minister to make a statement and to table his speech in the Parliament. I think he will be only too ready to make a statement when I finish. But going back to the starting point, the National Economic Summit Conference, I think the House will agree that it certainly seems light years away. As I see from the document I have in front of me, it was held from 11 to 14 April. It must seem those light years away, especially, I would suggest, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), given the Coombe and Ivanov affair which came up in just the following week. That must have seemed a pretty startling change after the bonhommie, goodwill and consensus-a pretty artificial consensus I would say-of the Summit. I have never decried the Summit and have applauded in particular the information that it made available. Some data such as the forward Estimates were made available for the first time. But if the main purpose of the Summit was to cement the accord with the unions, as I suspect it was, it is beginning to look a bit sick, given the building industry peace deal, to mention only one instance . Only the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen, honed in on the real weakness of the Summit, that is, that it never seriously considered a commitment to the continuation of the wage pause. That wage pause of the previous Government was the main factor in the achievement of single digit inflation announced last week which has been so widely trumpeted. Also the continuation of that pause would undoubtedly have been in the best interests of the unemployed, and, surely the high level of unemployment was the central focus of the Summit-Mr Wran with his call for 'jobs, jobs, jobs'. I want to stress that the continuation of that pause would, as well, have been in the best interests of furthering high technology industrial development, which is the real substance of this present debate. As I said, I will not press the Minister either to make the statement or to table the speech in the precise terms of the motion because in a real sense events have overtaken that in the form of the National Technology Conference, held on 26 to 28 September last. I think that Conference was probably originally billed as a summit. Apparently it was downgraded a bit because the sort of artificial consensus of the Summit was not sought and certainly not obtained. The speech that the Minister delivered then can, I think, stand in as something of a proxy-I see that the Minister nods-for the speech he would have delivered at the Summit. Having made that reference to the Conference, I note that, like the Summit, it was opened by the Prime Minister. There can be little doubt that between the time of the Summit and the Conference there has been a lift in thinking and in perceptions as to the key role of modern technology in today's society. In the Summit communique high technology rated a specific mention in only one paragraph , paragraph 39, although there was an indirect reference to it in another paragraph, paragraph 45, which touched on education training and retraining-a very important matter. Paragraph 39 of the Summit Conference communique refers to new technology contributing to changes in the level and the pattern of employment and continues with the guarded, very low key statement: Participants do not consider- That is participants in the Summit- that the answer to high unemployment lies in rejecting new technology, noting that in certain circumstances- I wonder what they are- the adoption of new technology may be the only means of remaining competitive. In contrast to that pretty low key statement, the Prime Minister roundly declared in his opening address to the Technology Conference: Sustained economic growth is going to require the progressive adoption of productive new technologies, structural change in the economy and high levels of investment from home and abroad- He went on to say: The development and application of new technology must be embraced as one of the driving forces behind the process of economic change with important consequences for the competitiveness of industries. There is no escaping the fact that industrial innovation is essential to Australia's future economic well being, not only in industries producing glamorous new products but throughout established industries as well. So the message did get through. To that extent, the concern expressed in my motion is allayed. But I want to come back to the Conference speech by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Science and Technology, which as I said is a proxy, so to speak, for the speech at the Summit. The Minister made both an opening and-I would add-a closing speech. When one takes the lot together, it really does not come as much of as surprise that the Prime Minister vetoed the Minister's appearance at the Summit which, of course, was and excercise explicity aimed at consensus. The Minister, in fact, wound up with the rather contemptous reference to the assembled gathering, which included leaders of Australian business, of Australian trade unions and the academic community-a group similar in standing to those at the Summit-in effect as a bunch of ' sleepers'. This was not said in the sense of logs but as people unaware of the dramatic events unfolding and about to envelop them and certainly unresponsive to the call of Jones the watchman. Mr Barry Jones —On the heights. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —What the Minister actually said was 'the sleepers may be waking but they are very drowsy'. I suspect that that was said somewhat tongue in cheek, but certainly with some pique at the apparent lack of response to certain propositions the Minister is wont to put from time and time again. Principal among these is the undisputed fact that from the late 1960s to last year there was not one net new job in manufacturing, albeit there were upwards of two million new jobs generated in Australia. If that was not received by that Conference with the fear as of apocalypse as, I think, the Minister expected, the reason is that it does not represent any unique experience of post industrialisation or of that other nonsense buzz word-deindustrialisation-which in fact has no place in serious economic debate. The facts are that the Australian experience very closely parallels that of the United States and the United States is the very homeland, the show piece over this period of those innovative, high-tech, high growth companies so dear to the Minister. From the late 1960s to the mid-1970s, for instance, companies such as Digital Equipment Corporation, National Semiconductor and others chalked up rates of growth of employment-jobs, not sales-of upwards of 40 per cent per annum. Many companies, such as Polaroid, 3M and IBM chalked up growth of about 11 per cent over a longer period. So we find that whereas in Australia there was a fall of about 100,000 in employment in manufacturing from 1969 to 1982-to take some precise years-which was a fall from 25.1 per cent of the work force to 19 per cent of the work force, in the United States the fall was from 20.4 million to 19.2 million or a fall from 26.2 per cent to 19.3 per cent of total employment which almost exactly parallels the experience here. In countries such as the United Kingdom the situation was even more dramatic. I am not, and I do not want to be seen to be complacent in this matter of the fall in employment in manufacturing as a proportion of the total number of jobs. It is just that I think the Minister needs to get a bit of perspective on the matter. He should get away from futurology occasionally and get a bit of balance . He should come down to earth and let us have a bit more of the here and now and some practical and immediate action. That seems, perhaps, a suitable point to stress-a point which the Minister often seems to lose sight of and indeed in the Estimates debate he actually disputed the other night-that high or new or advanced technology is important not only in respect of the emergence of new industries producing high technology products such as computers, or computer software more realistically in the Australian case, of PSZ-partially stablised Zirconia-but also and very importantly in the upgrading, revitalising and renewing of existing industry. After all, for many years yet established industries will be providing the bulk of employment in industry. There was another gem in the Minister's speech to the conference-the proxy speech which he would have made at the Summit Conference. He said: Australia has