Monday, 7 May 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the- (a) unanimously adopted United Nations resolution 37/100J which calls on member states to encourage their citizens freely and publicly to express their views on disarmament questions and to organise and meet publicly for that purpose; (b) contemptuous breach of this resolution by the continuous Soviet persecution , imprisonment, exile and psychiatric torture of members of the Soviet Trust Group which is committed to verifiable multilateral disarmament; and (c) failure of the United Nations Association of Australia to take action concerning this breach of the United Nations resolution; and (2) calls on the Minister for Foreign Affairs, on his forthcoming visit to Moscow, to give a high priority to urging the Soviet authorities to abandon its persecution of the Trust Group and its breach of the United Nations resolution. Mr KENT(Hotham) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) views with horror and revulsion the continuous social persecution of the Tamil minority by the Sri Lankan authorities; (2) calls on the Sri Lankan Parliament to repeal the regulation whereby the police and security forces can dispose of bodies without an inquest, thereby virtually giving them a licence to kill; and (3) calls on President Jayawardene to bring to justice according to law all those who committed crimes against the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Bass Strait oil fields produce the bulk of Australia's oil and gas; (b) the area is very vulnerable to shipping accidents or terrorist attack; (c) damage to a rig could result in a catastrophe involving tragic loss of life , serious interruption to gas and oil supplies, major environmental pollution and millions of dollars in costs; (d) the Government has slashed air surveillance of the area by axing RAN Tracker patrols and reducing RAAF Orion sweeps; and (e) this reduction has occured at a time when light ships are not working properly and planned radar upgrading has not taken place; and (2) condemns the Government for its actions in endangering this vital national installation. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) will second: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the record levels of lending for housing being experienced in Australia, and (b) that the Federal Government's First Home Owners Scheme has produced improvements in housing and restored stability to the building industry, and (2) calls upon the Federal Government to continue its successful funding policies for the housing industry. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) shares the concern of retirees and those about to retire in regard to the Government's ineptitude and lack of comprehension of the lump sum payments and the assets test fiasco; (2) warns retirees that the Government is committed to tax their possessions and is in the process of devising such a tax; (3) regards with complete cynicism the last-minute withdrawal of the assets test proposals; and (4) calls on the Government to- (a) make its intentions in regard to taxing homes, land, holiday homes and other assets known as soon as possible, and (b) advise pensioners that the test, when implemented, wil be retrospective to 24 May 1983. Mr WELLS(Petrie) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Fadden (Mr Beddall) will second: That this House- (1) congratulates the Government- (a) on its provision of 3000 new places in Australian tertiary institutions this year, and (b) on the fact that fully 700 of these places were in Queensland, a State which has a history of low tertiary participation rates, and (2) applauds this particular act of positive discrimination in favour of Queensland school leavers. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Federal Government for its decision to allow publications promoting and inciting the use of hard drugs to go on sale in the A .C.T. and commends the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canberra for his courage in also condemning the proposal. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes with alarm the new economic policy of the Liberal Party based on the privatisation of all public enterprises; (2) rejects the privatisation philosophy as a return to 19th Century economics, and (3) re-affirms its support for a healthy, mixed economy based on a substantial public sector. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice, that on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Federal Opposition recognises the importance of tourism in Australia; (b) the Parliamentary Liberal Party boosted tourism by conducting a seminar at Thredbo, New South Wales, in the important inland Snowy Mountains tourist area, and (c) the Federal Government has not insisted that the Alpine Way, linking New South Wales and Victoria be declared a Bicentennial road, and (2) condemns the Government for not insisting that the Alpine Way be declared a Bicentennial road so that the 37 km of gravel road on this important interstate link road can be sealed, thus enabling the Snowy Mountains inland tourist area to fulfil its potential and be more easily accessible by road to Victorians and South Australians. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government to- (1) continue to monitor closely the course and outcome of all private negotiations between Australian coal exporters and overseas buyers; (2) examine the effects of negotiated Australian coal export prices and tonnages on the negotiating position of other coal exporting countries, and (3) seek a response from other coal-exporting countries concerning the desirability of establishing an organisation of coal-exporting countries to develop a co-ordinated approach to coal marketing. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that- (a) the Big Brother Movement has, since 1925, sponsored the immigration to Australia of 200 young British men annually; (b) on assuming his office last year the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs dismissed the Big Brother Movement from its role as adviser to the Government on matters of British immigration; and (c) the Minister has refused to meet a deputation from the Big Brother Movement to discuss British immigration; and (2) condems the Minister for his dogmatic, prejudices and discriminatory handling of immigration issues. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) will second: That this House- (1) Notes- (a) the statement of Mr Punch, Leader of the New South Wales National Party, made prior to the New South Wales elections to the effect that a coalition government would review all national park designations which had been designated subsequent to the election of the Wran Government in 1976 to ensure optimum use of the resources they contain including timber; (b) the condemnation of these views of the New South Wales Liberal and National Parties by the Australian Conservation Foundation as amounting to a promise by those parties to permit logging on New South Wales rainforests; and (c) that the Federal Shadow Minister for the Environment, Mr Connolly, has done nothing to dissociate himself from the anti-conservation views of his New South Wales colleagues, and (2) condemns the Liberal and National Parties for their undermining of the efforts of the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment to develop a National Conservation strategy to protect Australia's rainforest resources. (Notice given 7 May 1984). Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment for his failure to enter into meaningful negotiations with the Queensland Government regarding the building of a road through the Daintree National Park which is listed on the National Estate; (2) further condemns the Minister for failing to impress upon the Prime Minister, the importance of this proposal and the Prime Minister's failure to enter negotiations with the Queensland Premier; and (3) condemns the Government for its inability to negotiate with individual State Governments when nationally significant environmental problems occur. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That a joint select committee be appointed to inquire into and report on why the Federal Government has given directions to allow publications inciting and promoting the use of hard drugs to become freely available in the Australian Capital Territory and why it expects other States to follow the standards it is setting for the Australian Capital Territory. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I inform the House that the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) left Australia on 4 May to address a symposium in Kuala Lumpur on the Association of South East Asian Nations, Australia and Japan and to hold industry discussions in Japan. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and Minister for Administrative Services (Mr John Brown) is Acting Minister for Industry and Commerce until Senator Button returns on 13 May. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before calling questions without notice, I wish to make a brief statement on matters which have caused me some concern. I have given careful consideration to some of the language which has been used in the House in recent times. Regrettably there has been an increasing use by members on both sides of the House of language which must be regarded as unparliamentary but which, because of the frequency of its use, appears to have almost become accepted as the norm. I refer particularly to the use of the words 'liar', 'lied ' and 'lies', although there are others which have been used which could be similarly classified. Language of this type would not be permitted in any other Commonwealth parliament and it concerns me to see it being used in this place. There have been precedents in the House where offending members have not been required to withdraw words of that nature and I suspect that I have been guilty of that omission on occasion. This has placed me and other occupants of the chair in a most difficult position. I now wish to make it clear to all members that in future I will not allow the use of such words. If any member should use words which are clearly unparliamentary, or uses other words which I judge to be offensive or unparliamentary, and will not withdraw them without qualification when called on to do so, I will take action immediately against the member. Furthermore I will not allow members to get around my ruling by using expressions such as 'apparently lied' or 'apparently did so an so'. I find words of this nature equally objectionable and will not permit their use. There is also an increasing tendency to cast reflections on other members in debate. Such a practice offends against the Standing Orders and is highly disorderly. Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. I ask honourable members not to resort to the use of personal reflections upon other members as a poor substitute for the making of proper debating points. If they will not do so the Chair will be forced to take action. I should make it clear that the Standing Orders contain specific prohibitions against the use of words which may be judged to be offensive or disorderly. The determination as to whether words used in the House are offensive or disorderly rests with the Chair and the Chair's judgment depends on the nature of the word and the context in which it is used. Finally, I appeal to all honourable members to conduct themselves in a proper manner in this place. As represenatives of the people in this chamber it is incumbent upon all of us to see that the House functions as a proper democratic institution. I intend to carry out my responsibility to ensure that this happens as I believe it to be one of the basic reasons why the House elects the occupant of my position. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Prime Minister. Last Friday the Prime Minister conceded that he had discussed a telephonic link being established between his office and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Why was this matter raised in discussion with the ABC and why did the Prime Minister seek to evade answering the question previously? Does he not believe, as honourable members on this side of the House believe, that such a concept directly infringes the freedom of the ABC and calls into question the freedom of the Press generally? Mr HAWKE —I in no way sought to evade the very specific question that was directed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. As to the private conversation that was held between the General Manager of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Mr Geoffrey Whitehead, the Minister for Communications and me- Mr Peacock —Who else was present? Mr HAWKE —Advisers of my own were there as well. I have no intention of going to the private discussions that were held there because the conversation was held at the request of Mr Whitehead and on the understanding requested and understood by him that the conversation would be confidential. The important point which is involved in the question by the Leader of the Opposition and which I quickly bring to the attention of the House is this: Out of that conversation no arrangement of any kind whatsoever for any telephone hotline has emerged or, while I am Prime Minister, will be put in place. Mr MILTON —Has the attention of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs been drawn to complaints by the Big Brother Movement, and organisation previously responsible for selecting and processing its own British migrants, which allege that because the Minister has terminated the favoured arrangements previously enjoyed by this organisation he is guilty of anti-British and anti- European bias? Mr WEST —I hope that the Opposition will listen very carefully to what I have to say. I have been recently quite disturbed at the allegations referred to by the honourable member who asked the question. Perhaps it would be in order for me very briefly to tell the House something about this matter and the history of this organisation. The Big Brother Movement since 1925 has sponsored, selected and processed approximately 12,000 young British lads and brought them to Australia. It has enjoyed a great measure of assistance from the Australian Government because, particularly since the Second World War, it has been part of a program which has been assisted at times. For instance, in 1980 the Big Brother Movement was receiving 50 pounds sterling as part of the cost of bringing people to Australia . It also received an office in Australia House for 140 pounds sterling per year . That is very advantageous and subsidised arrangement. In the last few years there has been a substantial change in the migration intake by both Australian governments. This Government has placed the emphasis upon family reunion and refugees. That has been a policy matter which has been widely accepted. The former Government placed the emphasis upon independent skilled migration as the major component of its intake program. That means that there is now less reason to give an independent organisation such as Big Brother sole rights to select independent migrants on the basis of skills or for any other preferential reason. There is a very curious history over the last few years. The matter was drawn to the attention of the previous Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava. I am informed by my Department that he registered some reservations about the arrangement and even suggested to the Department and to the Big Brother Movement that it might be time to terminate some of the advantageous financial arrangements. However, another Minister, the former member for Petrie, then took over. He decreed that the Big Brother Movement would still have the right to interview and process its own nominees with the standards and criteria to be applied by the Movement, that the Movement would not be bound to ensure that the qualifications of its nominees would be recognised in Australia and that the Movement would consult with the Department and obtain ministerial approval for a quota for it to select for the forthcoming 12 months. Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that the Minister is reading his answer. He is turning each page of the document. I ask that, at the conclusion of his words, the document be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —I will deal with that matter when the Minister completes his answer. Mr WEST —I am not reading; I am quoting from copious notes. I am sure that the whole House, even the members of the Opposition, will say that we are right when they think about this because it is no longer appropriate to give a single private organisation rights to select and process migrants without that same advantage being enjoyed by any other organisation or individual. The Australian Government will select and process migrants, not private organisations. The Government and I are being accused of discriminating against Big Brother. However, the point is that Big Brother- Mr Lusher —You are big brother; that is what we are concerned about. Mr WEST —I note that the honourable member for Hume supports the Big Brother organisation. That is entirely appropriate for the honourable member. It is marvellous how the Opposition cannot stand the facts. Not only have I not been discriminating against Big Brother but also that organisation, in the past, has enjoyed positive discrimination in favour of its organisation. I have shown that it has enjoyed financial advantages and it was the only remaining organisation to be granted the favour of selecting its own migrants. Would members of the Opposition do that? No. I conclude my answer by saying that this movement- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Honourable members opposite cannot take the facts. We know that they would not have supported their former Minister, the honourable member for Balaclava, in what he wanted to do. If these hooligans will only listen for a while longer, I conclude by saying that I am quite concerned that the Government and I have been misrepresented in a series of national advertisements and statements by the Executive Director of the Big Brother Movement, Mr MacKinnon, in national newspapers. Those advertisements have stated that this Government, because it has taken action to terminate these favoured arrangements, is guilty of discrimination against British and European people and in favour of Asians. They are back to their same old trick, because this just is not true. Frankly, there is a quite libellous statement in one of today's newspapers that this Government and this Minister are looking forward to the Asianisation of Australia. The Prime Minister, the Government and I have never said that. The Prime Minister, the Government and I have appealed to the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters for a bipartisan approach on this racist question. Mr Peacock —You had one when you came to government. Mr WEST —Let us have it. The Leader of the Opposition and the obnoxious honourable member for Denison know this very well. MR SPEAKER —Order! In the spirit of the statement I made earlier, I ask the Minister to withdraw that description. Mr WEST —In deference to the spirit of your statement- MR SPEAKER —Order! I ask that no such withdrawals be proceeded by the statement in deference to you. It is a withdrawal to this House; not the Chair. Mr WEST —I withdraw. There is no pro-Asian sentiment in our migration policies and there is no anti-British or anti-European sentiment. We are simply getting a few more Asian people as a result of non-discrimatory polices in the family reunion program and the refugee program which the former Government instigated. I appeal to the Opposition to join us in giving rational answers to those who would misrepresent our migration policies. MR SPEAKER —As the honourable member for O'Connor raised a point of order, I must ask the Minister whether he was reading from a document on public affairs. Mr WEST —No, I was not reading from any document-except referring to copious notes. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. If, as he says, he is so confident of his facts in regard to the Big Brother Movement, and bearing in mind that successive governments have assisted the Big Brother Movement in the desires and implementation of its aims to bring out British citizens to this country, why did he take away its funding and assistance without discussing the matter with the Movement? Mr WEST —Upon assuming office I was briefed by my Department on a number of major matters. This was one of the major matters on which I was briefed. I accepted the advice of the Department that it was no longer- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will resume his seat. When the House comes to order Question Time can continue. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —I accepted the advice of my Department that it had advised a former Minister to do something about this program. I accepted the information that was drawn to my attention, quite properly, that those people were enjoying financial advantages- Opposition members interjecting- Mr WEST —Honourable members opposite do not want to listen to the facts. People were enjoying, as I said in my previous answer, financial advantages and the organisation was enjoying a favoured position as the only remaining private organisation with the right to select and process its own migrants. That cannot be part of a non-discriminatory migration program. Mr STEEDMAN —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen the report in today's Age that at a conference of Liberal politicians over the weekend it was declared that the ideal long term goal of their party was to 'privatise Telecom, TAA, schools, hospitals and airports'? Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no legal action will be taken against these people who so wantonly plan to sell off our heritage and put our economy in jeopardy? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question without notice. I must say that I did take the opportunity this morning of reading the Press coverage of the Thredbo gathering and I did notice the report to which the honourable member refers. The proposition, as quoted, was: . . . the ideal long-term goal was to privatise Telecom, TAA, schools, hospitals and airports. That proposition was preceded, according to the Press report by the presentation of a dinosaur which was supposed to represent the too large public sector. It is a tragedy that, at this time when by the application of sensible economic policies we have turned this economy around out of the disaster that was imposed upon this country by those people on the other side, the best they can come up with is representations of dinosaurs which are relevant in the sense that the so -called economic policies of the other side are in truth quite antediluvian. I will not be initiating any action against these people in respect of these prehistoric propositions. Much more importantly than that, the action will be taken not by the courts; it will be taken by the people of Australia when they have the opportunity of passing judgment on this nonsense the Opposition passes for policy. Mr PEACOCK —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and it is simply put. Why did he not discuss the matter with the organisation? Mr WEST —The answer is that the Big Brother Movement asked me to meet with it to reopen the question. I courteously- Mr Peacock —But you took the decision before- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr Peacock —You said it was important. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition should listen to the answer. Mr WEST —The Leader of the Opposition asks questions but does not want to listen to the answers. What is more, if he wants to behave like an orang-outang he should get back where he belongs. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Before completing his answer, I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark. Mr Peacock —I do not find it offensive. Mr SPEAKER —That is all right then. I will not ask him to withdraw. The Minister may proceed with his answer. Mr WEST —If he finds that offensive I will withdraw it. Mr Peacock —I do not find it at all offensive. Mr WEST —I did not agree to meet with the executive of the Big Brother Movement for the simple reason that it had asked me to reopen the question. I very courteously informed it that there was no question of the decision being reopened. I conclude my answer by reiterating that it was an example of positive discrimination in favour of a private organisation. There is no discrimination in our family reunion or refugee selection process except that obviously we give preference to people from troubled areas of the world. In conclusion, not only is there no positive discrimination in favour of Asian people in the family reunion program but also, because of non-discrimination reasons, simply because of administrative procedures and the long queue of people from Vietnam who wish to come to Australia for family reunification under the orderly departure program, we are in fact applying measures to those people that we apply to no others. Mr Rocher —You are discriminating in their favour. Mr WEST —No. We are not accepting brothers and sisters. We are not able to do that because there are some 30,000 people in the pipeline. Honourable members opposite do not seem to be capable of understanding that not only is there no positive discrimination in favour of Asians but also, because of administrative reasons, we are having to restrict the orderly departure program from Vietnam, which involves family reunion, to spouses, children and parents. We cannot take brothers and sisters at this stage. So not only is there no pro-Asian discrimination but also, because of administrative reasons, we are having to slow up the intake in a way that we do not do in any other area of family migration. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I understand that there was some failure of the division bells system prior to the meeting of the House at 2 p.m. To enable the fault to be identified, the President and I have agreed to the bells being rung while Question Time is in progress so honourable members should not take fright if the bells start to ring. Mr MAHER —My question, without notice, is directed to the Prime Minister. Does the Government acknowledge that the economic revival of the private sector of the economy is essential if unemployment in our nation is to be substantially reduced? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question without notice. I have continually said in this place and outside it that the growing health of the private sector is an indispensible element of the recovery of this country as a whole. The simple statistics are overwhelming. The private sector provides employment for three-quarters of our work force and therefore the policies of this Government, from the day we came to office, have been directed towards creating an environment within which the private sector can flourish. As distinct from those on the other side of the House, we do not think of the public sector and the private sector being at odds with one another. In our sort of economy the health of the private sector depends upon a healthy public sector and vice versa. The success of the policies we have adopted has been reflected in the fact that I have brought to the attention of the House; that is, that in the 12 months before we came into office the number of unemployed increased by over a quarter of a million people but under this Government there has been a growth of 210,000 jobs. Both the private and public sectors have benefited from those policies. In conclusion, this Government, in drawing up the Budget for 1984-85, will do what it did in 1983-84. It will strike exactly the right balance. We will have that level of public stimulus which is necessary to keep the revival of the economy going but will reduce the deficit so that in a situation where the private sector is coming to make more demands on the capital market it will be able to do so without any liklihood of any upward pressure on interest rates. Our whole Budget strategy, therefore, will be directed towards trying to ensure that the private sector of Australia can grow even more strongly. Finally, I say that in the period that we have been in office we have seen a growth in the private sector profitability and we are moving back towards a situation in which the profit share is resuming the sorts of proportions that it had at the beginning of the 1970s. Mr PORTER —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his denial on 4 May that he had received a telex from the Western Australian Premier and to his subsequent admission that he did receive the telex. Did the Prime Minister deliberately mislead the House because the telex expressed Mr Burke's opposition to the Federal Government's intervention in Aboriginal issues? In particular, did the telex criticise the proposed sacred sites legislation and the handling of the issue by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs? Mr HAWKE —The Thredbo sojourn does not seem to have done anything for the quality - Mr Rocher —Semantics will not save you this time. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Curtin will cease interjecting. Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, you will recall that, during the Question Time referred to , I came and indicated to you that I had recalled that the answer that I had given did not accurately reflect the facts. I came and told you that and immediately informed the House that I wanted to correct the answer which I had given which, you will recall, Mr Speaker, was in terms of saying 'as far as I recollect'. Within the same Question Time I indicated to the House what the position actually was. Let me make it clear that I have had further communication with the Premier of Western Australia and I am pleased to say that as a result of the further communication that I have had with him and duscussions that have been held by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs with colleagues in Western Australia there is now, as I understand it, an ad idem position on this which will be reflected in the second reading speech which will be made on this matter by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr KENT —I direct my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. Can the Attorney-General, while checking what is wrong with his phone, ascertain from the Director-General of the Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation-they are listening, Big Brother-whether my telephones in my electorate office, at home or in my Parliament House office are tapped? As I have reason to believe that my phone has been tapped, at least intermittently in the past and probably continuously at present, will the Attorney-General order ASIO to remove the bug? Finally, does the Attorney intend to outlaw telephone tapping in future? Mr DUFFY —There was an implication in the question that something was wrong with the Attorney-General's telephone. I have no knowledge of that matter. In respect of the other matter raised by the honourable member for Hotham, as he is probably aware, there are only two reasons why his phone or anyone else's phone would be tapped. It is highly unlikely that either of those would apply to the honourable member for Hotham. I suggest that he write to the Attorney-general if he has that concern. In the meantime I will refer his question to the Attorney- General. Mr PORTER —I ask the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs whether he has received a letter from the Australian Mining Industry Council regarding the proposed Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage Bill 1984? Did AMIC state first that the time allowed for any mature consideration of the draft legislation had been entirely inadequate? Did AMIC state secondly that it considers 'this exercise to be a classic example of the problems caused by exclusion from the drafting process of parties potentially affected by draft legislation'? Thirdly, did AMIC request that the Government not 'proceed with this hastily compiled and inadequately considered legislation, but to allow time for full consideration of its suitability and possible repercussions'? Was the mining industry given only three days in which to consider this legislation? If so, how does the Minister justify this lack of consultation? Mr HOLDING —I did receive a communication from AMIC. The period it had for consultation was considerably longer than three days. Mr Porter —It was given the Bill on Monday night and had to report by Friday. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Mr HOLDING —Did the honourable member mislead the House when, knowing that, he said that AMIC had only three days? I cannot count; I am sorry. AMIC has made clear how pleased it is that this is the first occasion in respect of any legislation of this kind on which it has been consulted by a Federal government. It never occurred in the past and AMIC is pleased indeed with this initiative. Opposition members interjecting- Mr HOLDING —The Thredbo refuge did not do honourable members opposite much good, really. It must have been the only conservative enclave in history dedicated to producing one single thought, and it got it. According to the honourable member for Higgins, the road is crook. It is not as crook as the state of his Party, I might say. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should return to the answer to the question. Mr HOLDING —As I pointed out to AMIC, the fact is that it has been consulted. Its views are being sought and it has a great deal more time because this is emergency legislation designed to give the Commonwealth constitutional standing in an area which has always been a problem to the Commonwealth Government and about which honourable members opposite, when they had the opportunity to do something, did not have the guts to do anything. That is a fact. I find it extraordinary that the highly paid executives of mining companies, who are trained to make large and important decisions, find that they need a great deal more time to make a decison about interim emergency legislation containing a sunset clause than do the Aboriginal people of Australia. That is the reality. Mr Porter —But they want to talk to the States; you do not. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I will not ask the honourable member for Barker to cease interjecting again. Mr HOLDING —In conclusion, the record shows that the mining industry has had more consultation from this Government than it has received in the past. That is acknowledged. Secondly, this Government will continue the process of conferring with the mining industry. Finally, the honourable gentleman will have plenty of time in which to put all these views when the Bill is introduced into the House. Mr Allan Morris proceeding to address a question to the Prime Minister- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's question is out of order. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Despite the Government's blatant attempts to avoid all the hard decisions before its premature election, will the Prime Minister at least guarantee the elderly of our country that a decision will be made on the details of the Government's proposed assets test within two months of receiving the panel's report? Mr HAWKE —The Government is very gratified that it received the positive response of a very representative cross-section of Australian citizens to advise us on the question of the concept of the assets test; a principle, of course, as I have pointed out to the House before, which has been embraced in this place by the Leader of the Opposition. When we receive that report it will be considered promptly and we will move with expedition to give effect to the principle, from which we have not deviated. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. What is the effectiveness of the steel plan and what are its implications for domestic and export sales of steel and iron? Mr HAWKE —The people of Australia have very good memories and they recall that just over a year ago the country was faced with the prospect of the disappearance of the steel industry from this country because of the application of the Opposition's disastrous economic policies. We said to the people of this country in the last election campaign that we would not allow the steel industry to disappear, that within a short period we would devise a plan, in consultation with elements of the industry, to restore the Australian industry to a position of viability, competitiveness and profitability. Within a very short period, after consultation with the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and the unions concerned, we came up with a steel industry plan which has produced precisely that result. We now have in this country what we should have, a steel industry which is viable and competitive; it has returned to a position of considerable profitability. It was a matter of considerable pleasure to me when visiting the Newcastle electorate and the steel plant there to be told directly by management and by workers just how effective the steel plan was, not merely on the evidence of the profitability of the interest that I have referred to already, but also in terms of the greatly improved industrial relations and the co-operative spirit which now operate in the industry. That is what this Government has produced, as distinct from the production of those opposite, which was virtually the disappearance of the steel industry in this country. Mr HOWARD —I preface my question to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations by referring to the Government's blatant and consistent attempts to avoid hard electoral decisions before its premature election. Can the honourable gentleman inform the House when he proposes to introduce the repeal of section 45D of the Trade Practices Act, which will incidentally remove the only effective sanction protecting small business against predatory trade union conduct? Mr WILLIS —As I have previously informed the House, the Government issued a discussion paper in relation to this matter some months ago. We invited comment from interested parties around Australia, including even the Opposition, to that paper by 4 May. That date has now passed. We will now consider the submissions which we have received and give effect to our final decision as to what we should do in relation to the Trade Practices Act and its application to trade unions. In respect of the abolition or repeal of section 45D and E the Government made it clear in the discussion paper that it intends to repeal those two sections of the Trade Practices Act. Mr Howard —When? Mr WILLIS —If the honourable member will just be patient he will hear. It did so because it believed that those sections were not conducive to good industrial relations in this country. They were introduced by the previous Government as part of its confrontationist approach to industrial relations, which was shown to be quite disastrous and which we have repudiated. It was also made clear in the discussion paper that if there was an abolition of sections 45D and E, there would most certainly be a replacement in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act so a vacuum would not be created in relation to dealing with secondary boycotts. The situation is, of course, that if no procedures are specially put into the Conciliation and Arbitration Act to deal with the 45D and 45E situation-that is a secondary boycott situation-a vacuum would be created. In that kind of dispute , there would be no place to take it. That, we believe, would be unfair and unreasonable, and therefore it is proposed that such procedures would be put in place in the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The questioner asked when all this would be done. The timetable which has been set out by the Government-having considered the comments of interested parties in relation to the discussion paper and to the draft amendments to the Trade Practices Act as a whole, which go way beyond the application to the trade union movement-is that we will give effect to our views in the Budget session of parliament, and that remains the case. Mr GEAR —Has the attention of the Acting Minister for Health been drawn to a claim made on the weekend by Sir James Black that Australia has a future in the design of drugs. Can the Minister inform the House of any moves the Government has made since coming to office to facilitate this concept? Mr BARRY JONES —I am aware of the statement of Sir James Black. I have not read the full text of his remarks but only the article in the Age this morning. I am sure that he is correct. At the turn of the century Australia was exporting pharmaceuticals throughout the world. In the early 1940s, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories was one of the first large scale producers of penicillin. Since then the commanding position that we once held in the world in the pharmaceutical industry has disappeared, with just a few notable exceptions, of which F. H. Faulding and Co. Ltd in South Australia stands out. We have an excellent record in research in pharmaceuticals but this area, like many others, is overwhelmingly dominated in this country by multinational firms. Most of their research is done at head office. In Australia they have largely packaging and selling operations. The problem in Australia is not research per se where, as I said earlier, we have an excellent record; it is that we have a poor record in development. I have been saying lately that instead of talking just about R and D we ought to talk about R, D, Q and M-'research, development, quality-control and marketing'. We have a very poor record indeed in the last three. The problem is that enormous expense is involved in getting- Mr Shipton —When will you do something about this? Mr BARRY JONES —It is partly a matter of the failure of the honourable member's Government over seven years. It destroyed the capacity of our manufacturing sector to be able to innovate, to look out, and to penetrate world markets. Our current position in secondary industry is due to seven years of Fraser neglect. We have to turn that round very quickly. But to get products and put them on the market, we must think in terms of tens of millions of dollars per product to run appropriately rigourous safety tests, and get them accepted in the world markets . It is one thing to produce a great run of products; it is another thing to place- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would remind the Minister to use the microphone. It makes things easier. Mr BARRY JONES —But my words reverberate around the nation all the same. We also have the problem of 'scaling up' to be able to produce products on a large enough volume, assuming that they pass the quality test. The Government is well aware of the problem. I have discussed it with my colleague the Minister for Health. A report has recently been prepared specifically on the drug industry by some Australian academics, arguing that it is economically viable for us to get moving in this area. I hope that we can do it. This is one of a whole number of initiatives that we are taking. We cannot just move in a single isolated area. We need a whole range of brain-based industries to be developed, and the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important. Mr HUNT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Despite the Government's blatant desire to avoid all the hard decisions before the planned premature election, will the Prime Minister guarantee that the Government will make a decision on its final uranium policy before that election? Mr HAWKE —Clearly, it has emerged from the weekend that there has to be some approach on the part of the Opposition about frankness before an election. I would have thought that if there were one group of people in the history of this country that is not well placed to talk about frankness before an election, it is that mob on the other side. Never in the history of this country has there been such a massive deception as the people on the other side of the House practised-the $3.6 billion worth of deception. I cannot use any stronger language because the Speaker will not let me and I am very much in agreement with the Speaker. I cannot use any stronger and more accurate language to describe the historical deception that the people on the other side practised on the Australian electorate before the last election. Mr Speaker, we will be quite straightforward as distinct from those people on the other side. As we have been straightforward since the day we were elected and have been judged by the electorate accordingly and so has the Opposition been judged, we will continue in that frame and the electorate will make the same sort of judgment when we go to it as it is obviously making at the present time. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Resources and Energy on Maralinga Weapons Tests. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Shipton) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Home Affairs and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980, I present the Museum of Australia annual report for 1982-83. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has sought my indulgence to correct a figure in an answer he gave during Question Time. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. During the early part of my reply to the first question I took today I inadvertently said that an amount of #50 sterling in 1980 was the extent of subsidy by the Commonwealth Government to the person concerned. It was, in fact, the other way around. That is, the person concerned is required to pay a small fraction-that is, #50 sterling, of the cost of his flight to Australia. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrrepresented? Mr MacKELLAR —Yes, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr MacKELLAR —On two occasions during the adjournment debate the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) mentioned my name in connection with a Dr Neuman and some organisation calling itself the Order of the White Cross. I make it clear to the House without replying to the quite unsubstantiated claims of treason, et cetera, that the gentleman- Mr SPEAKER —Of course, I will only allow the honourable member to correct where he has been misrepresented. Mr MacKELLAR —I point out to the House that Dr Neuman came to me as a constituent of mine. I represented his case to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West). I once saw the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in relation to this matter. At all times I understood the terms of entry to Australia to be a decision of the Minister of the day. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, so that honourable members of the House will be aware, I wonder whether you will advise us of the nature of the broadcasting arrangements this afternoon. It has been the practice for the Senate to be broadcast on a Monday of the second sitting week. I understand that that is not so today. Will you advise us of the arrangements so that honourable members and the people will know what is happening. Mr SPEAKER —I will check that immediately. I am not certain whether the motion that was passed by the last Joint Standing Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings carries for today. I will get advice immediately and advise the House. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence to have some clarification made about the statement you made earlier today. Mr SPEAKER —I will grant indulgence to you. Mr CADMAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, you may be aware that last Friday I was involved in presenting the documentation of the use of certain words by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). On previous occasions I have been prevented from using the word 'hypocrisy'. That process was applied to me completely and without variation by all Deputy Speakers and by all Chairmen. However, during the same period the Prime Minister used words that I regard as being far more seriously unparliamentary than the words that I used. In fact, over a six-month period the Prime Minister used the words you have objected to today 27 times. Mr Groom —How many? Mr CADMAN —Twenty-seven times in six months. Mr SPEAKER —In granting indulgence to the honourable member I thought he would raise a query about many of the statements that I made. I cannot allow this to develop into a debate about what any honourable member has done. Mr CADMAN —That is not my intention, Mr Speaker. I feel that in these circumstances I have been disadvantaged as a member of the House because the rulings have been applied unevenly. I want some indication from you that the rules will be applied evenly by you, by Deputy Speakers and by Chairmen of Committees so that the words that were used by the Prime Minister on 10 March 1981 at page 615 of Hansard to the then honourable member for Lowe (Sir William McMahon) will not be repeated. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I invite the honourable member to complete his questions. I granted him indulgence because I believed he seriously wanted to raise questions . He has raised some serious questions but he has skirted the indulgence by seeking to debate the matter. Mr CADMAN —My final point is to ask for a decision regarding the quoting of Hansard. If I were to quote the Prime Minister's words I could skirt around your ruling without any trouble whatsoever. I invite honourable members on this side to do so unless we get some fairness in this situation. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Mitchell has raised a number of matters which have been of some concern to me. That is why I made this statement today. I think it is well known that I have applied fairly rigid rules relating to the withdrawal of the word 'hypocrite' to the extent that a member of the Government side actually placed a notice of motion on the Notice Paper that that word should not be regarded as unparliamentary by the House. I think a number of these terms, amongst other things, should be discussed by the Standing Orders Committee for guidance as to what the House sees the norm should be. I think one is in a difficult position in deciding about the quoting of material from Hansard and newspapers because the honourable member would not be making a statement, he would be quoting. In referring to offensive or disorderly words in the statement, I suggested that a determination has to be made by the Chair and that the Chair's judgment would depend on the nature of the word and the context in which it is used. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-The history of the Middle East contains a running commentary of conflict. The paradox of the centuries has been that while this region was one of the cradles of civilisation it has been host much longer to bitter and protracted battles among its own tribes and nations; victim of conquest and occupation by outside powers; a timeless backdrop of conflict between them and revolts against them. Few generations have know peace and too many of today's generation sow and reap in this grim, familiar fashion. Lebanon is being dismembered; Israel is deeply troubled; the Palestinian people remain dispossessed, permanent casualties of the regions most intractable dispute; Syria contrives regional successes but achieves uncertain influence; Iraq reportedly poisons the battlefield with chemical weapons and Iran reputedly litters it with the violently wrecked bodies of unarmed children pressed into service as human land mine decoys. These are deeply cultivated fields of human misery. The two super-powers have profound and varied interests there, but as often as not the course of events has been determined not by the super-powers but by their client states, for which narrow national interests are at all times uppermost. In such conditions peace is an elusive quality. Yet the late President Sadat had the courage and vision to capture it and Prime Minister Begin the inspiration and the commitment to help him keep it. In the midst of such deadly regional conflict and distrust the peace concluded between Egypt and Israel in 1979 as a result of President Sadat's bold initiative 16 months earlier is the sort of event which sustains faith in the cause of peace against he most hostile odds. Peace conquered 30 years of hostility and suspicion and the aftermath of four wars-1948, 1956, 1967, 1973. Under the terms of the Peace Treaty, Israel's complete withdrawal from the Sinai, which it had occupied since 1967, and the return of that territory to Egypt, was conditional on the deployment of United Nations forces to monitor the implementation of security arrangements agreed on in the Peace Treaty. But, sadly, the United Nations was unable to provide a peacekeeping force for the Sinai. Israel, Egypt and the United States of America then agreed to the creation of a multinational force and observer group, MFO, outside the UN framework. In November 1981 the previous Government agreed to the commitment to this Force of a contingent of 99 military personnel and eight helicopters for the Rotary Wing Aviation Unit based at El Gorah for a period of two years. That period has now expired. The Australian Labor Party expressed major reservations about Australian participation in the MFO at the time it was initially mooted. The ALP's general preference is that the commitment of Australian troops overseas in any multinational military force should be under United Nations sponsorship. The ALP was concerned that a multinational force sponsored by a major power-in this case the United States-might come to be perceived as an extension of the foreign policy of that power and the participants as no more than client states of the major power. There was also some anxiousness at possible links between the MFO and the United States Rapid Deployment Force, particularly as some forces in the United States contingent to the MFO were drawn from an integral division of the Rapid Deployment Force. We were worried about the physical vulnerability of the MFO and feared that it might be sucked into the vortex of some sort of regional military conflict, with grave implications for international stability. The ALP also had serious reservations about the fact that while there had been progress on the Egypt-Israel settlement tracks of the Camp David process, the Palestinian issue-central to any settlement of the Arab-Israel dispute-which the Camp David Agreement also addressed, was stuck in a dead end and Israel provocatively continued its settlement program on the West Bank. Many Arab countries resentfully concluded that the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty represented a 'separate peace'. There was genuine apprehension that the security Israel gained on her southern border with Egypt according to the provisions of the peace settlement would enable her to redeploy her forces and take military action elsewhere with greater confidence. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 is sometimes invoked as justification of this view. In all of the circumstances it was proper for a new government to assess rigorously the genuinely held anxieties I have mentioned against practical experience of the peace settlement in the Sinai. It was accordingly that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) directed that I should visit the Middle East earlier this year. In particular I was directed that I should assess the role and effectiveness of the Sinai MFO and Australia's participation in it. As well as visiting the Australian contingent at El Gorah and talking with the then force Commander, General Bull-Hansen, I visited Egypt, Israel, Syria and Jordan where I held wide-ranging discussions. Regrettably, circumstances did not permit me to visit Lebanon as I had earlier intended. I now set out my general conclusions about the MFO's operation and our participation in it. First, I found that the MFO is performing its task effectively and has contributed to stability in an otherwise turbulent region. The peace between Egypt and Israel has by no means been flawless, and there are several outstanding border issues and currently a distinct lack of warmth in bilateral relations. Incontestably, however, both Egypt and Israel are committed to peace and have observed the Peace Treaty. The earlier fear of conflict which might draw in the MFO, has not materialised. There has not been a single breach of the ceasefire since the MFO began operations. Monitoring by the MFO of the Treaty arrangement in the various zones in the Sinai, I am assured, guarantees that neither party can launch a surprise attack on the other. Experience has shown that the MFO as a whole, and the Australian contingent in particular, has not been the subject of any direct threat. Egypt has clearly gained advantage as a result of the Peace Treaty. It has regained its territory and has gained significant economic benefit. It has been able to reallocate some of its military expenditure to civilian development. Significant elements of the armed forces are being used in development programs , for example, land reclamation, road and bridge building and housing construction. Efforts to achieve self-sufficiency in food production for the Army will eventually help to ease the demand for imports in Egypt and lessen the strain on Egypt's balance of payments. There is no doubt that the security established on Israel's southern border has given it greater confidence and enabled it to redeploy its forces in other areas . I am convinced, however, that it was not the-or even a-pre-condition for Israel's invasion of Lebanon. It is a dubious argument-one contrary to historical experience-that Israel would not have gone into Lebanon had there been no peace with Egypt. Israel has always had to maintain a state of readiness on all fronts and is still acknowledged as having this capability. In 1967, Israel fought a war on three fronts, and likewise, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon in 1978 took place in the absence of the MFO. Israeli military authorities made clear to me their belief that, if it was necessary to fight a war on all fronts concurrently to defend Israel, Israel had the capability to do so and do so successfully. I believe that to be true. It is clear that the opportunity for direct and early linkage between movement on the Egypt-Israel aspects of Camp David and on the Palestinian issue, if ever it did exist, has regrettably come and gone. It is, nevertheless, important to acknowledge that with the Egyptian-Israeli accord there has been a settlement of at least one aspect of a complex problem. For its part, Egypt has restored its relations with most of the Arabs in all but the formal sense and has been exploring possibilities for an initiative on the Palestinian issue exploring with France, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation Chairman Yasser Arafat. Egyptian leaders made the point to me that their peaceful relationship with Israel strengthened their position in this respect as it could open the way for negotiations on the Palestinian issue that would not otherwise be available to them. Although the United States makes a large contribution to the MFO both in manpower and financial terms, the MFO Commander, General Bull-Hansen of Norway, said emphatically that United States participation in the Force was not geared to training for an eventual rapid deployment force. He said that sort of role would require the functioning, and in particular the training, of an integrated assault unit. The United States military forces in the Sinai MFO did not meet- were not designed to meet-such criteria, he assured me. The Government remains firm in its support for the role of the United Nations in the maintenance of international peace and security including its peacekeeping function. It is a melancholy fact, however, that in some circumstances it may not be possible for a peacekeeping force to be formed under UN auspices. In these circumstances should the cause of peace be surrendered, as an article of faith, because an alternative, no matter how demonstrably acceptable to the principal parties and provenly workable, is doctrinally unacceptable? Egyptian leaders and the MFO Force Commander stressed the importance of maintaining the multinational character of the MFO, emphasising that Australia is regarded as an objective participant acceptable to both Egypt and Israel, and highly respected in the region. The governments of both Egypt and Israel expressed great satisfaction with Australia's participation in the MFO and commended the performance of the Australian contingent. They and the MFO Secretary-General have formally asked us to renew our commitment. As for the attitude of other Arab states, I should note that, since the establishment of the MFO, there have been no repercussions on our commercial or other relations arising from our participation. Nor were any adverse comments about our participation expressed to me in discussions in Amman and Damascus. I might add that in both capitals I initiated quite specific discussion on this matter and it was directly addressed by both sides to each discussion. The Australian Government does not see its participation in any peacekeeping operation as being open-ended. Reviews are clearly necessary from time to time to ensure that our participation is in fact necessary. In the case of the MFO, the Government would hope that the development of a relationship of mutual trust and confidence would, in due course, enable Egypt and Israel to sustain the peace between them without its presence. In the course of my discussions with the MFO, both with General Bull-Hansen in El Gorah and with the late Director-General Leamon R. Hunt in Rome last year, I investigated the posibility of the recruitment of other national forces to replace the Australian contingent. The advice I received was that it would take a minimum of 18 months to find, and conclude negotiations and related arrangements with, a suitable replacement. In these circumstances, the Government has agreed to a limited extension of the participation of the Australian contingent in the MFO for a maximum period of two years. The purpose of this extension is to maintain stability in the MFO's area of responsibility while a replacement is found. The precise timing of Australia's withdrawal within the two-year period will be the subject of further negotiation with the MFO. The Government has informed the MFO and the Governments of Israel, Egypt and the United States of its decision. I turn now to discuss briefly my impressions of the situation in the Middle East generally, focussing on three main areas of conflict-the Arab-Israel dispute, Lebanon and the Iran/Iraq war. Arab-Israel Dispute There was a hope that the example of the Camp David process in the Sinai of peaceful withdrawal from occupied territory though negotiation could be followed elsewhere, leading eventually to a comprehensive settlement of the Middle East dispute. As I mentioned earlier, there was also a hope that the other strand of the Camp David agreement-negotiations on Palestinian autonomy-would lead towards a comprehensive settlement of Israel's legitimate security concerns and her territorial rights as well as a settlement of the legitimate claims of the Palestinian people. Sadly, this was not happened and the chances of a settlement of the long- standing Arab-Israel dispute remain as elusive as ever. None of the peace proposals currently on the table are accepted by all sides as a basis for negotiation. President Reagan's initiative of September 1982, which raised hopes of starting a negotiating process, foundered because of the breakdown of efforts by King Hussein and PLO leader Yasser Arafat to reach a joint negotiation position on it and the Israeli Government's rejection of it. For most of last year the issue of the future of the West Bank and Gaza and the rights of the Palestinian people was submerged beneath the welter of preoccupation with the blood-drenched quagmire in Lebanon. Earlier this year, optimism was aroused by Jordanian and Egyptian efforts, supported by previously hard-line Iraq, to form an alliance of moderate Arabs and to include PLO chief Yassar Arafat, which would work out a plan for movement towards a negotiated settlement with Israel. This was dampened by the apparent reluctance of Arafat to take any early initiatives and more recently by King Hussein's expressed loss of confidence in the ability of the United States to act as a mediator to the Arab-Israel dispute because of what he declared to be its one-sided support for Israel. Thus prospects for any significant movement towards a settlement remain dim. The continued refusal of the PLO and Arab states other than Egypt to recognise explicitly Israel's right to exist is one major obstacle which continues to raise doubts in the minds of Israelis about the security of their country. Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and its refusal to recognise the rights of the Palestinian people is another obstacle, reinforcing Arab suspicions about Israel's intentions on the West Bank. In particular, the ideological conviction of some influential members of the Israeli Government that the West Bank is an integral part of 'Eretz Israel'-the biblical land of Israel-and the declared goal of increasing the Jewish population there from its present number of 25,000 to 30,000 to 100,000 in the next two to four years through its entitlement program has been discouraging for many influential Arab moderates. West Bank Palestinian leaders of a more pragmatic mould-for whom the settlement policy is an immediate and visual issue-have urged recognition of Israel and the opening of direct negotiations with Israel before the incorporation of the West Bank with Israel becomes so complete as to leave nothing to negotiate about. This view-which I heard put most convincing from several West Bank leaders during my visit-was expressed persuasively by Major Freij of Bethlehem on his recent visit to Australia. As a country distant from the Middle East it would be inappropriate for Australia to issue prescriptions for a solution to the Middle East dispute. Nevertheless, there are principles which guide our policy towards this dispute. Fundamental is our recognition of the need to achieve a just, comprehensive and lasting settlement; our commitment to the security of Israel and its right to live within secure and recognised boundaries, and our recognition of the central importance of the Palestinian issue for any settlement. The Government believes that there are a number of elements involved in achieving a settlement. The Arabs should follow Egypt's example and negotiate with Israel directly. They should extend formal recognition to the State of Israel. Israel, for its part, should withdraw from the occupied territories in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which Israel herself accepts. We must also recognise that the future of Israel cannot be considered without also considering the fate of the Palestinian people. The Australian Government acknowledges the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including their right, if they so choose, to independence and the possibility of their own independent state. While the Government maintains its refusal to recognise the PLO so long as it maintains its denial of Israel's right to exist, the Government also believes that, as the PLO represents a significant portion of the Palestinian people, it should be included in the process of seeking a comprehensive settlement. But its opportunity to engage productively in that process will be severely limited while it persists in denying Israel's right to exist. The Government calls on Israel to freeze its settlement program on the West Bank as it considers these settlements illegal and a significant obstacle to peace efforts. There is a tendency among Westerners, distant from the problem, to demand instant solutions. I am under no illusion that a solution to the Arab- Israel dispute can be attained quickly; there is no 'quick fix' in the Middle East. There are generations of fears and suspicions to be overcome. The only way progress has come in the past and will come in the future, is through a process of direct negotiations between the principal parties to the dispute and a willingness to compromise on all sides. My final observation on the Arab-Israel dispute is the need to involve all relevant parties in the peace process. Syria has demonstrated on more than one occasion that it can act as a spoiler of arrangements that exclude it. Syria wants a clear role in any comprehensive settlement-after all, part of its territory is in question- and all will seek to ensure that no moves on the Palestinian issue which do not have its concurrence are successful. So far, Syria has argued that an Arab strategic balance with Israel is a necessary precondition for negotiations that may lead to a settlement. Syria is sometimes characterised as simply an agent of the Soviet Union. This is an inaccurate perception, despite the unprecedented degree of Soviet involvement in Syria's defence program. Syria is a strong-willed state led by a Syrian nationalist who uses, much more than he allows himself to be used by, his state's superpower patron. President Assad manages this relationship on this basis in spite of the critical importance of Soviet support with military equipment, training and specialist skills. Lebanon Over the last year, the Lebanon crisis has overshadowed events in the Middle East and has been a major focus of American foreign policy. For all parties involved, except Syria, Lebanon has proved to be a tragedy. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was to be a quick and successful operation, designed to provide long term security for northern Israel, cauterize the PLO contagion in Lebanon and bolster a friendly government there. Few would believe that these aims have been achieved. The invasion has proved to be an engagement which has yielded no lasting dividend for Israel. Lebanon collapsed into continuing civil war, the Gemayel Government eventually deferred to Syria, not Israel, and Yasser Arafat remains the leader of the PLO. For Israel with its army mired in southern Lebanon, the cost in human lives lost in conflict has been high. In comparative terms, Israel has lost lives at the front at five times the rate per annum at which United States troops were killed in action in Vietnam. The harrowing and troubling impact that experience makes on a society like that of Israel which deeply cares about its people takes little imagining. The United States unsuccessfully sought an honourable peace. Tragically, Lebanon has had no peace to offer. Confessional differences were inflamed as the country balkanised itself along age old lines of religious hostilities. The best that one can forecast at this stage is that the prospects for a lasting settlement are uncertain. What one can say with certainty is that just as it would be a tragedy to witness Lebanon permanently partitioned according to confessional lines, the cause of national reconciliation will not be well served by demands for power sharing according to demographic claims based on outmoded and irrelevant facts. Syria emerged as a clear winner-at least in the short term -witnessing the abrogation of the Israel-Lebanon agreement, the withdrawal of the MNF, and a dominant role in Lebanon. However, Syria has yet to show it can produce a long term solution for the problem of Lebanon. The Australian Government deplores the continuation of conflict and division within Lebanon. We continue to urge the withdrawal of foreign forces and the return of sanity and order. We call on the various militias to lay down their arms and enter into negotiations so that the independence, sovereignty and unity of Lebanon may be re-established. Iran-Iraq War There is a matter of equal concern in the Middle East; that is, the Iran-Iraq war. Australia has important commercial relationships with both Iran and Iraq. Iran displays remarkable resilience in spite of the strains of revolution and now of war. Iraq had undertaken conscientious efforts to modernise its society. Both are ground down and denied the opportunity of achieving many of their domestic goals, because of the burden of prolonged and bitter conflict between them. The Iran-Iraq war drags on into its fourth year with little prospect of resolution or of a decisive victory by either party. Despite the efforts of international mediators, Iran has continued to insist on preconditions to negotiations which include not only the return of all territory it has lost, but also the trail of Saddam Hussein as a war criminal and payment of massive reparations. Iraq has agreed to resolve its differences with Iran peacefully, but rejects Iran's preconditions. The debilitating economic effects of the war and a desire to generate increased international pressure on Iran to find a settlement have led Iraq to threaten to destroy Iranian export facilities and shipping carrying Iranian oil in the Gulf. In response, Iranian spokesmen have threatened to stop all oil exports from the Gulf if their infrastructure is substantially destroyed. Iraq has the capacity to disrupt seriously, if not cut off altogether, Iran's oil exports, almost all of which are shipped from Kharg Island. In the absence of signs of imminent military and economic collapse in Iraq it seems unlikely at present that it will run the considerable risk of military escalation that a concerted attack on Kharg Island would bring. Iran, for its part, seems unlikely to try to close the Straits of Hormuz unless Iraq stops all Iran's oil exports first. Even then, the technical difficulty of closing the Straits and the certainty of a vigorous United States military response make it unlikely that Iran would sustain this action for any length of time. The Government has examined the implications of a temporary closure of the Straits of Hormuz for Australia's oil supply and concluded that our energy supplies would not be seriously affected if the Strait was closed for a short time. The Australian Government is appalled by the great loss of life and human suffering which have resulted from this prolonged conflict. We reiterate our calls to both parties to agree upon a ceasefire and to start negotiations to resolve their differences. The Super-powers Intruding into this complex of regional problems and tensions which I have described is rivalry between the super-powers. For both the United States and the Soviet Union, the Middle East has long been a focus of attention. The United States is compelled by strategic interests including the Western reliance on Gulf oil as well as localised but influential domestic pressures to maintain a close interest in developments in the Middle East. Because of the geographical proximity of the region, the Soviet Union regards the Middle East as an area of security importance. It sees the region as fertile ground for fostering anti- Western regimes and movements. As a super-power, the Soviet Union also considers that it has a role to play in the resolution of major problems in the region. Many regional states consider that the super-powers look at the region primarily in terms of East-West competition and have criticised this attitude. Both super-powers have clients in the region but as I mentioned earlier, in many situations they have proved unable to control those clients or to control events in the region generally. Hitherto the United States has been the major external power able to influence the course of events in the Middle East. Soviet attempts to gain influence in the region have met with particularly limited success. The Arab-Israel dispute provides the Soviet Union with its main point of leverage, though it also exposes the limits of Soviet power and influence. Syria has indicated that it does not see any negotiations towards a peace process taking place without the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and most Arab states now express support for Soviet participation. At present this does not appear to be a realistic proposition. Both Israel and the United States, major parties to any settlement, are opposed to Soviet involvement in negotiations, or to the convening of an international conference. If these circumstances were to change and the Soviet Union showed itself to be prepared to play a positive and constructive role in a settlement Australia could then see grounds for its involvement. The picture I have painted of the Middle East is a grim one. But there is another side. The Middle East is also a region of tremendous vigour. Traditional Arab monarchies have launched themselves into the twentieth century; Middle Eastern societies have met the challenge of modernity and have prospered; states have joined together in pursuit of common goals-the Gulf Co-operation Council is perhaps the most outstanding example. Seemingly intractable differences have been overcome, as evidenced in the Egypt-Israel peace settlement. A resolution of the conflicts I have described at present seems elusive. Solutions will not be found either easily or quickly. If they are to be produced , they will require moral courage, generosity of spirit and greatness of vision on all sides. Most of all they will require a willingness to talk and compromise . That represents a daunting list of qualities and conditions, difficult to mobilise in less hostile circumstances prevailing elsewhere-an extraordinarily difficult task in the circumstances that prevail in the Middle East. Over the years, Australia's interests in the region have developed. We have large and well-established communities of Middle East origin or connections in Australia. We have built strong commercial relationships with many Middle Eastern countries. Our involvement in various peacekeeping exercises in the region has raised our political profile. On my recent visit I found that Australia is generally respected and regarded as an impartial and sympathetic observer of events. As a middle ranking power, fairly remote from the region, we do not overestimate the role we can play in bringing about solutions to these conflicts. Within these limits, however, we will do what we can to encourage progress. I present the following paper: Middle East-Ministerial Statement, 7 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Warringah speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.42) —Few decisions in the last decade have been more momentous for peace in a troubled world than the Camp David Accords. They have their origins in the miraculous diplomacy of reconciliation between Egypt and Israel. Two historic antagonists had decided that the future for both their people lay in peace and the opportunity to rebuild their nations in security and friendship. For the Soviet Union, which had had expelled from Egypt some 17,000 military personnel in 1972, the peace process was a considerable reverse. The back of Soviet influence in the Middle East was broken. It was an influence which had thrived on conflict and war. It is not surprising that, to ensure the perpetuation of tension, the Soviet Union vetoed the Sinai proposal for a United Nations force to monitor the Sinai and to facilitate the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the demilitarisation of the region. Accordingly, in its place the United States organised a multinational contribution to keep the peace, and in this process Australia, under the Fraser Government, gave its leadership and participation. It is now the decision of this Labor Government to terminate the commitment, and it will do this at any stage in the next two years. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said in opposition, when he led the baying of the Australian Labor Party against the Fraser Government decision: I declare, very early, the attitude of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party on this matter. There should be no ambiguity about its declared position. On 27 May 1981, on a motion by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), seconded by the honourable member for Wills (Mr Hawke), and carried unanimously, the following resolution was endorsed: That it opposes Australian participation in any multinational peace-keeping force in the Sinai not under UN auspices.'' Despite the Foreign Minister's trip to the Middle East, it appears he has added reasons for not changing the Government's mind to renegue on Australia's commitment. Let us be quite plain about this. The Government's decision to terminate the Sinai commitment is a blow against peace. It is extraordinary that the arguments in the Minister's statement are in favour of keeping our commitment. It is a retrogressive decision, because it damages Australia's reputation as a nation which works for peace and is prepared to pay a price to maintain a process of peacekeeping. Israel and Egypt both want us to continue, but the Labor Government here is so weakened by its faction fighting it cannot support a contribution to peace. And worse, our efforts to argue the cause of settlement will be downgraded and discounted, because our words will no longer carry the conviction of action. That is the sad part. One at times could almost read the arguments the Minister presents as arguments for maintaining the commitment. But spurious motives are now at work in the Government's foreign policy, and these have been liberated by the faction fighting in the Government. The problem for the Government is that it has lost credibility in its own ranks. It now has difficulty in making a decision to overturn, even if only in part, a Labor conference resolution. A not very witty conversation-piece has someone making the now evident observation: 'Labor Party resolutions on foreign policy are more honoured in the breach than in the practice and implementation'. To which he receives the informed rejoinder: ' Thank goodness for that!' We have only to look at East Timor, aid to Vietnam and zones of peace. On the subject of peacekeeping in the Sinai, we find no reference or resolution on the Middle East, and have to look at the conference resolution on Lebanon. It reads: Considers that the action of the Begin Government in Lebanon underlines the wisdom of the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party in opposing the commitment of Australian forces to the Sinai Peace-keeping Force and calls for the withdrawal of these troops. Honourable members who have just listened to the Minister's speech will note that that proposition is now disowned by the Minister, who says: 'I am convinced that it was not then or ever a pre-condition for Israeli invasion of Lebanon. It is a dubious argument that Israel would not have gone into Lebanon had there been no peace with Egypt'. We must give marks to the Minister for honesty in that particular case. The Labor foreign policy resolution on this issue is unfortunately not the only dubious essay of the Party in foreign policy. We can see the political calculation: The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is not prepared to go to the electorate on the basis of not renewing for another two- year term. But he will withdraw the Force if the Government is returned to office. So we have the left wing of the Labor Party being asked to accept a small extension. It is clear it will do this, because it has won the basic strategic point. Australia should not be involved overseas in any association with United States plans-so says the left wing. That is the key point that it has won, and it is being given to it on a platter. The Prime Minister has put on a big show on being party to the Western strategic view. But in reality in this area his views count for very little in the Labor Party. The Hayden Centre Left faction and the Hawke faction in government both have to court the left wing, which understands foreign policy better than any of them. The Left wants results on the foreign policy front, and those results are aimed at breaking down Australia's co-operative relationship with the United States, the Association of South East Asian Nations and the West . 'The most anti-British government in Australia's history on immigration', says Geoffrey Blainey, a most careful historian. And there are more problems. The left wing is complaining it is underrepresented in the Ministry. It is reported the Prime Minister wants to bring in Mr Gerry Hand, whose foreign policy outlook is epitomised by the contribution he has made to ASEAN relations by supporting Vietnam in the following terms: The U.S. . . . . is practising its normal policy of isolating and undermining a country whose policies and attitudes it finds unacceptable. The ASIAN nations are supporting their own reactionary position which keeps workers in oppression, poverty and fear. Who can doubt that the Prime Minister is a weakened man? He has to shut out the Centre Left challenge of Hayden and Young, and if he is to do that he needs the Left. The Foreign Minister has to prove that he has more to offer the Left than the right wing of the Parliament-and so he treats with them. He put our foreign policy on the auction block in the Caucus struggle for power. When the Vietnamese Foreign Minister Mr Co Thach was here it is said our Foreign Minister went around the corridors humming Embraceable You because Co Thach's visit did him so much good with the Left. But where does it leave Australia? Unfortunately that is the key question. Firstly, it leaves Australia with a very muddled view of the world we live in and the issues at stake. In particular, it leaves Australia opting out of the task of peacekeeping in the Middle East, an area which holds the key to the economic viability of Japan and the Western world. Australia is inextricably part of the wider world. Foreign policy may not be grasped by many Australians in all its articulate detail, but there is alive in Australia an instinct which wants to see the Government contributing constructively to world problems. Matching that instinct is an attitude of realism which asks its leaders to work within the limited capacity of this nation to be effective in areas beyond our control and often intricate beyond our ready comprehension. So Australians will always support a government reaching out and accepting responsibility beyond its immediate region, providing that government can demonstrate a practical realism. Few areas of the world are more vital than the Middle East. The oil which feeds the economies of Japan and the West is a fundamental contributor to our economic wellbeing. Australia secures over 80 per cent of its oil imports from the Middle East. Australia's trade in the region has increased dramatically. Japan, in particular, is enormously dependent on Middle East oil, and we in turn, as the Government's disappointing performance in coal and meat negotiations demonstrates, are enormously dependent on Japanese economic performance. The Japanese, of course, as the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) found out early in the life of this Government, cannot contribute to peacekeeping in the Middle East, but Australia can do so. It is of interest to the Japanese that we participate in peacekeeping in the Middle East. The Minister prides himself on his attitude of independence, but it is clear we are all interdependent. Do we owe it to ourselves to be a constructive element in the Middle East balance? In a direct sense we may be becoming less dependent on Middle East oil but our dependence on other countries which are dependent on Middle East oil cannot be gainsaid. President Carter started out his administration by placing great emphasis on Iran. He was prepared to limit the American power movements in the Indian Ocean and explored in negotiation with the Russians a zone of peace. But he could get nowhere. Now there is a great conflagration in the Persian Gulf, with vast dangers for everyone. American presence in the Middle East is more than ever a vital factor for stability. It is this factor from which the Government wishes to dissociate itself and Australia. In 1973 President Sadat initiated the war with Israel, and Egypt siezed the East Bank of the Suez Canal. In 1977 a sub-committee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence produced some excellent insights into the situation in the Middle East. The Committee considered that President Sadat, who had expelled the Soviet Union from Egypt, came to believe that only America could exercise sufficient leverage for peace, and decided to bypass the Soviet Union in negotiation, thus opening the way for the restoration of United States influence in the Middle East. President Carter was able to build on this new factor in Egypt's approach to come to terms with Israel on the basis of a new relationship between Egypt, the United States and Israel. Australians responded to this great initiative of Sadat and Begin, and there can be no doubt that throughout Australia the sense of grief at President Sadat's assassination was very real indeed. What had happened between Egypt and Israel had exceeded everyone's wildest dreams. There can be no doubt that Australians wanted to honour that mood of peace which was built up, and I believe it is for this reason that Australians accepted the Sinai commitment. Peace between Israel and Egypt involved a price for both countries. The political price was quite high. The long-standing Arab campaign to refuse recognition to the state of Israel as a bargaining chip for Israeli concessions on Palestine, the Gaza Strip, Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, was slowed by Sadat's decision. The pressures on Egypt mounted. Efforts were made to remove Egypt from the non-aligned movement, of which she is a founding member. They failed. But efforts to shift the Arab League office from Cairo succeeded, and the Arab League moved to Tunisia. For the Israelis there came the big adjustment to pull back from the Sinai, and this involved dismantling the settlements in the Sinai. The problem was a vexatious one throughout Israel. But Israel carried out her commitment scrupulously. Equally Israel had now to come to rely on United States backing to a yet greater extent, and as well on the effectiveness of the machinery for implementing the agreement for a peacekeeping force in the Sinai. The United States efforts to secure United Nations involvement failed, and a multinational force was drawn together. In the search for a catalyst for Western support, Australia's decision was crucial. It drew in as a consequence contributions from Europe. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is understandable that Australians should feel hesitant about involvement in such a conflict-prone situation as the Middle East . Few areas of the world are more vital, but few are more complex. Many of us have noted the swift changes in alliances amongst some of the principal forces in the region. The Palestine Liberation Organisation is not a country but is itself built up from groups which will fight one another to the death. Jordan attacked the PLO in Jordan, killing great numbers. The surviors immediately sought refuge in the Lebanon. There they launched attacks on Israel. They were attacked at different times by the Israelis and the Syrians. One section of the PLO aligned with the Syrians to eliminate Yasser Arafat's forces. The United States intervened to assure the withdrawal of the Israelis, and found itself unable to stabilise a return to effective government, leaving the work of political reconstruction to negotiation between the Lebanese groups under the umbrella of the Syrians and the Saudis. The Syrians are supportive of Iran in the war against Iraq, whilst the Saudis support the Iraqis. So it is not surprising that many Australians seek answers to questions about our involvement in the Sinai. Clearly the general truth that the two great antagonists, Israel and Egypt, need to continue to work at the process of peace is not underestimated. The Government should be very careful about allowing us to slide away from the awareness that Australia can and does make a valuable contribution to the approach of both countries to the task of peace. The Sinai force is not working in the unpredictable dangers of a ceasefire situation. It is there consequent to a peace treaty which achieves much and not least symbolises much. Ancient enemies can make peace and both, assisted by a constructive diplomatic environment, can do much to perpetuate peace. That is the point: They can do much to continue and uphold peace. There is another more subtle reason for ensuring the effectiveness of the Sinai force. The Hon. Kim Beazley Senior, in his Sub-committee's report on the Middle East of 1977, emphasises that it is the moderate Arab view that Israel's search for secure borders which, as we know, was the argument for holding Sinai, can be compensated by 'Great Power-particularly American-security guarantees'. It is precisely this which we have in the Sinai. In other words, the idea of United States involvement in providing Israel with a secure border through effective peacekeeping is a compensation which Arabs must be prepared to offer where any significant loss of territory is involved. Hence the failure of a guarantee to Israel such as that offered by the Sinai force will put into place an irreversible destructive effect of a lack of confidence by Israel to a process of multilateral guarantee. Such a reversal will put all the weight on Israel for maintaining the security of her frontiers, and it contains the ingredients of a permanent erosion of the process of peace. It is this factor, so well enunciated by a former distinguished member of the Whitlam Government, that is now being put to one side in this decision. The negative effect of this decision has to be calculated against the background that the forthcoming Israeli elections will usher in a great debate, in fact a fundamental debate, on Israeli foreign policy. In the election debate, a great deal of attention will be given to the issue of Palestine. A key element in the credibility of those who seek a conciliatory approach will be the credibility of the United States and her friends as a guarantor of any negotiated settlement. How much can we trust the guarantee of the extenal powers ? That is the question that the Israeli people are and will be asking. The Sinai agreements and the performance of the international community in ensuring an effective system of demilitarisation will obviously be a test on which Israeli confidence will be consolidated. It is in that context that one must feel saddened by the way the Government has approached the matter. Instead of Australia becoming a factor of support and encouragement for further processes towards peaceful settlement, particularly the Palestine question, we act in a way to raise fundamental doubts about Western support for settlement processes. The Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee in its 1977 report correctly states that the opportunities for peace in the Middle East are those which are provided by a 'step-by-step' approach. The report states: The best prospects for avoiding war in the Middle East may result from a continuation of a 'step-by-step' approach but not necessarily on all fronts. There is little scope for Israeli concessions on the Golan Heights. It is not unreasonable, however, to expect an agreement between Israel and Jordan provided King Hussein and the Palestinians can come to an understanding on this matter. Such an agreement would have to take account of Israel's security needs and the realistic requirements of the Palestinians. Clearly, the next big hurdle for the peace process is Palestine. The Minister discounts the prospect of any further developments leading to a resolution. I think this is far too pessimistic. Political forces in Israel and in Egypt and Jordan are moving to try once again for a resolution on this problem. When the Israeli elections and the American presidential elections are over we may expect to see a new drive for a settlement. In March 1982 the then Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Tony Street, announced in Israel and Egypt an Australian position on Palestine. We in Opposition uphold this policy. Mr Street said: The return of the Sinai to Egyptian control must only be regarded as one step in this process of confidence building. For as I have already said if it is an essential truth that the only path for peace in the Middle East lies in accepting Israel's right to exist, it is equally true that the same path must traverse the reality of Palestinian aspirations. We will not recognise the PLO while it refuses to recognise Israel's right to exist. Such an act on their part would represent a major step towards the search for peace. It has long been Australian policy that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people include a homeland alongside Israel and they have a right to participate directly in decisions affecting their future. I believe this is a fair and realistic position. I would add that we see the present Israeli Government's settlement policy as an obstacle to negotiations. As I have indicated, this policy will undoubtedly be scrutinised in the times ahead. It is quite evident that there are grave problems, and this was mentioned in the Minister's speech, in the Lebanon. Lebanon's territorial integrity continues to be violated, and its return to national unity subject to enormous stresses and strains. But we must avoid compounding the problem by the gratuitous pessimism reflected in the Minister's speech. If we follow his example we will grossly underestimate the aspirations for independence and national unity that inspire all sections of the Lebanese people. It is nevertheless clear that the Middle East situation, although gloomy as it has been in the Lebanon and dangerous and depressing in the Gulf, does offer opportunities for peace on a step-by-step basis. Australia could have been part of that active process of ongoing discussion with Egypt and Israel. But, sadly, by this decision, we have now cast ourselves in the role of commentators where we could have been constructive and influential contributors to the peace process. The Government has blown the one opportunity it has had to demonstrate that its foreign policy was constructive and outward-looking. I believe the decision leaves it without credit in the international community. Debate (on motion by Mr Jacobi) adjourned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The House will recall that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised with Mr Speaker the question of the allocation of the broadcast today and Mr Speaker replied that he would report the position to the House. Mr Speaker has asked me to say that the decision of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings at its last meeting concerned the allocation of the broadcast during the two weeks of sittings before Easter. This week the standard arrangements are applying, namely, that the broadcast is allotted as follows: Monday-House Tuesday-House Wednesday-Senate Thursday-House Mr Speaker has, however, received a request from Mr President for an urgent meeting of the Broadcasting Committee to consider the broadcast allocation for the remainder of this week and, of course, Mr Speaker will facilitate that. Mr Speaker will keep the House informed of any change. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —by leave-In responding to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety on 'The Impact of Advertising Standards on Road Safety', it is important to note the relevance of the Committee's work and of its value to government. The Government has a strong commitment to the promotion of road safety throughout Australia and also takes a very active role in the work of the Australian Transport Advisory Council and its technical committees. Over the last year the Office of Road Safety in my Department has looked into a number of issues in relation to road safety-many of which were at my instigation. Let me give the House a few examples. The increasing use of light vans as passenger vehicles prompted my concern at the lesser standard of protection available to occupants of such vans. We have now established a program to improve safety standards for these vehicles to bring them closer in line with conventional passenger vehicles. Similarly, the Government has acted on reports of sub-standard automotive parts being offered for sale. New arrangements have been instituted by the establishment of a specialist panel under the auspices of the Australian Tranport Advisory Council to investigate complaints about defective parts and, if indicated, to ensure their prompt withdrawal from the market. Honourable members may also be aware of my efforts and those of the Office of Road Safey to encourage parents to fit child restraints in cars and to ensure that their children are firmly fastened whenever they travel. Truck safety has long been an important issue. Considerable effort is being made to investigate and remedy many problems associated with heavy vehicles, particularly those relating to vehicle design. Two key items currently the subject of innovation are rear-end conspicuousness and trailer braking, the latter being fundamental for the avoidance of that frequent occurrence, the jack -knife. The subject has also been included in the terms of reference being addressed by the national road freight industry inquiry established last year. The Office of Road Safety is also developing proposals to improve motorcycle and bicycyle safety. A major research project is under way which will lead to a promotion and education program in respect of child safety. A national road safety symposium, on the theme of road safety and the people, is planned for later this year. However, a major area of concern continues to be the involvement of alcohol in road crashes with indications that drugs, both licit and illicit, could also be a very serious problem. The Office of Road Safety research program, therefore, is giving priority to studies examining the effects of such drugs alone and in combination with alcohol. There is considerable concern about the use of marihuana and its possible effect on driving ability. However, we should be also concerned at the use of medications that affect the central nervous system- sedatives, sleeping tablets and some anti-histomines-as such medications can impair driving ability and be quite hazardous if mixed with alcohol. On the general question of drink driving, there is clear dvidence of the success of random breath testing and of other intensified enforcement measures. However, drink driving remains the single biggest killer on our roads and warrants continuing attention by all governments. There is also a continuing need for publicity to maintain social and community pressure on drivers to avoid drink driving situations. State governments have stepped up their efforts to change driver attitudes and to encouage drivers to separate the activities of drinking and driving. The Federal Government has added impetus to this public education campaign, an excellent example being the new commercials produced for radio and television, in conjunction with the States on a dollar for dollar basis, featuring the guardian angel. Costing $1m in total, this campaign urges drivers that if they plan to drink, they should plan not to drive, or of they plan to drive, they should plan not to drink too much. The Government supported the re-establishment of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety on 4 May last year and the Standing Committee resolved to inquire into advertising standards in July. In December 1983, the Standing Committee presented this report, to which the Government has given detailed consideration. The Government congratulates the Committee for its effort in assisting to reduce the national road toll. Reports of previous committees identified many of the adverse influences on driver behaviour and suggested practical countermeasures. The work of the current Committee, under the able leadership of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), is no exception. It has given particular emphasis to community attitudes on road safety and has made a special effort to ensure that the views of all authorities and interest groups have been taken into account. The Committee's report on advertising standards has considered in detail one of the many adverse influences on driver behaviour. An important aspect of the report is the finding that advertising can have an adverse effect on the driving behaviour of the audience, particularly young Australians. The Committee supports the continuation of self-regulation but was concerned that road safety is addressed in a piecemeal fashion over a number of existing codes. The Committee has therefore recommended the development of a comprehensive code relating to road safety for all sections of the media. The Government recognises the efforts of the media in the interests of road safety and would be pleased to assist in any improvements in relation to advertising. The Government believes that a road safety code can be developed on a consensus basis involving the Office of Road Safety, interested industry bodies and, as appropriate, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. If there is failure to agree on the contents of a road safety advertising code, the Government would need to consider recommending to the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal that it consider appropriate standards for application to the electronic media. However, I am confident that, with the goodwill and co- operation of all concerned, a satisfactory industry code can be agreed. Although the industry has expressed some concerns about the report, the Australian Media Council has already indicated a willingness to consider the development of a code. Monitoring and operational arrangements associated with a code would also be discussed with the industry, the Tribunal and the Advertising Standards Council. The report further recommends a marginal extension of the ban on television advertising of alcohol during the hours when the audience may be expected to include large numbers of young people. The Government recognises the broader social implications of excessive alcohol consumption but is most concerned that alcohol is still the predominant factor in road deaths. The proposed extension therefore appears to be reasonable and reflects the changed nature of the contemporary television audience. The appropriate way to implement the proposal is for the Government to ask the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take the Committee's recommendations into account in this review of advertising standards . The Government believes that the recommendations of the Committee represent a responsible attempt to reduce the adverse effects of advertising on driver behaviour through seeking improvements to existing arrangements. The recommendations of the Committee are supported by the Government and will be implemented as I have indicated. The proposed time scale for implementation will be followed where reasonably possible. On behalf of honourable members and the Government, I thank the Chairman and the members of the Standing Committee who are present in this chamber at the moment, for this report. As I have said, its contribution is a meaningful and relevant one, particularly in the context of the Government's own road safety priorities. In conclusion I commend the honourable member for Lilley for the enthusiasm that she has brought to the Committee's work and her deep personal commitment to saving lives and reducing injuries on our roads. Similarly I commend the members of the Committee. A number of them are new members of Parliament who came in at the election in March last year. I commend them for the purposeful way that they have carried out their duties in what is a most important public function. I commend the statement to the House. I present the following paper: Road Safety-Ministerial Statement, 7 May 1984. Motion (by Mr Hurford) proposed. That the House take note of the paper. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(4.14) —The Opposition also places a high priority on improvement in the safety standards on Australian roads. It commends the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety for the report which has been brought down. Australia has a well-deserved reputation as having one of the worst road safety records in the world. In 1983, 2,752 people were killed and a further 30,000 people were injured on Australian roads. The two major factors in accidents resulting in fatalities were alcohol and excessive speed. A further factor in fatal accidents was the high prevalence of head-on collisions between cars and heavy vehicles such as articulated trucks. Crucial to any success in reducing the road toll is co-operation between the Federal and State governments because both levels of government have legislative power in this area. The Opposition regards the best avenue for this co-operation as the Australian Transport Advisory Council. The aim of this co-operation should be to have both uniform road laws and uniform vehicle safety standards throughout Australia. The social and economic costs of Australia's road toll is too high for the situation to be ignored. The Opposition will not ignore it. The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety into the impact of advertising standards on road safety was initiated on 4 May 1983 and was completed in November. The three major recommendations of the report were: Firstly, that the Office of Road Safety, in conjuction with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and advertising industry representatives, develop a comprehensive advertising code relating to road safety; secondly, if there is a failure to agree on the contents of the code within six months, the code should be finalised by the Office of Road Safety and introduced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; and, thirdly, to extend the ban on alcohol advertisements between 6 a.m. and 8.30 a.m. to between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and from 4 p.m. and 7.30 p.m. to between 3.30 p.m. and 9 p.m. Monday to Saturday inclusive. The Advertising Federation of Australia has opposed the recommendations, claiming that the current system of industry self-regulation should be upheld. Australia's advertising industry has always been controlled by self-regulation. Through the Media Council of Australia, the industry has established a set of codes for advertising standards and controls. Through the Advertising Standards Council, the industry has established a committee to provide direct public access for complaints against offensive material as well as to enable public involvement in the amendments or the extension of the various self-regulation codes. The Opposition's approach is to support this form of industry self-regulation, particularly where it can be demonstrated to have worked effectively. The advertising industry is concerned about the extension of the ban on advertising alcohol on television. The report does not offer evidence linking alcohol advertising with road safety or drink driving that would justify such an extension. The Opposition believes that more justification is necessary. The Opposition's response to the first recommendations is that it supports consultations between the Office of Road Safety with the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and advertising industry representatives to develop a comprehensive advertising code relating to road safety. The second recommendation stated: If there is a failure to agree on the contents of the code within six months, then the code should be finalised by the Office of Road Safety, and introduced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The Opposition rejects that recommendation on the grounds that it is forcing a strict regulatory system on an industry that has demonstrated a recognition of its social responsibility. We also note that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) acknowledged that consensus will almost certainly be reached. On that basis the recommendation will probably not need to be considered. I hope that will be the way it will work out. I think the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) would also hope that that would be the way that would work out. Mrs Darling —Yes, certainly. That is what we are hoping for. Mr LUSHER —Right. The Opposition believes that the third recommendation relating to the ban on alcohol advertising should also be rejected. The Opposition would expect to be able to support the outcome of recommendation (i), which concerns the consultations, and believes that in the negotiations and consultations that take place that would be the appropriate place in which to consider the extension of the ban on advertising. The Opposition would not seek to influence or pre-empt the negotiation of the new code. The Minister said that the recommendation appears to be reasonable and he intends to ask the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal to take the recommendations into account in its review of advertising standards. I do not know that there is a great deal of difference between what the Minister is suggesting and what I am suggesting. I am saying that the appropriate place to consider the matter is in the consultations of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, the Office of Road Safety and the advertising industry representatives when they develop their comprehensive advertising code. We are not opposing the extension; all we are saying is that in the report there is not really a great deal, if any, justification given for linking the advertising of alcohol with road accidents. We are not saying that there is no link but, as far as the evidence that has been presented so far is concerned, there is certainly no direct linkage. We as an Opposition would take the view that even though we are not opposing the extension, the appropriate place for it to be considered is in the ABT, Road Safety Office and industry representatives' negotiations to develop a comprehensive advertising code. I think that broadly speaking we have a fairly bipartisan approach to this very important matter. I hope that that continues to be the case. Debate (on motion by Mrs Darling) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth; that Regulations and an Ordinance now before the Parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematograph Films) Regulations and supersede the A.C.T. Objectionable Publications Ordinance in such a manner as to be harmful to society by removing from existing Commonwealth law the power to prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography (e.g. X- rated videos) and publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs; the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy; the power to require imported video tapes/discs for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should disallow the new Regulations and Ordinance and ensure that the Attorney-General enforce existing laws; that Censors more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes; that further measures be taken in association with the States to protect Australians, particularly women and children, from exploitation; and that, because of the importance of this issue to society, a conscience vote be permitted to all Members of Parliament And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr,Mr Groom and Mr Newman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: 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; Entrench abortion funding and render liable to action Hospitals, Doctors and Nurses, who conscientiously refuse to become involved in morally objectionable operations; Deny to parents their rights to insist that the school ''community'' provide an environment condusive to the development, including moral development of their children. Deny to parents their rights to have their children enjoy single-sex sporting activities e.g., boys cricket team, boys football team, etc. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament assembled: should amend the Bill so as to prevent the possibility of its use in the manner stated above and urge, because of the importance to society of all principles involved, that a conscience vote on the Bill be permitted to all Members of Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie and Mr Morrison. 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 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 utilizing chiropratic 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. by Mr Drummond,Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty-two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action nor legislate in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dobie and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of the certain citizens respectfully showeth: That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and individuals attempting to obtain just compensation from these companies are disadvantaged by having to take legal action against multinational corporations. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. Appropriate legislation be formulated so that pharmaceutical companies are made automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products which will obviate the need for the adversary system in law. 2. Appropriate legislation be formulated to ensure open enquiry in cases of medical imcompetence or negligence leading to death or injury. 3. Appropriate legislation be formulated to allow relatives or ''next friends'' access to medical records in cases of injury or death resulting from medical incompetence or negligence. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament in Canberra assembled. The petition of certain citizens respectfully showeth- That currently pharmaceutical companies are not automatically liable for damage or death caused by their products and that there are no statistics kept to determine whether or not drugs administered prior to death subsequently contributed to that death. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray- 1. The recording of prescribed pre-death medication on all death certificates. 2. The collection and publication of relative statistics. 3. Mandatory reporting by doctors to the Australian Drug Evaluation Committee ( A.D.E.C.) or the Adverse Drug Reactions Advisory Committee (A.D.R.A.C.). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the right honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that- 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation 's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House that- (1) the Australian Swimming Union (A.S.U.) forced Murray Rose and Dawn Fraser out of swimming; (2) it appears that the A.S.U. has now set its sights on Michelle Ford, because the reason for her non-selection in the Australian Olympic Team was that she did not qualify at the Olympic trials, when neither did a selected member of the Olympic team; (3) given Michelle Ford's recent swimming performances, she obviously should be included in the Olympic team; and (4) the Commonwealth Government has made a heavy financial commitment to the Olympic Fund. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will urge the Government to intervene in the A.S.U. decision and take whatever steps may be necessary to have Michelle Ford included in the Australian Team for the Los Angeles Olympics. by Mr John Brown. 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: 1. That governments have a responsibility to maintain standards acceptable to society's wishes. 2. It cannot be guaranteed that X rated video material will not be viewed by children. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives should: Not adopt the X Classification for Films and Video Tapes, nor Category 2 for Printed Material. Further, that tighter restrictions be applied to R rated Films and Video Tapes and Category 1 Printed Material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. 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 Ms McHugh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain electors of the Division of Forrest respectfully showeth that the Australian Citizenship Act contains provision for the Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors, and an Affirmation of Allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth II Queen of Australia, her heirs and successors: That the said Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are supported by the overwhelming majority of Australians. Your petitioners humbly pray that members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled will ensure that the present Oath and Affirmation of Allegiance are retained; and would strongly oppose any attempt to remove all reference to God and the Queen from the Oath of Allegiance, and any attempt to remove all reference to the Queen from the Affirmation of Allegiance. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Victoria, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. Mr Groom-I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you that when petitions are read in the Parliament it is an important time. It is quite disgraceful that only two members of the Government were present when the petitions were read. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Rocher)-There is no point of order. by Mr Shipton. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: Mounting public concern over the harmful effects upon all sectors of the community of the Government's election-inspired inaction in the implementation of a legislative program. 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)(4.26) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr McVeigh —Where is the Prime Minister? Mr PEACOCK —We may well ask where he is. This debate is about the inaction of this Government, the Government which he heads. Yet he will not defend his record. It is not only further proof of the contempt of and for the Parliament that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has but it is also another example that unless his staff write the material for him he will not engage in debate in this place. Day after day in Question Time one does not get any sort of an answer unless one gets a six-page script read. If one does not get a six-page script read one simply gets the Prime Minister stroking his platitudes until he thinks they purr. Why is he not in here today defending the Government? It is further proof of his disinterest in the Parliament and the reality, I think, that he would find great difficulty in defending what we charge in this matter of public importance. It is a matter of grave concern that after more than a year in office the Labor Government has filled one of the largest too-hard baskets in Australian political history. Mr Hurford —Who wrote that? Mr PEACOCK —I did. The Minister for Housing and Construction cannot write his own speeches. He should take his hands out of his pockets and contribute. Day by day the list of indecision has mounted to the detriment of this nation. The Government has shown no courage. It has shown no intestinal fortitude to take the lead on a range of vital issues. Towards the end of Question Time today it was easy for members of the Opposition to get up and ask: 'Bearing in mind the fact that there is to be an election why does the Government not take the hard decisions-an assets test, a capital gains tax and death duties?'. We know that they are all down the line if the Government is re-elected. But it will not be re-elected. The Government has shown it has no guts. It has sought to freeze out the issues that it alleged would come in. The reason for much of that is not only the public contempt for many of the Government's policies but also that the Prime Minister is paranoid that if he gets his uranium policy through at the July conference he will have to do a deal with the Left, those men of great honour who wear their principles on their sleeves. He will have to indicate to them that if the Government is re-elected they will get what they want-a capital gains tax, death duties, gift duties and the like. The men of principle will buy this for 30 pieces of other persons' silver to keep their seats in the Parliament. They may make the wrong judgment on that too. To encapsulate it in a contemporary phrase, Labor has pushed the freeze frame button on government. As the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party indicated at the weekend, Australians can expect more drift and more delay. Is it any wonder that Mr McMullan fears a backlash at Labor's July conference? The fact is that after so much talk of reform and action the Hawke Government has very little to show for 14 months in office. The only sustained effort which this Government has made is that of falsely claiming credit for a selective upturn in economic activity. Its claims on that matter simply do not square with the facts. The Prime Minister had nothing to do with the United States-lead upturn. He had nothing to do with the breaking of the drought or the wages pause . Mr Howard —He opposed it. Mr PEACOCK —He absolutely opposed it. That has been a major contributing factor to the recovery. This is not a government of initiative; it is one of foot- dragging resistance. The nation is certainly becoming the worse for it. On the first anniversary of coming to office the Prime Minister made repeated claims that he had delivered on the great majority of his election promises. He attempted to disguise his Ministry's inaction with the rhetoric of action. But what is the reality? Separating image from reality with this Government is a very easy task. The fact is that there is no reality with this Government; there is only endless criss-crossing of the continent, and indeed the globe, in search of the next media grab-the glad-handing, the back slapping and the dining out on the achievements of others. No doubt, with the Olympic Games coming up, we will have the 707 ready for him to be photographed with someone else-the same 707 that the Labor Party promised to sell when it came into government. The absolute obsession with mere image is all consuming with the current occupant of the prime ministership. It is not government by consensus; it is government by deferral. The list is long and is growing. Let us look briefly at Labor's too hard basket. First, there were the changes to lump sum superannuation tax. How long have we been waiting for this-a year? Was it the May mini-Budget? It is nearly a year since it was first announced and Australians have yet to see the legislation. Now the Government is excusing its tardiness by saying that legislative difficulties have forced the delay. Next, we had the assets test on pensions. We are told that it is coming-like Christmas it is coming. But in what form, of what type and when, we do not know. So the concerns and the anxiety of the elderly are exacerbated week by week. After mounting public disquite, that was put on the back burner but we have had it confirmed that it is coming, but we do not know when. We all know that the Prime Minister prides himself on his record of fairness and equity-usually someone else's equity, frankly, as in the case of his commercial failures in the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Yet after six solid months of public disquiet and the calls by the Opposition about the assets test- the so-called fair and equitable assets test-it was again put on the back burner. At the other end of the age spectrum, the future of our children's education remains absolutely unsettled. There has been a roar of silence since the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) received the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission. What is this Government's policy on school funding? Nobody knows. Families contemplating making the financial sacrifice of sending their children to non-government schools have absolutely no certainty about whether this Government will pull out all funding to non-government schools. They cannot plan with certainty. No matter whether one is young, old or in-between, Labor is leaving us in the lurch and the nation is being stampeded, if you like, by the Hawke Government's galloping inertia. There was the much vaunted prices and incomes accord, the cornerstone of short term political expediency, and the loss of industrial competitiveness in the long term. In just six months it has resulted in over $12 billion of additional costs to employers and kept thousands of Australians on the dole. Although the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and representatives of the ACTU have expressed a willingness to renegotiate the accord, nothing is happening. Like the assets test on pensions, the Government has waved around its intended changes to the Trade Practices Act. The amendments of the Attorney-General ( Senator Gareth Evans), which place further onerous restrictions, as the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) indicated in his question today, on companies would also remove the anti-secondary boycott provisions. When the private sector response was strongly critical, the Attorney-General folded his tents and disappeared up the too hard tunnel, clutching his amendments. Even strong ACTU pressure cannot get the Hawke Government to act yet. But the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) says today that it may be coming in the Budget period. We will wait and see what happens during the Budget period. There is the curious case of the capital gains tax and Federal death duties. The twisting and turning on these makes for an interesting case study of how this Government operates. It has been promoted in an episodic fashion by nearly everyone in the Government's ranks calling for a capital gains tax, including the Prime Minister in that most inappropriate forum of a breakfast in Singapore. We have had Iraqi breakfasts; I do not say that the same occurred in Singapore, but the end result is that people will get different food and a different tax- this time a capital gains tax on individuals. It has been on; it has been off; it has been yes; it has been no. It reflects the schizoid-- Mr Howard —Mick wants it. Mr PEACOCK —Mick has called for it and the Prime Minster endorsed it in Singapore. Frankly, it reflects the schizoid mental map which is the trademark of this Government and indeed of the Prime Minister. There is also the human rights Bill which Labor so warmly supported in opposition but now that it is in government it has been put on indefinite hold. Industry is still waiting to hear from the Prime Minister and his quiescent Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) about the much heralded restructuring plans. Again, there has been a lot of noise but not action. Where is the plan for the Australian automobile industry? What has happened to the pronouncements of the Prime Minister, again made overseas, in February? Last week the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) was asked when he would bring in his uniform land rights legislation. He did not answer the question. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister evaded criticisms from the Labor Premier of Western Australia of Canberra's meddling in the affairs of that State. No amount of nonsense and waffle from the Prime Minister will put that one aside. The fact that there is a strong ground swell of rejection of Labor's antagonistic approach to the mining industry and to the States has resulted in the Government's screeching to a halt on yet another major decision. In a similar fashion the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has suddenly run out of steam on the issue of entry of foreign banks into Australia. He has spun out the on- off debate on this issue for months. Could it be that the resistance of certain factions within his own party and outside of it has consigned this decision to suspended animation? These deferrals alone amount to a massive dereliction of duty on the part of the Hawke Government. The procrastination is irresponsible and it is dangerous. Despite the Government's unjustified self-congratulation on increased activity in some areas of the economy, the hard fact is that the 1984-85 financial year will be a watershed for the Australian economy. If we are to broaden and strengthen the patchy recovery and employ those hundreds of thousands of unemployed, courageous economic decisions have to be made now. Yet in the current climate of general uncertainty about the intentions of the Government on such issues as the future of the accord and industry restructuring, is it any wonder that there is a virtual investment strike on fixed capital expenditure? Mr Howard —The worst in ten years. Mr PEACOCK —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects 'the worst in ten years'. It is the worst by far-an absolute investment strike. The Prime Minister was recently braying to several gatherings that the Government had created the conditions for increased capital investment for the private sector. It is fair to ask this do-nothing Government: What action has created a climate for capital investment? The answer is none. The fact is that investors are awaiting major decisions by the Government on crucial issues such as wages and restructuring. But those decisions will not be made because it is not a priority with the Prime Minister. His priorities are those of what we could call the 'triple E'-ego, evasion and election. Nowhere does decision-making get a mention. It is the ego of a man who was a 10-year failure as leader of the ACTU. That is not just my statement. I will read what a previous Leader, the current Ambassador to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, said about him. He said on 20 December 1979 on the PM program: I would think that any person who is the head or spokesman for a great political or industrial movement would be able to show something for ten years effort. Because you lead a great organisation, like the trade union movement in Australia or the Australian Labor Party, not for what publicity or prestige or power it may give you as an individual. You lead because you accept the obligation to carry out its objectives. What a condemnation of the current Prime Minister. The words were spoken by former Prime Minister Whitlam of the current Prime Minister. He fingered the essence of this man's monstrous ego in that very interview. This Prime Minister will go to any lengths to feed that ego, and that includes sacrificing the national interest. He has done it in Japan and in China, on beef and steel, and he continues to do it by evading the hard decision. Of course, the third E is 'election'. This Government spends its time plotting an early election. As with the capital gains tax and death duties, a procession of Labor Ministers has done the spade work on a premature election. Of course, the Prime Minister sold his policy of inertia to his Caucus comrades on the ground that they will show their true hand after an election, should they succeed. Well, they will not. The Hawke Government, less a few of its ministerial liabilities, will spring forth reborn after the next election, according to the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister's reformist socialist program will then be implemented. It just will not happen. The fundamental flaw in all this is that the Government will not make it. It has been shown up in all by-elections since the Australian Labor Party came to office that there is a fundamental flaw in the triple E strategy. Ego does not translate into votes. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Leader of the Opposition's time has expired. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.41) —Mr Deputy Speaker, one would have thought that after spending the last 48 hours all cuddled together down at Thredbo members of the Opposition would have come up with something a little more substantive as a matter of public importance than something which no one in Australia could really understand. For God's sake, what are they aiming to do? The Opposition's matter of public importance contains words such as ' mounting public concern over the harmful effects upon all sectors of the community'. Can anybody here table one paragraph from the printed Press about the mounting public concern over the legislative program of this Government? Can anybody say that any Government has been judged on the basis of how much legislation goes through this House? As well as that, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) quotes Monsieur Whitlam about what he may or may not have said about the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). He ought to be more concerned about what Billy McMahon, the chap in Sydney who considered himself the greatest Treasurer of all time, says about him. That is what the Leader of the Opposition ought to be concerned about instead of worrying about what Gough Whitlam may have said about Bob Hawke because, according to that man with the phenomenal memory, Bob Hawke will win the next election. Sir William McMahon served the Liberal Party of Australia loyally and truly, according to the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard)-that is the way he describes him-for 30 odd years, as Prime Minister, Treasurer, Minister for Labour and National Service and all of those things, and yet in the paper he continually says that this Government will win. So there is no public concern so far as Sir William McMahon is concerned. Members of the Opposition talk about all the speculation about an early election. If there is one issue upon which members of the Opposition ought to hang their heads in shame it is the way in which they allowed Big Mal to stand over them all early in 1983 and take them to the guillotine. That is exactly what he did; he took them to the guillotine. All their colleagues are back out there looking for jobs because they all capitulated to Big Mal. The former Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, said: 'Look, we are not going to have a Budget like this in 1982; you are going to destroy the Australian economy , Mr Prime Minister, if you have a Budget like you are proposing to have in 1982 '. Big Mal flicked him off the desk like a fly and said: 'Look, I am preparing for an election and I don't care what you say or what the advisers from Treasury say'. According to The Hawke Ascendancy, written by Paul Kelly, apparently they were not talking to John Stone so we are not too sure what advice he was giving. It would have been similar to what other advisers in the Treasury were saying. Treasury said: 'Don't do this to the Australian economy, Mr Fraser, because you will destroy it and make it much harder to get the Australian economy out of the trouble we are in'. But not Big Mal. He said: 'We are on the warpath; I am going to an election at the end of 1982'. Had he not been struck down with shearer's back, that is what would have happened to him. We are now told by Tony Eggleton, who is far more important to the Liberal Party than anybody who sits on the front bench of the Opposition, that Mr Fraser would have put us to the high jump in November 1982. Honourable members opposite talk about the people going to an early election! Let us have a look at what the present Prime Minister has said about an early election. As a result of the way the then Government called the election in 1983 , we now either have to have one election or two elections. The Prime Minister has made no secret of the fact that it is the intention of this Government when an election is called to put the Senate back with the House of Representatives and at the same time to call upon the people to pass a referendum for future simultaneous elections. It now costs the Australian taxpayers $30m to hold an election in this country. I know that does not mean much to the big spending people on the other side of the House but to this side of the House $30m is a lot of money. We could spend $30m on a half Senate election and then $30m on a House of Representatives election. The Prime Minister has made it quite clear that he will not do a Malcolm Fraser and stand on the footpath outside his office and say: 'I will not speculate about an early election; that is what the Opposition is doing. I am not going to say anything about it'. He would then dive into his office, ring up Tony Eggleton and say: 'Have you got the advertising agents ready and all the market research ready? Don't tell all those dummies in Cabinet anything'. That is how the Liberal Party operated in 1982-83. What were the Opposition parties trying to do with all their tactics and antics in their term of governing the country? In the middle of 1982, when they sat down to discuss the Budget for 1982-83, there was absolutely not one iota of interest about the future of Australia. There was no interest other than that surrounding Malcolm Fraser's intention to call an early election. They had a big majority when they were on this side of the House so what was the need for the early election? What was the need for the early election in 1977? Mr Tuckey —What is the need for one now? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr YOUNG —He is not worrying me at all. In fact, if he took his teeth out his mouth would resemble something else. The Opposition parties called an early election in 1977 and the big excuse by Malcolm then was that he would put the Senate back with the House of Representatives. The people voted for it; they thought it was sensible. But why was he going to call the election in late 1982, a year before it was due? It was for no other reason than political expediency. That was the only reason. Yet these people put up a matter of public importance saying that everybody outside is concerned. They must have met some very strange people in Thredbo. Who did they meet down there who told them that we had not passed enough Bills? Who at Thredbo follows the Parliament so closely? I just cannot understand it. Can someone from the other side tell me how many Bills they passed in 1981 that made them such a good government? What is this all about? They cannot tell us how many Bills they passed. I thought the argument was supposedly that we were not busy enough. In parliamentary terms, we have been the most generous Government to the Opposition that we have ever seen. We have allowed hours and hours for debate. We allowed the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) to speak for hours on the Australian Citizenship Amendment Bill. We have applied the guillotine only once since we have been in government. Compare that with the number of times it was applied against us when we were in Opposition. We have allowed Opposition members to debate major matters such as Medicare, the citizenship Bill and Aussat Pty Ltd for as long as they liked because that is what we consider the important role of the Opposition to be. But now they say they want to count up the number of Bills. I suspect that if we get in some school kids we could draft up a number of small Bills and say: 'Look, we want to beat the Libs' record in 1981; let's put up 10 to 15 stupid pieces of legislation just so we can look busy'. The people of Australia are judging this Government to be a good government. The Leader of the Opposition is a character. He has said: 'Now look, I am very disappointed in this Government. What has happened to the lump sum tax and what has happened to the assets test? What has happened to land rights and to the entry of foreign banks? This is not good enough; I want all of this legislation introduced.' But according to what he has been telling everyone in Australia, if we introduce an assets test he will oppose it. So why does he want it introduced ? Is it so he can get up and make a speech on why he is opposed to it? What is wrong with consulting the Australian people about an assets test? Does it frustrate the Opposition that we took the decision that there should be more discussion by the Australian public about the application of an assets test? I would have thought that anybody in the Opposition in a slightly generous mood would have congratulated the Government on having taken that decision. Of course there has been a lot of discussion with people who will be affected by a lump sum tax. The Government has not made any announcement of its being withdrawn. On the question of the entry of foreign banks, did not the former Government, when it had any of these major financial inquiries, ask for comment from everybody in the community? Members of the Opposition are free to make their comments about these things. Why do they not put them up as matters of public importance? Every day almost everybody in the Opposition gives notice that they will move a motion on the next day of sitting. It seems to be a tactic they have adopted. I acknowledge that some of the notices of motion are far more important than this mishmash that the Leader of the Opposition has put up today. I cannot understand why the Opposition does not put up some of these issues as matters of public importance. They are of far more importance to people outside than talking about the number of Bills we will pass. As I said, 1983 was a short parliamentary year . It was a short parliamentary year because Big Mal put on the election in March . As soon as he got out of hospital he got things running again. He put on the election in March so that we had virtually only one session of parliament in 1983. But in that half of a year we passed 147 Bills as against 158 Bills in 1982 in a full year. Thus, in terms of the legislative program of this Government, it would be acknowledged as a much busier and more substantive one than the Fraser Government. As I said earlier, we have not used the guillotine; we have not frustrated debate. No member of the Opposition has come to me and said: 'Look, Mick, you have not give us enough time in the House to discuss these matters'. The Tasmanians for 12 months have been yapping their heads off about the dam. The honourable member for Denison has gone on for hours about the citizenship Bill. I must say we have a tactic in this; we believe we are picking up votes while we let the Opposition speak. Thus we do not sit back and say that we will give the Opposition time for no reason at all. We acknowledge that when the public hears the honourable member for Denison over the radio on broadcast day there is a substantive swing to Labor. Whenever he is going to be involved in debate the Opposition can always be assured that the generosity of the Labor Party and the Leader of the House will be extended to the honourable member for Denison. Mr Carlton —We don't have long lunches, either, Mick. Mr YOUNG —Perhaps the honourable member should do so because that is where much of the consultation takes place. I understand that the honourable member for Warringah when he was Secretary of the Liberal Party had many lunches around Angle Place. He was given a credit card so that he could talk to business people about what was going on in the New South Wales Liberal Party. Then he was asked to take a seat because at the end of his administration the New South Wales Liberal Party was broke. At least when I left the Labor Party it had some money. I may have gone to many lunches, but they were not as expensive as his. We have had a very busy parliament with respect to many of these matters. Many Government members would have liked to have spoken much more than they have been able to. We have such a huge majority in the House that it is embarrassing. I must say that we all shared in the great joy when the Liberal Party of Queensland took the momentous decision to recycle the former member for Fadden, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) instead of sending in a man of talent to replace Sir James Killen. That will not do us any harm at the next election, either. Mr Cunningham —What about Bruce? Mr YOUNG —Bruce is all right. We will leave the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) there. I now list the matters which have been debated in this Parliament . There has been the establishment of Aussat, the Sex Discrimination Bill, the appeals to the High Court of Australia, the appointment of the Australian Government Solicitor, telephone interceptions and companies and securities. As I said in the statement to the House, most of these matters have now been introduced, passed or are still up for debate before the Parliament. Many more Bills are being introduced today or will be tomorrow. The program of the House of Representatives is full to the hilt until 7 June when we are due to get up for the winter recess. All the Leader of the Opposition has said is that he is disappointed that some of these major political questions will not be introduced because they may be embarrassing to the Prime Minister. The only thing embarrassing to the Opposition is the fact that we have shown so much good sense in the consultation procedures we have adopted in talking to people outside Parliament about some of these measures. The Opposition will be surprised to know that many people outside this Parliament do not believe that we have a monopoly on what is right. Some people outside think they can make a contribution to government legislation and they make their voices heard. We will continue to consult with them. That consultation process is one of the great features and one of the great success stories of this Government. It is one of the major reasons why the Opposition is nervous about any forthcoming election. It has good reason to be nervous because its performances in opposition are exemplified today by its putting forward a matter of public importance which is absolutely shallow. When I saw it I was reminded about what used to be said about shearers. When I thought about the Opposition's Thredbo meeting over the last three days, I thought: 'Friday too tired, Saturday too drunk, Sunday too far away'. That probably wraps up the performance of all the people who went to Thredbo to talk about their philosophy . On Saturday night and Sunday night I watched the Leader of the Opposition on television. I sat back in my chair and thought: 'Here it comes. Here will be the really great decisions of this once great party, the Liberal Party, telling the Australian people where it will take us between now and the next election, all the policies and all the fights that it will have with the Government'. Yet on Monday the Opposition comes into Parliament and makes Question Time like primary school. The matter of public importance cannot be understood by anybody who has read it. It appears that the Opposition is frustrated only because we have not passed enough Bills. I give the Opposition this assurance: This week and in the fortnight remaining before the winter recess the Opposition will have plenty of opportunity to debate the Bills that will come before the House. I give the Opposition the guarantee that everything we have listed to be passed before 7 June will be passed. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(4.55) —The honourable member for Port Adelaide, the Leader of the House (Mr Young), is one of those orators who are amusing for the first half of their speech; thereafter, because of the lack of substance in their contribution, there is a general disquiet and awkwardness in the reception of their remarks. If one looks at the wording of the matter of public importance one sees that we are concerned with: . . . the harmful effects on all sectors of the community of the Government's election-inspired inaction in the implementation of a legislative program. We have heard the Governor-General's Speech and we have heard the announcements of Ministers when they come out of Cabinet about what it is they intend to do. Then we have seen a reaction against many of the things they have said they will do. Those things are then put on what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) calls the backburner until after he has an election which by any standards will be premature. We know that under the Constitution the Prime Minister is obliged to have a half Senate election by the middle of next year. We also know that if he wanted to bring the two Houses together he could have an early election of this House with that half Senate election by the middle of next year, but not in December, January, February or March as he has indicated he will be doing. As I said the other day, it is also true that he could introduce legislation to make the election of the Senate simultaneous with that for the House. What he is doing in fact is making the election of the House simultaneous with the election of half of the Senate. That is not a justified reason for the early election. Why is it that those controversial matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) are all out to pasture? It is because the Government is determined to introduce them after an early election so that they cannot be election issues. Thus the Government is great on consultation after it announces assets tests and education programs and after it gets itself into difficulties with health and other programs and not before. So it is inspired inaction. We are not asking that that legislation be introduced. In many cases we regard it as being bad. We are asking that the Government be honest and explain to the public why it has retreated from its commitment or that it bring its legislation before the Parliament so that the public can see it for what it is. Then it can be an issue in the election which the Government seems to want to hold so early. In fact, we are not asking that the Government list lengthy Bills that are of no consequence. We are asking that it come to the issues that it is asking the Australian public to endure. That is the importance of this matter today. Any one of half a dozen shadow Ministers could be supporting the Leader of the Opposition in the areas concerning their shadow portfolios to show where the Government has retreated from its commitments because it knows the issues are sensitive and wants to make the decisions after the election in the hope that it will win then. But it will have deceived the public if it does so. This Government is creating the impression that it is moderate. What is it that is so moderate in the area of industrial relations or employment, the two areas with which I am concerned? Through the prices and incomes accord the Government has given an unqualified commitment to the Australian Council of Trade Unions 'to create a better industrial relations climate' by encouraging the settlement of industrial disputes 'without recourse to legislative or common law provisions'. Does the Prime Minister or the Government really expect us to believe that industrial relations will be improved and that the behaviour of unions like the Builders Labourers Federation will suddenly become exemplary because it repeals the few measures which employers have left to protect their businesses and the interests of their employees? We believe that many of the provisions now in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act, for example, are ineffective. We want a system of contractual commitments to be the principal sanction in industrial relations. We have our policy clear. The Government's policy is even to remove those few remaining effective provisions. In fact, Australian Labor Party policy is for ' the repeal of all penal provisions directed at unions and union members', ' immunity for unions, their officials and members against common law action', ' the repeal of penalties for industrial action against arbitral decisions of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission', and 'a prohibition on the insertion of ''bans'' clauses in awards'. It is very important that we remember what are some of these penal provisions which the ALP is committed to removing. First of all, in the Conciliation and Arbitration Act at present there are provisions which deal with offences relating to the conduct of ballots for the election of union officials. Penalties are imposed on persons found guilty of rigging ballots and affecting secret ballots in other ways, for failure to comply with orders of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the election of union officials and for failure to comply with directions intended to prevent election irregularities. Each of those offences under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act carries a minimum penalty of $500 or six months' imprisonment. The Government's commitment-but we have not seen the legislation-is to remove those penalties so that union officials are not guilty of offences if they rig ballots for the election of officials, if they fail to comply with an order of the Federal Court concerning such elections or if they fail to comply with directions intended to prevent election irregularities. The Government has already removed many prescribed offences which would debar people from holding office. It has also removed offences in relation to the unauthorised collection of moneys for trade unions and the failures in relation to financial accounts and auditors. Those are the areas that bother us greatly. In October 1982, as Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, I introduced provisions which were based on the reports of the royal commissions headed by Mr Winneke, QC, and Mr Costigan; one inquiring into the Builders Labourers Federation and the other into the activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Following those amendments to the Conciliation and Arbitration Act we had a situation in which the obligations of trade union officials roughly matched those of company directors. We thought this was in the public interest. Neither group should be beyond the law but indeed there should be even-handedness in the obligations of each and in the discharge of their responsibilities. When introducing those amendments I said that the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General was looking at bringing up to date in some other respects the obligations of company directors because some of those famous $2 companies were open to abuse and that was against the public interest as much as it was against the public interest for trade union officials to breach their obligations in the way referred to by those two royal commissions and as embodied in that legislation. This Government is committed under the accord to the repeal of that legislation, but where is the Bill, which will enable the Australian people to see that the Govenment wants to put and is committed by the accord to putting the trade union movement above and beyond the law? It is not being presented because the Government wants an early election in the hope that it will win that election and then it will present the legislation. There are many other examples, including sections 45D and E of the Trade Practices Act, about which a great deal has been said. We know that at this moment there is a spate of strikes, to which I referred twice last week in this House. Eighty-four or 85 major disputes are now before the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and at least 21 of those are in breach of the accord in relation to the no extra claims undertakings given by unions to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We know that on the waterfront over 20 ships are currently tied up and that some $200m in export trade is at stake. We also know that in the case of the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd dispute not only have several thousand people been stood down but also more will be stood down at the Port Pirie smelter and in other industries which depend upon the production of that smelter. The accord is being breached every day, yet under the accord the Government is committed to removing all sanctions against breaches of industrial law. We believe that the Government should be updating the quality of those sanctions, not removing them. This is the kind of legislation which we are referring to when we say that the Government is committed to the removal of such sanctions. It is committed to it through its trade union wing, by the accord, but it does not have the courage to bring the legislation forward to this House and to the people of the country to face scrutiny and to face judgment. That is the purpose of this matter of public importance. If the mounting concern is not evident as the Special Minister of State says it is not, I assure him and the House that the Opposition will go on making the public aware so that that mounting public concern is evident to the Government. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(5.06) —I say at the outset that the comments by the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) seem to fall broadly into three categories. The first category relates to the comments in which he attached considerable weight to the concept of integrity and honesty in government. I would have thought that that approach might be more appropriately directed to the former Government. That was an area in which that Government could not hold up its head. It seemed to me that the second area of concern would be better directed towards a discussion of matters touching upon industrial relations. It had very little indeed to do with the matter of public importance before the House today. Of course, the final part of the honourable member's contribution was significant in that it expressed a consistent theme in terms of all the comments by members of the Opposition; that is, for quite valid reasons, a genuine fear of the outcome of an election. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) temporarily came in from the wilderness and put his views about the alleged lack of activity on the part of this Government, I could not help recalling his comment as reported in today's Daily Telegraph. Members of the Opposition, having spent all weekend gazing at their respective navels, coming to a decision on policy implementation, have put before this House an abominable proposition that might have been more appropriately left with the snowman at Thredbo. The Leader of the Opposition, as reported in today's Daily Telegraph, said: I'm not entering a period of self flagellation about why we lost the next election. For goodness sake, the Opposition having invested all of this effort over the weekend in defining policy to put before the Australian people, its great leader shoots himself through the foot at the very first opportunity. No wonder these discredited members of the Opposition are so fearful of an election. But let us go on to the limited substance of the motion. Honourable members opposite talk about the importance of the implementation of the Government's legislative program. This talk comes from those who elevated to an art form the deliberate frustration of a previous Labor Government's legislative program. We did not hear in those days that the Government was not putting up enough legislation. Everything that Government put before this Parliament was frustrated and destroyed by those who now profess the high ideals of policy implementation. Let us look also at the activities of members of the Opposition in this House. Of course important legislation has gone through the House on a number of occasions and it would take one simple step by the Opposition to ensure that the passage of that legislation was facilitated. I refer the House in particular to the Taxation (Unpaid Company Tax) Bill which has been before this House for the fourth time. Also the so-called cherry pickers legislation has now been before the House on two occasions. The Opposition in this House is quite clearly in bed with the tax avoiders. It can go around this country for as long as it likes-- Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. In conjuction with Mr Speaker's ruling earlier today, I and other members of the Opposition take the utmost offence at the last comment. I ask for it to be withdrawn. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —I think that the honourable member's comment probably does not fall into the category that Mr Speaker mentioned today but I will ask Mr Speaker about future references of that type and if necessary I am sure he will make a ruling on the reference in question. Mr GRIFFITHS —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for a commendable interpretation of Mr Speaker's earlier ruling. If I may continue with the taxation cherry pickers legislation, it is quite clear to most of the community, if not to members of the Opposition, that any attempt to frustrate that sort of legislation simply will mean that ordinary Australian taxpayers will have to pay significantly higher levels of tax than would otherwise be the case. To that extent I think it is more than fair to make the comments that I did. I will go on to some of the legislation that we have already put through this House. I refer to the establishment of Aussat Pty Ltd. What does the Opposition want to do with Aussat? It wants to hawk it to its friends. It does not care about country Australians. I have spent a great deal of my life in the country and it is simply not true that the Australian Labor Party does not have a strong commitment to the bush. I come from the bush and it is issues such as the Opposition's treatment of country Australians that concern me greatly. We hear about the Opposition wishing to sell off Telecom Australia. Telecom can support people in the country simply because of the cross-subsidisation to the extent of something in the vicinity of $300m to country consumers of Telecom services. The Opposition wants to hawk Telecom off to its mates. What will that mean for country people? It will simply mean that in terms of the availability of Telecom 's resources they will have to pay $300m more than they are currently paying. I ask members of the Opposition why they do not stand up, especially those who represent country areas, to try to protect the interests of country people. Another brilliant idea of this so-called Opposition is to hawk off the Australian National Line. What will that mean? It will simply mean that Tasmanian people will have to pay more for goods and services, because if those services are not subsidised by the Australian Government it will obviously lead to higher costs in Tasmania. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is shaking his head, but at least other members from Tasmania yesterday had the courage to dissociate themselves from that part of the absurd policies being put forward by this so-called Opposition. There is a massive move to the right. How many votes does this Opposition think there will be in the public perceiving it to be barren in political terms and simply embracing the views put by Margaret Thatcher and other people of the far right. That sort of attitude is totally and utterly irrelevant to the needs and aspirations of Australian people. That attitude will come home to haunt the Opposition in either the near or distant future. That is why it is so scared of the next election. The Opposition will need the equivalent of a pretty big St Bernard dog to dig it out of the hole it dug itself into at Thredbo. The Australian people will be asking about content, not the sort of drivel it put before us today. Where is the thinking for the future of Australia in the terms of that silly proposal? It is a disgrace that that proposal is put before the people of Australia through this Parliament for debate when the evidence is quite clear that the program of the Government has been quite impressive. Before I refer to some of the legislation already put through let us do a comparative numeric analysis of 1982, that is, during the years of the Fraser Government, and 1983, under the Hawke Labor Government. In 1982, under Mr Fraser , some 158 Acts were put through this Parliament. Under the Hawke Labor Government in 1983-having regard to the fact that we were not elected to power until March 1983-we still managed to put through 147 Acts of Parliament, a significant record by anyone's standard. After only five weeks in this sitting already 31 Acts have been passed and 63 Bills have been introduced. By the end of this year we will certainly have achieved the program objective set out by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) in his speech. It is ironic indeed that the party which professed a philosophy of minimum government interference is here today arguing and complaining that insufficient legislation is going through this House. The Opposition cannot have it both ways . It will need to address this sort of philosophic confusion that is coming through not only in terms of this debate but also in all but the other legislation it would attempt to impose. It really needs to get its act together. If it does not I think the most important thing it will learn at Thredbo is landslide training, because that is what it is going to face at the next election-a landslide. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The discussion is completed. Mr SPEAKER —Honourable members will recall that the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised a question of the broadcasting hours with me earlier today, and Madam Deputy Speaker made an interim statement on the matter. I have to announce that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings has met and the following decision relating to the allocation of the parliamentary broadcasts has been made. While the present pattern of sitting days and hours of both Houses continues, the House of Representatives will be broadcast on Tuesday, Thursday and Friday in the first week of a two-week sitting cycle and on Tuesday and Thursday on the following week. The Senate will therefore be broadcast on Wednesday in the first week of a two-week sitting cycle and on Monday and Wednesday of the following week. In accordance with this decision the proceedings of the Senate this evening will be broadcast from 8 p.m. Bill received from the Senate. Mr SPEAKER —It has occurred to me that honourable members may be wondering whether it is proper for an income tax assessment Bill, the subject of this message, to originate in the Senate. As it is an unusual occurrence I feel I should mention the following facts which may be of interest to honourable members. Section 53 of the Constitution provides, inter alia: Proposed laws appropriating revenues or moneys, or imposing taxation, shall not originate in the Senate. The Australian Constitution Annotated, Attorney-General's Department 1980, at page 179 records the High Court's consideration of this matter in the case of Cadbury-Fry-Pascall Pty Ltd and the Commissioner of Taxation, 1944, 70 CLR, 362 at page 373, and reveals that an income tax assessment Bill is not considered to be a Bill imposing taxation. Therefore, there is no cause for objection to this particular Bill being introduced. Bill read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting. [COGNATE BILLS: SUPPLY BILL (No. 2) 1984-85 SUPPLY (PARLIAMENTARY DEPARTMENTS) BILL 1984-85 AUDIT AMENDMENT BILL 1984] Debate resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —Mr Speaker , may I have your indulgence to suggest that the House have a general debate covering Supply Bill (No. 1), Supply Bill (No. 2) 1984-85, Supply (Parliamentary Departments) Bill 1984-85 and the Audit Amendment Bill 1984 as they are associated measures. Separate questions will, of course, be put on each of the Bills at the conclusion of the debate. Mr SPEAKER —Is it the wish of the House to have a general debate covering these four measures? There being no objection, I will allow that course to be followed . Mr MOORE(Ryan)(5.19) —This cognate debate embraces the Supply Bills as well as the Audit Amendment Bill 1984. I shall first address a few comments towards the Audit Amendment Bill. Because of the short time available and the enormous number of members who wish to speak we have each agreed to speak for a reduced period. The Audit Amendment Bill comes about as a consequence of the Reid Committee of Review of Commonwealth Administration. The results of the publication of that report are embodied in the Bill. This is really a first step towards some improvement in what, I think, all honourable members would regard as an area of financial management which is badly in need of an overhaul. It was certainly my experience as a Minister that budgeting in a government sense was an enormous business and that the constraints placed on departments was considerable and the ability of management within any department to move funds at its discretion and to accept responsibility was almost wholly limited. During that time I wrote to the then Minister for Finance and suggested that changes be made to the budgeting process which would allow those who managed government departments far more variation and ability to move funds within their vote from one area of their department to another. This suggestion was turned down flat by the Minister, and I thought it presumably represented the departments' views. I was very heartened when I saw this matter come forward. In the second reading speech made by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins), once we take out the relevant amount of political nonsense, there are some grains of hope that the whole question of government accounting will be looked at, that the question of prepayments and accruals might be accepted and that the provision that government votes must be spent within a period will be thrown away, and I hope that the concept of management by a department will become a far more important role than is currently the case. It seems the Department of Finance has an almost ultimate say in relation to departmental funds. With those comments on the Audit Bill, I wish it well and indicate that we will not be opposing it, but I look forward in the future to further moves in this area, because I believe it to be tremendously important in regard to the workings of government and its efficiency. It is sufficient for me to say that it is my judgment that if the departmental secretaries had a bigger say in the management of their funds, we could probably expect a 5 per cent better value for the dollar in the management of those funds. I turn to the Supply Bills. These enable the Parliament to look at a whole range of government activities. I thought it would be worth while today to go over briefly some of the options and problems that are confronting the Government at the moment. One does not have to be a genius to read the papers and see some of the comments that have been made by various economists in forecasting the economic position. Among a group of Press cuttings, which I did not bring to the chamber, were comments by Hill Samuel Australia Ltd-a commercial bank and economic forecaster. These comments pointed to the fact that the year ahead would see the current recovery topping out and because of that the building of the Budget within the current year would be difficult. Those comments in particular confirm that many of the factors currently boosting growth, most notably the breaking of the drought, and the turn around in the stock cycle and the amount of fiscal stimulus being provided from the Budget, are essentially of a one-off nature. In contrast, private investment expenditure remains depressed. The critical question in terms of the outlook for the economy is whether these one-off influences can be replaced with more sustainable sources of growth. I refer particularly to a pick-up in investment expenditure and a continued positive contribution from net exports. While the linkages are complex, the achievement of the latter would depend critically on continued growth abroad and on the maintenance of Australia's international competitiveness. Achievement of higher investment expenditure is more problematical. Broadly, it will depend on the level of demand-which will be a function of international competitiveness- industrial profitability and the cost of borrowing funds, which will influence interest rates. Higher wages growth should be redressed to some extent later this year, when the Medicare impact on the consumer price index for the March and June quarters becomes the basis of wage indexation. A number of factors have contributed to the event of higher real interest rates in recent years, including the increased sophistication of savers in an inflationary environment, together with the availability of a wider range of investment opportunities offering real rates of return. A further important factor has been the high level of public sector borrowings. Federal government borrowings to finance the deficit and maturities rose to $11 .8 billion in 1983-84 from $7.6 billion in 1982-83 and $2.8 billion in 1981-82. Adding in borrowing of other tiers of government, the public sector gross borrowing reguirement is estimated to have increased to $18 billion in 1983-84 from $13 billion in 1982-83, a staggering increase. I am indebted to the Australian Chamber of Commerce for the following comment, which states: Public Debt Interest will be a growing burden on future Governments in Australia as a consequence of past fiscal deficits. Forward estimates of Outlays provided by the Department of Finance indicated that the Federal Government's PDI will amount to $5.5 Billion in 1984-85, and $6.3 Billion in 1985-86. The Federal PDI for both periods is expected to be the fifth largest component of Federal Outlays, exceeding Federal experience on Education and Housing, and only slightly behind Federal expenditure on Defence and Health. I find those comments interesting and they are comments of which all people in Australia should be aware. A key issue the Government needs to address in framing its August Budget is the extent to which the high real interest rate structures will act as a disincentive to increased business investment and, related to this, whether the potential investment is likely to be choked off by rising interest rates as business credit demand picks up. The case for erring on the side of a smaller rather than a larger deficit in 1984-85 rests squarely on the considerations and desires for a sustainable economic recovery. Of course, much of the blow-out in the deficit in recent years has been due to cyclical factors, reflecting the impact of the recession on government welfare expenditure and taxation receipts. Moreover, higher government borrowing requirements have generally been accommodated without upward pressure on nominal interests rates. Nevertheless, after adjusting for temporary influences such as the 1983 election, the impact on domestic liquidity and interest rates of the speculative capital inflow prior to the decision to float the Australian dollar, yields on medium to long term government bonds are down only marginally on their levels of a year or so ago. This has occurred despite the dramatic downturn in private sector borrowing over the year and the reduction in our inflation rate. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) noted in his speech to last year's National Economic Summit Conference that the structural component of the deficit-that part of the deficit due to discretionary policy initiatives rather than cyclical influences- was expected to rise to 50 per cent of the total deficit in 1983-84. It is this structural component of the deficit which theoretically needs to be reduced to facilitate private sector expansion. A lower deficit would mean lower interest rates. It would also provide a boost to business confidence by engendering confidence about the sustainability of the recovery. Moreover, by taking pressure off interest rates it would promote investment expenditure and, through an exchange rate effect, improve export prospects. While fiscal stimulus has clearly been a significant factor contributing to growth, these considerations provide a powerful case for the Government to err on the side of a smaller rather than a larger deficit, generally something less than the $7 billion to $7.5 billion it has been attempting to popularise. There are also sound reasons for believing that a smaller deficit can be realistically obtained. However, complicating the task of reducing the structural deficit is the Government's desire to offer personal tax cuts, apparently involving a cost to revenue of around $700m to $800m, to shore up the prices and incomes accord. Of course, tax cuts also have considerable merit in their own right, particularly given the impact of inflation on personal taxation scales. Nevertheless, given this constraint, if a lower deficit is to be achieved the onus falls on expenditure restraint. The forward estimates of the Budget outlays prepared by the Department of Finance indicate that, on an unchanged policy assumption, the Federal Government 's outlays will increase by 12.7 per cent in 1984-85 or by 3.4 per cent in real terms. Estimates of the likely magnitude of the Government's revenue growth on the same broad assumptions employed by the Department of Finance point to revenue growth of around 18 per cent and 19 per cent in 1984-85, lending credence to the view that the Budget deficit on an unchanged policy assumption is around $7 billion. In fact, given the possibility of a stronger than expected growth in performance in 1984-85, the balance of risks seems to suggest the figure may be even lower. If the estimates are broadly accurate, a personal income tax cut costing $700m could be achieved with a cut in government expenditure from the unchanged policy assumption scenario of a little more than one percentage point. In other words, it could be achieved within the context of a net real growth in government expenditure of around 2 per cent. Maintenance of the growth in government expenditure to a real one per cent to 1.5 per cent would, on these assumptions, yield a deficit of around $6 billion. A critical consideration in assessing the scope for expenditure restraint is the phenomenal real growth which has occurred in Federal Government outlays over the past few years. Real outlays have increased by around 20 per cent in the past 4 years and by around 15 per cent in the last two fiscal years. Over this period, government departments and authorities have clearly had their heads in terms of expenditure and some period of rationalisation and restraint now appears to be both possible and desirable. This is not to suggest that the task facing the Government will be an easy one. Certainly, real growth in government expenditure will need to be contained and new expenditure proposals eschewed unless they are to involve further reordering of priorities. However, ultimate growth prospects will be better served if the Government bites the bullet. Equally as important in minimising the impact of government borrowings on interest rates and, therefore, in fostering business investment, is the need to restrain further semi-government authorities. By way of illustration I point to the fact that total borrowings in the semi-government area in 1981-82 totalled $ 3.5 billion. The estimate for 1983-84 is $6.364 billion, nearly double in a period of three financial years. Even more significant is the rate of loan conversions in that period which went from $552m to $1,550m. Under those circumstances, one can see the huge growth that has taken place in these areas. This leads one to wonder the direction in which one might be going. All honourable members no doubt would be aware that arrangements governing Loan Council control of borrowings by semi-government authorities have been in a state of considerable flux over recent years. The direction of change has, however, been for Loan Council to relinquish its control over the total borrowings by these authorities. The most significant change in this regard, as the figures I have mentioned clearly highlight, was the decision by the Loan Council in June 1982 to free the total volume of domestic borrowings by electricity commissions. The question of semi-government authority borrowings was addressed by both the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and the Martin group. Arrangements for semi-government borrowings will need to be grappled with at the June Premiers Conference. On balance, given the experience in recent years, the Martin group's views that the Loan Council re-establish control over the aggregate semi-government borrowing program clearly have merit from a macro- economic management perspective. Nevertheless, as the Martin group also concluded, there is little justification for the Loan Council exercising controls over the terms and conditions of domestic borrowings by such authorities. I will conclude my speech at that point bearing in mind that my agreed amount of time has expired. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders)(5.35) —This afternoon I wish to speak on the Supply Bills which are being debated cognately. This is a very important debate indeed. Without Supply the workings and the machinery of the Government and its various departments would come to a standstill. Without ongoing funds, accounts cannot be cleared and salaries cannot be paid. Months of planning for forward estimates for the various departments would be fruitless without Supply. During the debate this afternoon I would like to discuss Supply in the broader terms of what the Hawke Labor Government has been able to set in train in the past year with sundry appropriation Bills passed by this House and, more specifically, what we have been able to achieve within the Flinders electorate with the funds from Supply to the various government departments. An area in which I personally have a great interest is that of disarmament. Several initiatives have been set in progress by the Federal Government concerning peace studies and nuclear disarmament. In my maiden speech on 12 May 1983, just under one year ago, I said: If the cause of peace was taken up actively by our Government, using the United Nations as a forum, I am certain that our Prime Minister could do a great deal that would go towards breaking the impasse on disarmament and the headlong rush to oblivion that we are now moving towards. I am delighted to state that since my maiden speech the Government has made the historical decision to appoint an Ambassador for Disarmament to the United Nations and, in fact, Mr Butler commenced duties in mid-1983. Mr Hodgman —And a good appointment, too. Mr CHYNOWETH —Yes, I agree. Another initiative in this area was the announcement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) relating to the commitment of the Federal Labor Government to establish a peace research institute. On 29 March 1984 in this place the Minister for Foreign Affairs outlined negotiations that had been taking place with the Australian National University for the location of the institute and foreshadowed expenditure that had been agreed to by the Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) and himself. The Government has committed $1.149m towards the establishment and operation of the institute over a 7-year period. Medicare marks another major financial and philosophical commitment by the Government. The concept of a fair and equitable health system for all was a major election issue. Through tireless debate and defence of this concept, the Government was able to pass Bills to enable moneys to be appropriated for expenditure in this area and, once again, to be able to ensure to the people of Australia who gave the Government a very clear mandate on this issue a health cover system for every Australian which is now, I am proud to say, established and operating very successfully. Suitable accommodation and housing make up another area in which the Government has been diligently addressing itself. A major initiative in this area was announced by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) as a result of the 1983-84 Budget. Of course, I am making reference to the first home owners scheme which became operational in October 1983. The plight of many first home buyers is a situation with which I am familiar, especially within my own electorate of Flinders. It is the dream of most Australians to be in the financial position to purchase their own home. Previous to this generous allocation of funds in the first Hawke Labor Government Budget, to many Australians owning one's own home was, indeed, a dream. However, with the first home owners scheme now successfully in operation and, judging by the response of thousands of Australians who are applying for this grant, the dream of home ownership is now becoming a reality. The building industry is a huge user of Australian made material and a large employer of labour. Unemployment and its relief is a problem to which the Government is totally committed. It is a problem that does not confine itself to the work place or the Commonwealth Employment Service but infiltrates family cohesiveness, social structure and the very fabric of our society. We are working very hard to redress this problem and we are succeeding. The community employment program was designed to give those who have been most severely disadvantaged in the work force an opportunity to have another go. When announced by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in the 1983-84 Budget, it was stressed that the community employment program would benefit three groups, namely, the unemployed who will be recruited to work on projects receiving funding, local government which will be able to undertake projects which its budgets may not normally have included, and community groups and organisations, particularly within the human services and facilities areas. The Government has set aside $300m for CEP during 1983-84. It should be remembered that emphasis in funding projects under CEP is the marrying of two major objectives, the achievement of community value and the assisting of the most disadvantaged within the labour market. The community employment program can and will give the long term unemployed the opportunity to rejoin the work force and thereby regain the degree of self-respect afforded to all those who are, at present, fortunate to have a job. We have worked hard in the Flinders electorate to more thoroughly familiarise local government, community groups and constituents generally with CEP and, through various public meetings and seminars, show the potential of creating jobs within Flinders by maximising the use of CEP. Without the relevant appropriation to the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, none of this would either exist or be possible. It has been my pleasure to serve on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation and through that I have had some input into achievements in this area. The announcement of the extensions to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Stage II of Kakadu National Park, and South West Tasmania have perhaps been stealing most of the limelight. However, there are many other areas in which the Minister for Home Affairs and Environment (Mr Cohen) has worked successfully. While the Minister was in the Flinders electorate he presented a cheque to the Welsh male voice choir. That was a small but significant marking of this Government's commitment to helping cultural groups which travel overseas to represent our country. These ambassadors for Australia were welcome wherever they went and were acclaimed by all. It was also a delight to present a cheque for $120,000 on behalf of the Minister to the Australian Conservation Foundation in Victoria which was the Government's contribution to this organisation. Again, all this would not be possible without Supply and appropriation. The Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has been both imaginative and innovative in his decisions on areas of potential for Australia to move forward. Science and technology are such rapidly changing and progressing areas. We cannot afford any longer to consume other countries' old technology. With the signalling of the sunrise industries and the encouragement that these areas have been given through the 1983-84 Budget, we are ensuring that we will have a place in the blossoming of the science and technology of tomorrow. The encouragement that areas such as biotechnology have received and incentives given in the areas of research grants to workers in the computer industry and other sunrise industries substantiates the belief of this Government that technological innovation is the driving force for social development and the beginnings of a new age. I was pleased to speak in support of science and technology in the debate on the appropriation Bills for the 1983-84 Budget and thereby lend my support for moneys to be appropriated in this way. It is obvious to me and, I think, to many Australians, that a new confidence is emerging. By the Government's firm handling and anti-inflationary Budget, by the very nature of the Budget providing incentives to both the private and public sector as well as to individuals through various grants and schemes, people are starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. There is something to start smiling about again. The economy is improving, people are succeeding in finding jobs, but, most importantly, this Government is being perceived as moulding its expenditure to the needs of the people through various health and welfare initiatives as well as by leading us out of what was a desert of economic barrenness to an oasis of hope and growth. I commend the Bill. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Corangamite I remind the House that this is a maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to the speaker all courtesy. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(5.46) — Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great honour that I rise for the first time in this House in your presence as the first woman Deputy Speaker. I thank all honourable members of the House for their friendly welcome to this place. I pay tribute to the former member for Corangamite, Mr Tony Street, who served that electorate for 17 years having been first elected in 1966. He was Minister responsible for Employment and Industrial Relations from 1975 to 1980, which was a very difficult portfolio at that time. He was Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1980 until 1983. He was highly respected on both sides of the House and in the community. His integrity and honesty were unquestioned. He was approachable at all times and a very hard working member of the Cabinet. He made a great contribution to the Corangamite electorate and to Australia. I feel greatly honoured to be following such a distinguished parliamentarian, such a fine Australian and such a very genuine human being. I am very proud to represent Corangamite which is a very large rural electorate bounded by the Southern Ocean and the Great Dividing Range. It contains a small public sector but earns significant foreign exchange for all Australians. Australia's prosperity depends, to a very large extent, on electorates like Corangamite. Being a rural electorate, I draw the House's attention to the contribution that this electorate and other electorates throughout Australia make to our overseas export earnings. Primary industry, that is, rural and mining industries, make up 75 per cent of those export earnings. The mining sector produced 38 per cent in 1982-83 and even in the year of the drought the rural sector produced 36 per cent of those important earnings. The rural sector produces about 45 per cent in a normal year. Therefore, we as governments and the industry must encourage efficiency, improved management skills and technical abilities so that the primary industries can continue to these vital export earnings. The wheat industry provides $1,300m of the valuable export earnings. With bigger machines and new plant varieties in the last year we have been able to produce a record wheat crop of 21 million tonnes. The wool industry produces $1,800m of export earnings. We have made great progress in the areas of wool handling, core testing and transportation. Difficulties remain with the shearing problem but research is being carried out in this arena. The price received by wool growers is maintained by the special fund to which wool growers contribute, but in the final analysis wool growers take the world price. In the beef and meat industries $1,600m is generated by way of export income. This is highly dependent upon the export markets of the United States of America, Japan and the European Economic Community. This House has seen the recent arguments over the problems in those markets. In rural areas we need to make sure that we have trained people and encourage our educational institutions to provide people who have technical expertise, the 'hands-on' skills to use the new machinery and improve their management abilities. As exporters, members of the rural industry are price takers. They have to take what the world will give. The wheat price is very much determined by the activities of the Americans; what the American market will take and what the domestic home policy suggests. In the wool industry, the market support scheme is very important in maintaining the price of wool but, as wool constitutes only 5 per cent of the total fibre market, the wool price is very dependent on the countries that wish to buy our product. Because there is so little export trade the price of beef fluctuates, in some cases quite violently, depending on exports to the United States and other nations. I think that the sugar industry in Queensland gives a very clear indication of the problems that rural industries in Australia face. In the last six months that important industry has become the subject of a world commodity price collapse and it is facing great difficulties. As exporters, both miners and farmers are very concerned with inflation and capital taxes. Let me deal first with inflation. Inflation reduces the value of money. It destroys confidence in the monetary system. It discriminates against the weak, the poor, the elderly and those on fixed incomes. It discriminates against the savers, those who wish to strive to do better, and particularly exporters. Exporters are the key to Australia's wealth. They must be competitive in their pricing on world markets. It is interesting to compare our competitive position with the position of the countries with which we trade. Our rate of inflation as at February 1984 was 8.6 per cent. Let us compare that rate with the rates of our trading partners. In Japan the rate is 2.9 per cent; in the United States of America it is 4.6 per cent; in England it is 5.1 per cent; and for Australia's trading partners in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development it is 4.2 per cent. In most cases they have almost doubled our competitive advantage in this arena. Controlling inflation is the major factor if we are to keep the mining and rural sectors in business and competitive. Looking at the problem of capital tax which my electors in Corangamite greatly fear, I draw to the attention of the House the question of probate duty. When the Fraser Government removed probate in 1977 only $76m had been received by the Federal Government by way of revenue. Thirty-six per cent of that $76m was contributed by the farming community, which contributed only 6 per cent of income tax. That demonstrates clearly the very unfair burden that the primary producers of Australia carried by way of this tax. We are never sure when the grim reaper might appear. Such a tax is very hard on the farmers of this nation. A capital gains tax has similar implications. It is a tax on inflation and illusory gains. It will distort land values. In the case of the rural community, cash may have to be found to pay a tax on something that is not realised. The amount will be small in revenue terms, it will be very difficult and costly to collect. If losses are included, the revenue will not be very great to the Commonwealth Government. I mention the impact of drought. The breaking of the drought in March last year was very important in Australia's economic recovery. It is that factor alone that has precipitated a turnaround in a number of the economic indicators. It is important that we develop policies that protect this very dry continent against the ravages of drought, particularly droughts such as the last one. I compliment the Fraser Government on its initiatives in providing wheat to feed the sheep and cattle so that that capital resource could be kept alive for Australia's total benefit. The honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore) drew the attention of the Parliament to the increase in statutory outlays as a percentage of gross national product. As a new member of parliament, I am concerned at this ongoing trend. In the year 1972-73, statutory authority outlays accounted for 31 per cent of gross national product. That in itself was a big enough figure, but the trend that I am greatly disturbed about is that in 1982-83 statutory authority outlays amounted to 42 per cent of GNP. That is a quite remarkable percentage of money outlayed for government and statutory authority activity. I put the question to the House: At what level can we continue with this public debt acceptance? We note that Mexico , Brazil and Poland, where public outlays were extreme, now have economies in a state of collapse. The crushing burden was clearly demonstrated in their capital repayments, which some failed to meet, and their interest rates, which were extraordinarily high. I hope that Australia does not reach that level. In this House we have control over public expenditure in regard to Federal Budget outlays, which is the matter before us. This increase, combined with State and local authority budgets, which seem to be ever-expanding, provides Australia with a major problem. Looking at Federal Budget deficits in recent years, I see a very disturbing trend. In 1978-79 the Federal Budget deficit was $3.5 billion. That was followed in the next year by a reduced deficit of $2 billion. In 1981-82 there was an almost evenly balanced Budget, with a deficit of $0.6 billion. Unfortunately, in the year 1982-83 the final Budget figure was $4.5 billion. Any clear-thinking economic commentator would concede that this was brought about by the drought, the no-growth factor of the economy, the dramatic increase in the payment of the unemployment benefits and the world recession. The even more disturbing feature is that the projected Budget deficit for this year is $8.5 billion. It has been suggested by members of the Government that next year the deficit will be in the range of $7 billion. My calculations suggest that this will be an accumulative Budget deficit of $20 billion and the Australian people, by some method or through their taxes, will be paying interest and the capital repayment on those quite dramatic figures. I now turn to deal with income tax. Because of increasing inflation year by year every taxpayer in Australia will be one day in the highest tax bracket. In the last three months 470,000 Australians have moved into the 46c in the dollar marginal tax bracket. This is no incentive for them to work harder. As a farmer, this fact is clearly brought home to me. When a shearer working hard in the hot afternoon sun has shorn 120 sheep he knows that he will have to pay a greater rate of tax to the Commissioner of Taxation for every sheep shorn after that. He knows that from half past three to half past five he will be taxed at a higher rate. Shearers do their calculations very carefully. They know exactly what their tax is day by day and week by week. What an indictment on the system this is when some of the hardest working members of our community are discouraged from working and doing a good job. I put forward the view that the Income Tax Act needs review. There are 1,100 pages in 800 sections which nobody in the Australian community understands. We need to pay people to explain it to us at the change of every financial year. We need to invesigate the possibility of a broadly based tax to remove the burden and re-encourage incentive to the pay as you earn taxpayer. I turn to the problem of superannuation and the number of public servants who are employed by government agencies and who, in the final analysis, are supported by the taxpayers. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) mentioned at Question Time today, 75 per cent of the work force is in the private sector and those people make a major contribution for the special few in this area of superannuation. With indexed pensions, there are huge total benefits in the future which no governments or individuals have really calculated. As we know, in the private sector most superannuation schemes work on the basis of 5 per cent contributed by the employee and 8 to 10 per cent by the employer, depending on the company. The Institute of Public Affairs reliably estimates that the contribution of employer governments in government superannuation schemes reaches as high as 21 per cent if actuarially based. The people who will make that contribution are the taxpayers of Australia. I put it to honourable members that in the Australia that I see in the next few decades I hope that our free democratic institutions remain effective and that governments remain accountable; that there is less government at all levels and that Australians are encouraged to work Australia's resources creatively; that risk takers are promoted and that independent thinking is fostered. Governments should create the environment for all Australians to make a better living for themselves, not for the sake of governments. I put forward the view that we need a health system that has choice, quality of service, retains the doctor-patient relationship and is cost effective. We need an education system that is based upon the pursuit of excellence, a demand for basic skills of numeracy and literacy, a diversity of curriculum and a choice of institution regardless of means. I see Australia in the next two decades formed of the family unit which is the basis of our society; it always has been and always will be. I see assistance to those disadvantaged members of our society given on the basis of those in the greatest need. I see a society which will encourage women to realise their full potential whether they are in the paid work force or in the home. The Parliament of the nation should review the statutes and regulations at all levels of government and ensure that there is greater individual freedom and that the 'state' does not become all powerful. Finally, the profit motive should be the driving force to create the wealth that will make a better nation for all Australians. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Burke)(6.05) —I, too, congratulate the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) on his maiden speech and wish him the best in his parliamentary endeavours. I wish to talk about the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and cognate Bills in the context, firstly, of some of the positive achievements that we have had in relation to the economy up to now, and then I wish to say something about our continuing problem of industry development which, as honourable members may know, is somewhat dear to my heart at present. Turning to the positive factors, it is indisputable that the general expansionary economic policy pursued by the Government has resulted in our having pulled out of a terrifying recession. I believe that the strategy we have been pursuing should be pursued even more vigorously in the future in order to ensure that the philosophical approach which we are taking continues to generate economic growth, employment and the sort of wealth which is necessary for this country to be able to redistribute it to all its citizens in a fair and equitable way. The Supply Bills are an indication of some of the programs which the Government has adopted in taking that positive approach. I notice that in the Supply Bills there is $70m in payments to the States and the Northern Territory for increased housing funds. Indeed, the development of the housing sector is a consequence of the sorts of positive policies in the approach that we have adopted. Similarly, there is $278m for the Commonwealth employment program, a program of extraordinary significance in that it has allowed many young people throughout this country to gain some work experience and be able to undertake a large number of worthwhile tasks. Every member of parliament would concede that in his or her electorate the CEP is being used in a very responsible and civil way not only to create jobs but also to achieve a large number of worthwhile social goals which ought to have been pursued in the economy in previous times. It is regrettable that such a program was not put down by the previous Government much earlier to assist in the recessionary period. The only reason that that did not happen is, of course, the ideologically blinkered approach which the previous Government adopted. It is unfortunate that that blinkered approach appears to be continuing with the recent decisions at Thredbo, including the decision to privatise the economy further, to attempt to sell off the major profit-making government and publicly owned bodies. Of course, these bodies generate wealth for the Government and, in return, that wealth is distributed into other projects in the community. Those members of the Opposition who believe that by cutting out these corporations somehow they will assist in the fiscal management of the State do not know what they are talking about. The consequence will be that all that money, all that profit, coming into government as a consequence of those publicly owned corporations will have to be found by increases in taxation in other areas. That is a factor which unfortunately the Opposition does not recognise. In the present context, if we sell off enterprises such as Telecom Australia not only do we not supply such a good service but also the profitability of those enterprises cannot be reflected in government revenue as a totality. We would end up having to tax citizens more in other respects in order to make up for those moneys. I believe it is an outrageous approach on the part of the Opposition and I think that it will be one which will ensure that they will not return to government for a long time. One of the most important areas in this respect is the Australian Industry Development Corporation which has played an important role, and will be playing an increasing role, in helping to assist in the financing of industry. At present, as we have mentioned, economic recovery is occurring. Real growth is hitting approximately 10 per cent per year, we have real increases in employment and we have all of the positive indicators in relation to inflation. Nevertheless, we still have a very worrying situation in relation to investment for manufacturing industry. Unfortunately, the Australian Bureau of Statistics predicts that for the year 1984-85 fixed private investment expenditure in manufacturing will decline by 5 per cent in real terms. This is after two successive years of real decline totalling over 25 per cent. It is interesting that investment, which should be at the forefront of recovery, is sadly lagging behind. This is a difficulty which we have to try to face up to. I urge the Government, in preparing for the forthcoming Budget, to consider putting into place measures which will ensure that investment in manufacturing industry is increased. I am talking here about private sector investment. This would involve measures such as giving positive assistance to certain sectors of manufacturing industry to ensure that investment does take place and that employment in those areas does continue. Of course, in making determinations about which specific areas ought to be assisted, the Government ought to consult widely. We have already put into place mechanisms which will ensure that we are able to consult widely with industry in relation to these matters. We have various industry advisory councils, the Australian Manufacturing Council and the Economic Planning Advisory Council. All of these bodies are there to assist the Government to get advice from the private sector as to the sort of direction in which it should be going to ensure that economic growth continues and that investment takes place, particularly in the manufacturing sector which, as I mentioned, is lagging behind. This does mean that we have to think in terms of the way in which we can plan our industry development so as to ensure that the investment takes place in those areas which we believe will be the future growth areas for manufacturing. I am not referring merely to the new high technology industries, although they are important. I am referring also to those areas of industry in which we ought to have great investment because our market justifies it. There are areas of our economy in which we ought to be looking at developing new products or buying patents from overseas and investing those patents so as to increase the output and production in Australia of those particular products. One area which is very important is the personal computer industry. In my view, Australia imports an excessive proportion of its personal computer needs. We could be producing more if the Government provided incentives to establish such an industry in Australia. That is just one example. The point about the planning mechanisms that we have put down is that those mechanisms are there to assist us in determining in which particular areas industry is interested in investing. But let me say this: The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Senator Button) have made statements over and over again about the fact that the economic situation now justifies the Government having certain expectations of the private sector in relation to investment. We believe that those expectations ought to be fulfilled by the private sector taking up its responsibilities. I urge the Government to look closely at putting down specific incentives in the Federal Budget to ensure that that investment process goes forward, but the private sector must also do its part. Finally, we are not relying entirely on the private sector. We are looking to the Australian Industry Development Corporation, with its expanded budget and its expanded gearing ratio, to assist in building joint projects with private enterprise so that this kind of industry investment can go forward more quickly in the future. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(6.16) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) made an impassioned plea in this chamber on behalf of the unemployed on 27 March. His comments were given wide coverage in editorials and in comment. Suggesting that money is not what unemployment is about, the Minister declared: Unemployment breaks people morally, it breaks them physically, it breaks them intellectually, it breaks up families and it brings about massive poverty. He pointed out that on 11 occasions over the last four years, the Australian Labour Party had raised the issue of unemployment and that the issue deserved to be taken seriously by the Parliament. This government has now been in office for 14 months. It has had its National Economic Summit Conference and has introduced a mini-Budget and a Budget. It is now heading for an election. What has been its response to unemployment? Firstly, let us consider the Summit. I have pointed out in this House on earlier occasions that all the unemployed had to look forward to after the Summit was unemployment at or around 10 per cent for the next three years. The Opposition declared that the Summit communique was unacceptable, particularly in respect of its response to unemployment. The Government has since trumpeted the success the economy has had in creating new jobs. While I applaud this economic capacity, I point out that the record of job creation under the previous Government was equally admirable. In any case, despite the job creation that is going on, unemployment remains unacceptably high. The Minister for Social Security (Senator Grimes) has sought to alleviate the financial burden somewhat. But he has also said that it is not possible to increase welfare payments further. The principal Budget response was the Community Employment Program. The CEP is a high-priced way of providing temporary and mostly menial work for some unemployed and clouding the unemployment statistics. I challenge the Government to outline how it is responding to