become an industrial museum and our factories are working models of the age of chisels, spanners and hammers. That statement again might have been a bit tongue in cheek. Many Australian factories are into CAD/CAM, lasers, microelectronics. The Minister knows that as well as I do. Pehaps we can agree that there are not enough such factories, and that is the very point. The upgrading of existing industry to state-of-the-art technology or more nearly state-of-the-art technology is of major significance, and not just the development of new industries producing high-tech products as such-the so-called sunrise industries. I say this, that it is common bipartisan ground that Australia has not realised its potential in the area of technology and that our future prosperity depends importantly on innovation, change and investment, with new technology a major driving force. There is very great promise and great potential benefits to be achieved via higher productivity, economic growth and increased employment, and thus higher standards of living and a better quality of life, while recognising at the same time that modern technology does raise the possibility of major challenges to fundamental values, to social cohesion, to ethics and the law, the protection of privacy and the like. I am confident that we will cope with all that. What is of concern here and now-whether it is anything to do with the matter not being systematically addressed at the Summit or not-is that, for all the talk that we hear from the Government, in fact it has done very little to promote high technology industrial development. In 1982, under my former colleague the Hon. David Thomson, the Budget allocation for the Department of Science and Technology increased by 16.4 per cent. That was in the context of a total projects increase in outlays of 13.9 per cent. We find that this year under the present Minister the total appropriation for the Department of Science and Technology shows an increase of a mere 4 per cent, in a Budget with a total projected increase of outlays of 15.8 per cent. Mr Groom —It is going backwards. Dr HARRY EDWARDS —It is going backwards. We have heard a lot about the alleged legacy of high deficit bequeathed by the previous Government. A lot of that claim is hogwash anyway, as my colleague has pointed out. Whatever the difficulties, the Government did manage an increase in total outlays of 15.8 per cent. As I have just said, the Department of Science and Technology received an increase of a mere 4 per cent. I think the Minister ought to be prepared to eat some of the harsh words he habitually had to say when in opposition about the previous Government's attitude to science and technology, its alleged insufficient awareness and concern, and so on. The fact is that actions speak louder than words. That increase last year and similar increases in earlier years resulted in an increase in real terms-it is adjusted for inflation-of about 16 per cent for research and development supported by the Commonwealth over the period from 1978-79 to 1982-83. That is a real increase of nearly 4 per cent per annum faster than the growth of the gross domestic product. That is clearly not what will happen this year. In the area of science and technology, we often speak of research and development. Development, especially private industry technology development, is something which I believe should be thought of rather seperately, but the science part is nevertheless of basic importance. What has happened there? The total allocation for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is actually less than that for last year. Now, while the actual fall was mainly in the capital area the truth nevertheless is that the provision for current funding for that organisation, in the face of inflation, means that the general programs of the organisation will have to be reduced by 2 1/2 per cent, in terms of both staff and operating funds. There is no doubt at all that this will have a long term deleterious effect on the organisation. On the positive side, it is true that an additional $4m has been provided for existing programs in particular areas of new or advanced technology. I submit to the Minister that this comparatively miserable $4m will prove no adequate compensation for the general cutback of 2 1/2 per cent in the ongoing CSIRO programs, which total of the order of $300m and are the very foundation of this nation's internationally recognised science and technology effort. And I stress that CSIRO was not lacking in coming up with results of significance in the so- called sunrise area, as witness the material I referred to a short time ago, partially stabilised zirconia. Mr Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, we need to recognise that advanced technology industrial development is not a matter of science and technology policy alone, or even primarily, but of creating a favourable overall climate for development, investment, innovation and risk-taking. The Minister's customary stance, as I have said before, tends to encourage a sort of high-tech myopia-that science and technology, while creating challenges and problems of various sorts, is also a panacea for all our ills. What is important is to create the overall climate to which I referred. This means first and foremost getting the macroeconomic settings of the economy right, containing real cost levels, profitability up, and inflation and interest rates down. The present Budget policy, taken together with the Government's commitment to full indexation of wages, does not augur very well in that respect. In addition, it is necessary to address other fundamental features and rigidities in the economy, for example, the profusion of government regulations restricting competition and stifling enterprise, such as the difficulties at present with the AIRDIS scheme. I admit that that has been bequeathed from the previous Government, but it is an illustration of the fact that that may not be the best vehicle for fostering private technology of this development. Again there is the issue of business taxation policies-yet all we hear from the Government is talk of a capitals gains tax. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr Burr —I second the motion, and I reserve my right to speak. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(9.26) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I could hardly believe my good luck that this motion came on tonight. ( Quorum formed) I concede freely that in April when the National Economic Summit Conference was held in this chamber I was unable to speak and my paper ' Technology and Australia's Future', was not circulated. However, the Government took the view that the aim of the April Summit was to reach consensus on a national strategy for economic recovery to replace a long era of industrial confrontation with one of co-operation and to make the prices and incomes accord work. The Summit, in its final communique, acknowledged the significance of technology as a factor in changing our economic base while not giving it the central position in international growth which was recognised at the Versailles Economic Summit of June 1982. I was disappointed at the time but since then I have come to recognise that what I wanted to say in April would have been too abrasive and too confrontationist for the Summit and could well have threatened the fragile consensus that was achieved. The occupants of 'lifeboat Australia' first had to stop belting each other over the head with their oars. Next we had to ensure that the lifeboat was not going to capsize and this was achieved, not without difficulty, during the recent budgetary process. The next stage was to work out where the lifeboat was to go-to set the direction towards the year 2000 and beyond. To that end the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), approved the calling of a three-day National Technology Conference so that the issues which seemed inappropriate in April could be discussed at length. We did not use the word ' summit' because it seemed to me that one can only really climb a mountain to the summit approximately once every millenium. We met in Canberra from 26 September to 28 September. About 140 people were invited both in a personal and a representative capacity-The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, universities and the colleges of advanced education, medical research institutions, new industries such as computing, electronics and biotechnology, bankers and investors, the trade union movement as well as many representatives of traditional industries, State governments, Federal Ministers and department heads. Government speakers included the Prime Minister, the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and me . There were also Ministers for Technology from New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia and South Australia. Amongst other speakers were Professor Ralph Slatyer, the Chairman of the Australian Science and Technology Council, Hugh Stretton, one of Australia's great social philosophers from the University of Adelaide, Dr Paul Wild, the Chairman of CSIRO, Sir Frank Espie, who chaired the recent High Technology Financing Committee and, indeed, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). Dr Harry Edwards —All sleepers, I presume. Mr BARRY JONES —They dozed at times. Within five months views of mine, which had appeared threatening and unorthodox in April, had been accepted as the conventional wisdom. I do not conceal my gratification at that. My opening speech 'Technology and Australia's Future' was a revision-a toughening, I may say-of my Summit paper. Given the nature of the notice of motion tonight I take this opportunity to table a copy of the April document. I said that the primary aim of the Conference was to achieve the 'shock of recognition' of where Australia is placed by the dramatic sweep of technological change. I take up a number of points made by the honourable member for Berowra. Of course, I readily recognise that Australia is not the only nation going through that post- industrial effect, that long-- Dr Harry Edwards —You talk as if it is. Mr BARRY JONES —No, I never do. I always talk of it in a global context. I never talk or write of it as if it is a completely unique phenomenon here. It is a general phenomenon which is common to all Western societies; I have always said that. In fact there has been a-- Mr Simmons —That is the theme of your book. Mr BARRY JONES —In fact that is the theme of my book. There has been a paradigm shift in our economic base away from resources and muscle power towards skills and particularly towards information. The point that I made is that when one asks people to identify the commonest example of an employer or an employee is in Australia, it is commonplace for them almost invariably to answer 'A process worker in a factory', although that has not been true for a long time. I said at the conference, quite correctly, that to a large extent, the least successful part of the Conference was to achieve that 'shock of recognition'. I think the reason was that many of the people who were there felt compelled to defend entrenched positions. They felt inclined, for example, when they were speaking about universities, to say that the universities were doing a wonderful job and in the case of the CSIRO they said that it was doing as well as could be expected and in the case of Australian management it was to be regarded as perhaps the eighth wonder of the world. The trade union movement was perhaps disposed to say that there was nothing whatever that needed revision in its attitude towards technological change. But the point is that we had to begin somewhere. One of the things that we have tried to stress within industry-I thought that the honourable member for Berowra would pick this up-is that it is not enough to say that the Government will increase its expenditure in research and development and industry, the private sector, needs make no contribution at all. I think one of the problems in Australia in the last few years has been that very striking increase in the proportion of government expenditure as expressed as a proportion of the total. I think the last figures I saw indicated that, for every dollar spent on research and development in Australia the Government spent 78c of every dollar and industry contributed only 22c. In other words, industry is really contributing to its own destruction. It is not doing anything to bring about its own salvation. That is partly, of course compounded-- Mr Groom —Who produced the figures? Mr BARRY JONES —The Australian Statistician. It is clear enough; it is published . The honourable member would find exactly the same figure in last year's technology statement under the signature of my predecessor the Hon. David Thomson. There is no question about the figures. The honourable member for Berowra will not deny them. The reason is that in Australia, there is very little incentive at all for private industry to invest in research and development. People in private industry have come to take it for granted that they simply buy their technology off the shelf. So many of our major companies in Australia are owned and controlled totally overseas. That constitutes a profound disincentive to developing indigenous technology and to looking for technology that is likely to have some export potential. That is a situation that we need to change. There is one thing of which I have become increasingly convinced. It is that in Australia the primary problem of technology transfer is essentially domestic. In other words, as I said in my speech at the Conference, the psychological distance from the CSIRO or the Australian National University to Clayton or Fairfield seems far greater than the transfer from Detroit to Dandenong. Hoechst or IBM are only a telex or a phone call away from the leading edge of technology . In Australia managers and investors are often unaware of the technological and research capacity that surrounds them. We have an extraordinary situation in Australia: With 0.3 per cent of the world's population, we have produced 2 per cent of the world's scientific papers. So, proportionately we are doing very well. With one eighth of Japan's population we produce exactly the same number of Nobel Prize winners in science-four. We lodge 0.7 per cent of the world's patent applications, but we finish up with only 0.1 per cent of the world's high technology output. We have an impressive start but a dismal finish. Mr Gayler —Seven years of it. Mr BARRY JONES —Yes. This process began under the previous Government, which said: 'If business will not contribute, we will not do anything to induce it to do so. We will try to contribute an increasing proportion of R and D money'. That means in effect that whenever we write down R and D we ought to use a big ' R' and a little 'd'. Dr Harry Edwards —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. You will find in a moment that the Minister will be referring to the AIRDIS scheme and the Espie report- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) —Order! Does the honourable member have a point of order? He has not. There is a tendency for frivolous points of order to be taken. I suggest that honourable members should no longer countenance such a practice. Mr BARRY JONES —One of the tragedies we face at the moment is that, while many of our high technology products have achieved almost instant recognition overseas and there is funding from overseas for them, when the product reaches the development stage that development process is aborted here and transferred somewhere else. In the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University, very close to where I am speaking now, 80 per cent of the funding comes from overseas industry. We cannot really blame the overseas interests, because they are more alert and more alive to the significance of what is being done here than we are. Mr Simmons —They know that we have good researchers. Mr BARRY JONES —Of course, they do. In Australia we lack Australian-based and Australian-owned pharmaceutical companies which are in a position to take advantage of that. One of the difficulties we may face is not that our sunrise industries will not be accorded some recognition in the world market-I am sure that they will be and that they will fill very important niches-but that it may not be possible in the early stages for us to fulfil the whole production process that would enable those products to be completely developed here. To take an example, it looks very likely that the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne will produce the first successful malarial vaccine. There is an enormous world-wide need to produce a malarial vaccine. Malaria is on the increase throughout the world. Hundreds of millions of people are at risk with malaria. If in six months time the World Health Organisation said 'That is terrific, we congratulate you on what you have done, but we want 10,000,000 shots of the vaccine by the end of June', we would be in the embarrassing position of saying: 'We are terribly sorry. We can produce it in the laboratory, but we do not have the technological capacity to express it in that quantity'. That is the point at which Hoffman-La Roche or Eli Lilly and Co. might say: 'We can do it; we have the technological capacity'. Mr Groom —What are you doing about it? Mr BARRY JONES —We are trying to involve industry itself-- Mr Groom —That is what your job is. Mr BARRY JONES —That is right. We are trying to involve industry itself in working out its own salvation. It is extraordinary to reflect that at the beginning of the twentieth century we had a technological capacity which made us an exporter of pharmaceuticals. That is no longer the case. We have to ensure that government does not carry the whole burden of research and development in this country and that industry plays its part. My colleague Senator John Button, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is responsible for what we might describe as traditional industry whereas I have responsibility for non- traditional industry, a dichotomy which I am sure the honourable member for Berowra recognises. But together we have worked very satisfactorily. Among the things that have happened in the last few months has been a complete restructuring of the Australian Industry Development Corporation with a significant increase in capital and an increase in the gearing ratio from 8 : 1 to 15 : 1. The Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board has been revived significantly, and in the next week or two legislation will be brought in to bring about further changes. The report of the Espie High Technology and Financing Committee has been adopted by the Government and we expect that in the next week or two legislation will be set up to provide the capacity for tax deductions for high technology industries. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Hon. Les Johnson) — Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(9.46) —It is probably timely to remind the House and the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) of the motion moved by the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards). That motion states, in part: (1) deplores the fact that as a result of the Summit, among other shortcomings, did not systematically address the great challenge, opportunities as well as problems, which high/new technology presents for the future of Australia . . . I think the Minister in his comments forgot the terms of the motion, because the substance of the motion moved by the honourable member for Berowra was the failure of the National Economic Summit Conference to deal with and address properly the effect of high technology. Mr Barry Jones —That is why we had our conference. Mr BURR —I acknowledge the comments that the Minister has made and the attempts he made subsequent to the National Economic Summit Conference to cover up for the shortcomings of his Cabinet colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I acknowledge what the Minister has done to try to highlight the effects of high technology in this country. Unfortunately, he is not supported by his Cabinet colleagues, in particular the Prime Minister. That was the substance of the motion moved by the honourable member for Berowra. The Summit Conference which was held in this chamber was promoted by the Prime Minister in particular as the great summit that brought together all the major policy makers of this country at all levels of government, the union movement and industry to determine the future direction of this country. I applauded the Prime Minister for calling that Conference. But how on earth the Prime Minister thought he could hold a conference designed to determine the future direction of this country without considering the impact of high technology on our industries and on the future of our country, I do not understand. I am quite sure that the Minister for Science and Technology, who is at the table, would agree with that because I understand that it was the Minister's intention to present to that Conference a major paper which could be considered by industry and government leaders in the course of their consideration of the effects of high technology. I feel terribly sorry for the Minister. He was obviously snubbed by his own Government, which should in common sense have given him that opportunity. It should have given the major decision makers of Australia the opportunity to consider the merits of what the Minister would obviously have brought to the Economic Conference. I feel justified in seconding the motion of the honourable member for Berowra. Privately I think the Minister would agree with the motion in that the Summit Conference did not properly debate the impact of high technology. I am not asking the Minister to make a comment in the House, but I would be terribly disappointed if, in the privacy of his own room, he did not agree that he was snubbed and that there was no proper debate at the Conference because it did not have the benefit of the paper that he would have put before it. I compliment the Minister on the action he took subsequent to the Conference in trying to highlight to the people of Australia, to industry and to governments the impact of high technology. I compliment him on holding the National Technology Conference because I think that that was the second best option he had available to him. I compliment him on bringing together a range of people with very commendable technology qualifications, people from universities, research institutes and so on. The Summit Conference was promoted as being the conference to determine the future policy direction for this country. But that conference did not have the benefit of the points made when the Minister subsequently called together the National Technology Conference. The Summit could not have been a complete conference without the benefits of the points that were made by the Minister. This country is going to face tremendous impacts, whether honourable members on the opposite side agree or not. I understand their ignorance. I feel very sorry for them. Fortunately the Minister at the table does not share their ignorance. He is much more perceptive than many of his colleagues on that side of the chamber. I freely admit that he is much more perceptive than many other people in this country. He has done his very best to highlight the impacts that this country will feel from the effects of high technology. His book Sleepers, Wake! was perhaps one of the most perceptive publications presented to this country. I compliment the Minister on that publication. Unfortunately, we can perceive from the laughter of the honourable member for Leichhardt (Mr Gayler) that he obviously does not understand what the Minister was talking about in his book. I perceive from the laughter on the other side of this chamber that, unfortunately , his colleagues have not got the faintest idea what he was talking about. I feel terribly sorry for the Minister because he put so much work into that publication. I feel terribly sorry for honourable members opposite because they do not understand what the Minister was talking about. We on this side of the chamber have studied the book. I for one agreed with almost every word in it. I am sure that the Minister will agree that this country is going to face an enormous economic and social upheaval as a result of the impact of high technology. The impact on our employment structure, industrial structure and social structure will, I am afraid, be greater than most people in this country perceive or acknowledge at this stage. I feel that even at this stage the Government does not fully understand the impact on this country. Obviously there is going to be an enormous impact on employment, the future prospects for employment and the opportunities within the traditional high labour intensive industries. As I can perceive the Government's program, that has not been acknowledged or understood by the Government. If I understand the Budget properly, the Government's response to the problems that we are facing in employment was to introduce the community employment program. That is just a band-aid approach to what is going to be a long term problem. Unemployment is going to become highly entrenched and in fact will worsen as a result of the technological revolution. The Government obviously does not understand the impact of high technology and what it will do to employment prospects in this country and to our social structure. It is simply trying to patch up a problem with band-aid solutions. I feel terribly sorry for the Minister when he is arguing in his Cabinet with such ignorant people. I only hope, for the sake of Australia, that he has greater success with his colleagues in the future. The prospects for Australia, which the Minister highlighted and explained terribly well in his book, will be enormous. The prospects for our manufacturing industries will reverberate around this country for a great many years. But the Government is simply trying to patch up these problems with things such as community employment program and other band-aid policies. It applied a short term band-aid solution to the problems of Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited. It is simply handing out taxpayers' money to shore up a long term problem caused by the technological revolution. This is a short term band-aid solution adopted for political purposes. It is not designed to restructure that industry, it is not designed to take account of the technological revolution and it cannot possibly be in the best long term interests of this country. The Minister is all too well aware of the changes that we need, for instance, in the eductional processes of this country, not only to educate people about the impact of high technology but also to educate them, to be able to cope with that problem, to get them into other streams of employment and into other streams of profitable and self-fulfilling occupations and activities. We have not even started at the Federal or State levels to plan for those changes in our educational or social structure that we must plan for. The Minister will be well aware that these matters require not just a simple panacea. They require a total range of policy areas. There cannot be just one simple, quick, snap solution. This cannot be done overnight; it has to be done on a long term planning basis that takes account of our educational structures, industrial relations structures, industry structures and trade policies and so on. All must be considered in the light of the impact of high technology. Whether this Government, any future government, union or industry leaders like it or not, high technology will have an impact on this country and we cannot stop it. It is like King Canute trying to keep out the tide. We cannot stop this flood of high technology having an impact on Australia. The Government, unions and industry must plan for that impact so that they can give a proper lead to the people of this country. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion by the honourable member for Berowra. I compliment him for highlighting to the House the shortcomings of the Economic Summit. I thought that the concept of the Economic Summit, the bringing together of leaders from various areas within this country-from unions, industry and Government-was very good. I certainly hope it can be pursued again in the future. But to attempt to have such a summit without even trying to look at the impact on this country of high technology only highlights the fact that the Summit was incomplete in its concept. I compliment the honourable member for Berowra for highlighting the shortcomings of that Summit. I can only hope that in the future the Minister will be more successful in getting support from his colleagues than he obviously has in the past. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(9.58) —I rise to speak against the motion which attempts to reflect on the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones). I feel that it is important to remind the House and the nation of the definition of the word 'science'. Science is a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged showing the operation of general laws. I feel that many honourable members of this House could well spend the time contemplating this definition and applying it to politics. The motion is humbug. The Minister, Mr Barry Jones, has done more to advance the cause of science and technology in eight months than any other Minister who has held his portfolio. He has even done more in this short-- Debate interrupted. Hawke Government-Steel Industry-Australian Labor Party Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.00) —Mr Speaker, I wish to move for the suspension of Standing Orders- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The question before the House is that the House do now adjourn. A motion for the suspension of Standing Orders cannot be proposed at this stage. Mr PEACOCK —Mr Speaker, I wish to take the time that is available to me to ask the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to attend the Parliament and to explain the extraordinary events of the last few hours which led to an announcement only a short time ago that one of his Ministers has informed him in writing that he will be unable to support the Cabinet's recommendations on the uranium industry at Monday's Cabinet meeting and, in line with what is deemed to be in the Prime Minister's statement entitled 'Cabinet Arrangements' adopted at the first meeting, he will now step down from Cabinet. There is a fundamental element in government in this country. It derives from the Westminister system and that is that all Ministers are bound by Cabinet decisions. They cannot selectively adopt personal views as to whether they can support one matter or another. Dr Theophanous —Where did you get that from? Mr PEACOCK —I will take the honourable member to it. He may well be the apotheosis of a Greek ruin so he ought to bring himself up to date with the British tradition which formed the very element of government here. I quote from the most up to date version which is Mr Pettifer's edition of the House of Representatives Practice. On page 81 under the heading 'Collective Cabinet Responsibility' it is stated that Cabinet means Ministers and that all Ministers are bound by Cabinet decisions. Mr Pettifer says: . . . it is required by convention that all Ministers must be prepared to accept collective responsibility for, and defend publicly, the policies and actions of the Government or else resign. That is one source. The honourable member asked for it. Does he want us to go back further? I shall quote from Sol Encel's book Cabinet Government in Australia on page 107. Mr Chynoweth —Who wrote that? Mr PEACOCK —Is the honourable member not aware of Sol Encel? That shows how much he understands political science in this country. In chapter 12 under the heading 'Collective responsibility' it is stated: 'For all that passes in Cabinet', said Lord Salisbury in 1878, 'each member of it who does not resign is absolutely and irretrievably responsible'. In consequence, writes Jennings- a great authority on Cabinet Government- a Minister who is not prepared to defend a Cabinet decision must, therefore, resign'. The principle of collective responsibility means, moreover, that a minister must vote with the Government, speak in defence of it . . . And so on. They are the authorities and I could go on with more. The extraordinary situation today is that a Minister has indicated, not only to the Prime Minister but also through him publicly that he cannot support a Cabinet decision. What sort of debauchment of our system of government is it that he simply steps out of the Cabinet and into the so-called Ministry? The only conclusion to be drawn, with this Government in tatters, is that every Minister outside the Cabinet can say what he likes when he likes on any issue. Gone is that basic element of Cabinet responsibility. It strikes at the very heart of our system because henceforth Ministers outside the Cabinet are not bound at all . It is also interesting to note in this extraordinary debasement of the system a comment of Fin Crisp in the fifth edition of Australian National Government. On page 365 he says: after Whitlam in 1975 'sacked' three senior Ministers, Caucus in 1976 made new rules requiring the Leader in future to carry the other three Parliamentary Labor leaders and then Caucus with him before dropping Ministers or Shadow Ministers. This man has been dropped from the Cabinet and into the Ministry. What do other leaders think about it? What does the Caucus say about it? There has been no Caucus meeting. Honourable members opposite are supposed to be in the Caucus room electing their Ministers. They elect them in order. They elect their Cabinet. What has transpired now? We do not know. All we know is that a Minister cannot support Cabinet decisions and cannot support Government policy. That means that Minister has but one course-to resign from the Ministry. The Government should not just reshuffle the deck chairs and honourable members opposite know it. They are debasing the system without explanation. They are not only embarrassing their Government but also debauching the very system itself. The Minister ought to resign and take his place on the back bench. Let us test it. We will see whether the Left has the numbers to get up another left wing member. Now there is not an acknowledged member of the Left in the Cabinet. What will the Government do? I come back to the basic principle of Government responsibility. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(10.5) —Tonight I wish to make a few comments about a company which is often referred to as the Big Australian. I refer, of course, to Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd. Since my election on 5 March, I have been very involved in discussions concerning the future of the steel industry. Although the steel works at Port Kembla are in the electorate of my good friend and colleague the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), many of the workers, or ex-workers, are constituents of mine. Because of the plight of the steel industry, caused by many factors including a world recession but also poor management, it was necessary for this Government to take drastic action to save this industry. The Government, after extensive discussions, introduced far reaching measures to save the steel industry. This included the largest corporate handout in Australia's history. Part of the announced package was that there would be no more enforced retrenchments in the steel industry. It might have been unfortunate that this was not to apply until 1 January of next year, because BHP at Port Kembla is in the process of reducing its work force by some 700 members, including 44 electricians. I had extensive discussions with BHP over the future of these tradesmen. Indeed , I led a deputation to see the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button), but BHP assured me that although it was sympathetic, it was sorry but the barrel was empty. Sixteen bricklayers were also retrenched because the Big Australian was too broke to keep them on. Over 200 apprentices will not be given work when they finish their training this year. People on light duties as a result of their injuries at the works will also be thrown on the scrapheap. Yet broke as the Big Australian claims to be, it could still find $50,000 recently to give to its mates in the New South Wales Liberal Party. Indeed, the Big Australian was the largest corporate donor. It is interesting to note that Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited knew that if the Liberal Government were returned at the March Federal election there would be no Australian steel industry-or none at Newcastle or Whyalla and most likely none at Port Kembla. Is it, as some suspect, that it really wanted to get out of steel? Perhaps the generous donation came from the oil and gas division which, I can assure this House, is not broke. Perhaps the donation was not from the steel division. It makes one wonder why, if BHP can move funds around for donations, it could not move a few funds around to save workers' jobs. It is common knowledge that business supports the Liberal-National Party and it seems that even members of those parties are intent on putting them out of business, an illustration of how their political philosophy outweighs their business sense. It illustrates just how badly a shake-up of the management of BHP is needed. I believe also that an equity share by the Government is needed, as is government representation on the Board. This Big Australian went to its steel industry workers over the past two years and said: 'Retire on a pittance or we will sack you'. Once again, it was the working people held hostage to the demand of a large corporation and the working people bore the brunt of the economic crisis. The retrenched workers in my electorate would be outraged, as I would be, if any of the steel assistance money, taxpayers' money, given to save the steel industry found its way into the coffers of the New South Wales Liberal Party. I wish to comment on some remarks made by the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) this evening in this House when the report of the Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory was presented. The honourable member for Dundas made an outrageous statement about the New South Wales Labor Government. He said that that Government would not provide a two-lane highway from Goulburn to Canberra. This is absolute nonsense. I am a member of that Committee and I think it is disappointing that, on present indications, the duplication of the New South Wales section of the Federal Highway will not be completed before 1988. This should be put in its correct context, and not in the way the honourable member for Dundas put it in this House this evening. It is possible that two short lengths will not be completed. There is a six-kilometre section there and a four-mile section at the southern end. That is nearly 10 kilometres that might not be completed. Part of it is because of an enginering problem along Lake George. It is outrageous for the honourable member for Dundas to come into this House and try to say that 60 miles of this road will not be duplicated by 1988. Mr SINCLAIR(New England)(10.10) —Since the previous Special Minister of State resigned there has been a good deal of suspicion and apprehension in this place about what loyalty meant in the Australian Labor Party. I think all of us on our side of the House respected for a long while what we saw as a special relationship between the then President of the Federal Labor Party and the then Secretary of the Federal Labor Party. We all remember one David Combe, and look what happened to him. If there is one thing that appals those on this side of the House it is the way this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has been prepared to put aside all past loyalties, all past affections, all past relationships, for his own personal advantage. Let us look at what has happened tonight. We have a letter from his former Minister-I am sorry, his present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and his former Cabinet Minister, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West). Mr Howard —It is half a resignation. Mr SINCLAIR —It is half a resignation, as my colleague says. How can one half resign? It is like pregnancy. How can one be half pregnant? I am quite sure that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is not too sure tonight whether he is half pregnant or what. The letter states: As discussed with you earlier today, I find myself unable to support Cabinet's recommendation to Caucus on the uranium industry at Monday's caucus meeting. I understand Cabinet arrangements regarding solidarity. Under the terms of that Cabinet arrangement, I understand that I can no longer serve in the Cabinet. There is not one law for the rich and one law for the poor. There is, apparently , one law for those in Cabinet and one for those outside Cabinet, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said a moment ago. I quote from House of Representatives Practice by Mr Jack Pettifer, which states: Ministerial responsibility takes 2 forms-collective cabinet responsibility . . . and individual ministerial responsibility. Both concepts are governed by conventions inherited from Westminster and both are central to the working of responsible government . . . Cabinet is collectively responsible to the people, through the Parliament, for determining and implementing policies for national government. Broadly, it is required by convention that all Ministers must be prepared to accept collective responsibility for, and defend publicly, the policies and actions of the Government or else resign. There cannot be a half resignation. There cannot be a membership of the Ministry and not an acceptance of Cabinet responsibility. There cannot be an acceptance of understanding Cabinet solidarity. There cannot be a half loyalty. There cannot be a half dismissal by the Prime Minister. There cannot be a system where a Minister in a government which is collectively responsible within the Australian system to the Australian community can say: 'Look, I can go down this track when it suits me and I am going to belong to the outer Ministry, and reject it when it does not suit me'. Mr Howard —Rex Jackson would have liked this arrangement. Mr SINCLAIR —Mr Rex Jackson; how correct my colleague is. We all know that in New South Wales he wanted the money and the box. In the New South Wales system we have an absolutely deplorable situation where there is one law that applies to the former Minister for Corrective Services and another law that applies to the Premier. We have a system in the Federal Parliament where there is absolutely a derogation of responsibility by the man who is the Prime Minister of Australia. We all recognise that the Prime Minister's integrity is now thoroughly suspect. We have long known that there is a phrase called Hawkespeak. We have all accepted that he is quite prepared to accept that expediency should rule his roost. Pray tell: Tonight we have a man who, on the basis of a principle in which he believed, has half resigned. How does he half resign? Which half? Top half? Bottom half? How does a man remain a member of a government and not a member of his Cabinet? No, he is a member of the outer Ministry. There is no way by which, within the concepts that are truly applicable to this place, the Prime Minister can stay out of the House. He has issued a Press statement on a matter of fundamental responsibility to the whole of the integrity of his Government, and yet he says: 'It doesn't matter'. Unless the Prime Minister comes into this Parliament and explains how and in what way the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs can be a member of his Government but not a Minister accepting Cabinet responsibility, it is beyond the whole doctrine of Westminster, and the whole of the Government deserves to hand in its resignation and not just the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(10.15) —I want to spend a few minutes refuting these absurd claims being made-- Opposition members interjecting- Dr THEOPHANOUS —They have had their go. It is time to allow someone else to speak. We have had some pretensions here about people knowing something of political science. I happen to speak as a person who actually is a student of political science and has written in political science. Let me tell the House something about conventions and political science. Mr Porter —Why don't you go back and get qualified? Dr THEOPHANOUS —When the honourable member has achieved my qualifications, he will be able to say something. Let me first point out that the selective quotations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) are completely fallacious and completely untenable. The situation in the great Australian Labor Party, since its foundation-- Opposition members interjecting- Dr THEOPHANOUS —Mr Speaker, am I going to get protection or not? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Darling Downs and the honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr THEOPHANOUS —We are talking here about the conventions which have applied in the Australian Labor Party in government since Federation. The conventions that have applied in the Australian Labor Party since Federation are that the Government's determinations are made ultimately by Caucus and the Labor Government is constituted by the Caucus. It is only when Caucus has made a determination that the members of the Party are bound to vote in the Parliament in relation to that particular policy. Let me add further something about the spurious claims by the Leader of the Opposition. He has said that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has contradicted the determinations of the Government. That is not what he has done in this particular case, as I understand it. What has happened is that the Minister has made a determination about his preparedness to vote in a particular way-the vote not in the Parliament but in the Caucus. That is what has happened and it has nothing to do with the conventions spuriously quoted by the Leader of the Opposition. He ought to be ashamed of himself for the way in which he has completely misled this Parliament in relation to that matter. The other thing we are getting from the Opposition at present is a total failure, complete and utter failure, to understand the kind of serious, genuine debate that is taking place in this Party, the great Australian Labor Party, on one of the greatest issues facing this country. The point is that the Opposition has no contribution to make to this debate because it does not even begin to understand the issues in relation to this matter. We are proud of our democratic traditions in Caucus and of the way in which we resolve and determine the policies facing this Party. These conventions and traditions were not established today or yesterday. They have been here, as I mentioned, since Federation. The fact is that there is no contradiction of convention in what has happened. The only question that needs to be asked, to be resolved within the Party, is the question of the role of the Cabinet and the role of Cabinet solidarity. There is no other question. There has certainly been no breach of the traditions of Westminster as has been spuriously claimed by the Leader of the Opposition. I am ready to see what academics and political scientists have to say today, tomorrow and next week in relation to these matters. I am ready to stand by their determinations including those of the people whom the Leader of the Opposition quoted. The fact of the matter is that his arguments have been spurious. There has been no breach of the understandings of Westminster. It is a rearrangement procedure within the Parliament. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.20) —Tonight the Australian Labor Party, not only in this House but all around, is in a very deep crisis. Not only does this miserable half-resignation delivered to the Australian people tonight represent the end of an abject retreat by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) from the responsibilities of leadership given to him not by the Caucus, not by the Australian Labor Party, but by the Australian people on 5 March. It is the Australian people to whom he must account just as it will be to the people of New South Wales that the discredited Federal President of the Labor Party, Mr Wran, will have to account the next time an election is held in New South Wales. The honourable member for Burke (Dr Theophanous) said that he is a qualified political scientist. So he is. All I can say is that after the way in which the rules of the Westminster system have been rewritten tonight by the Prime Minister he will have to rewrite all his lectures; the rules of the Westminster system have been totally turned upon its head. How many other members of the outer Ministry of the Hawke Government will have the right of a free vote next Monday? Will the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) support the Government line? Will the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) support the Government line? Will the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) support the Government line? Will the Special Minister of State (Mr Beazley) support the Government line? Will the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) support the Government line? The Minister for Territories and Local Government even goes one better. He stays away from the Cabinet meetings so he does not even have to write a letter. What a pathetic situation. What a pathetic retreat this is for that proud, boastful Prime Minister standing in front of the largest assembly of the Australian business community we have seen for many years at the Regent Hotel. In the presence of many witnesses-the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) and many others-he said: 'Look, brethren, don't worry; it is all in my hands. I have been authorised by the Premier of South Australia to say on behalf of him and on behalf of the Federal Government that Roxby Downs will go ahead; nothing will stop Roxby Downs'. What a pathetic retreat. What confidence can the Australian business community have in a a Prime Minister who has been forced into that humiliating retreat? We have the total and absolute evidence of it here tonight. He does not have the power to sack a Minister who has defied a properly concluded Cabinet decision on a matter of fundamental national importance. The true Westminster principle is that a Minister is under an obligation to resign from the ministry if his continued presence in that Ministry is an embarrassment to the Government. One has a situation in which he must resign from the Ministry . He must cease to hold office under the Crown if his continued presence is an embarrassment to the Government. There has been a Cabinet decision and a debate. There is a situation in which, as part of that Cabinet decision, this man's view -the view of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West)-has been overruled. What has happened? He is still a Minister of the Crown. He is still prepared to have the car; he is still prepared to have the staff; he is still prepared to take the salary; and he is still prepared to take the allowance. That has been allowed to happen. This is being allowed and one cannot really blame the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the fact that he still has his car, his salary and his staff. Mr Hand —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My point of order is that the Deputy Leader is misleading the House. We have not had the debate. That is to take place on Monday. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member says that his Party has not had the debate. It has been going on ever since the election. The honourable member should not be ridiculous. It has been going on inside his Party ever since the election. The fact is that this half-Minister who wants to have it both ways, still has his salary, still has his allowance, still has his staff and still has his car; but he is not really to blame for that. The person who should really be brought to book for this, the person who should really answer to the Australian people for a total failure of leadership on this matter is not the honourable member for Cunningham, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs! It is the Prime Minister of Australia who has totally failed to deliver on the expectations of him by the Australian people. He owes an apology not to the Labor Caucus or to the parliamentary Labor Party! He owes an apology and an account to, and he will be taken to account at the next available opportunity by the greatest bar of opinion, and that is the people of this country. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(10.25) —I have been moved by the lectures delivered by the honourable gentlemen opposite who want to lecture the Government on the reality of the Westminster system. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There has been a practice in this Parliament that Ministers do not speak in the adjournment debate. Mr Holding —If you do not want me to speak I will sit down. Mr Sinclair —No, we are quite happy for the Minister to speak after the adjournment debate. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I acknowledge the point made by the Deputy Leader of the National Party. However, no other honourable member rose so the Minister got the call. Mr Peacock —He said he has been moved. Where has he been moved to? Mr HOLDING —I have been moved by the lectures given by the Leader of the Opposition. I remember sitting in this Parliament when the then Leader of the Opposition was a member of the Fraser Ministry. He came into this House and as a matter of conviction and passion offered his resignation. He could no longer serve under a Prime Minister who was a dictator. He could no longer serve under Malcolm Fraser. This man of principle involved in the Westminster system, this man of principle because he could not mount the numbers in his Party, within six months crawled back into the Cabinet in a sleazy political exercise perfectly well prepared to serve under the very Prime Minister who had not changed his style, his dictatorial attitudes or anything else. That was an example of the Westminster system. We had a lecture from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair), a man of deep principle. As I have said before , 10 of George's signatures are worth one of Ian's. He resigned too. He had to be squeezed out of Cabinet. I think he got a lucky jury. These are the men of the Westminster system! There is another one on the Opposition front bench. What happens to the Westminster system in the Liberal Party when it has a Minister stand down because he got mixed up coming through Customs with a coloured television set? But there he is back on the front bench with his colleague. We are perfectly happy to have a debate if the Opposition wants to take on this matter in a substantive way and not come into the adjournment debate taking up the time for the adjournment debate in five-minute exercises, talking about their dedication to the Westminster system. These men served under a government which went through 15 Ministers. They find it very difficult to understand any resignation on the basis of conscience. Every one of the resignations which took place in the previous Government occurred because someone got mixed up, someone abused his position as a Minister. It was a sham of a government. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday next. House adjourned at 10.30 p.m. The following answers to questions were circulated: Question No. 422 Mr Wells asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry and Commerce , upon notice, on 6 September 1983: What Commonwealth funds, listed by purpose, in the forms of (a) grants, (b) subsidies, (c) special purpose grants, (d) dollar for dollar contributions or (e ) other contributions have been partly or totally (i) received or (ii) returned or refused by the Queensland Government, from December 1972 to August 1983. Mr John Brown —The Minister for Industry and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a)-(e)- (i) specific purpose payments to Queensland, for both capital and recurrent purposes are detailed in the following table: ANNUAL PAYMENTS MADE TO 30 JUNE $m Purpose 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Area improvement . . . . 2.5 2.5 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . Sewerage . . 2.0 12.9 14.0 1.1 0.002 . . 0.016 . . . . . . Budget Paper No. 7, 1976-77 and 1981-82, AGPS (ii) as for the second part of the question I am not prepared to authorise the Department to further divert the resources necessary to provide an answer to the question. Question No. 475 Dr Everingham asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 8 September 1983: Will the Government support moves to establish international arbitration for individuals and groups alleging violation of their human rights by their national officials and others. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government is not aware of any proposals for international arbitration of human rights complaints by groups or individuals. The European Convention on Human Rights does however provide a form of arbitration for individual claims, although this has no effect on countries not party to that Convention. Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination contain provisions (which I understand have never been invoked) for the estabishment of ad hoc 'Conciliation Commissions' which apply as between states but do not offer recourse to individuals or groups directly. There are procedures available to individuals and groups to pursue human rights complaints through international channels which do not involve arbitration. For example there are the mechanisms established under the Optional Protocol to the International Convent on Civil and Political Rights, the provisions of Article 14 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the confidential 'communications' procedures operating within the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The Government strongly supports the principle that states should observe conscientiously their international human rights obligations. Against this background, the Government is currently reviewing Australia's position with regard to the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR and the Article 14 procedures under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Question No. 537 Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 15 September 1983: Is it a fact that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission is establishing a commercial travel agency; if so, (a) why and (b) was approval sought for the establishment of the agency. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice received from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: The Overseas Telecommunications Commission is seeking accreditation with the International Air Transport Association to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its Travel Unit which, since the inception of the Commission, has serviced the travel needs associated with the Commission's activities. No approval was required before seeking of such accreditation.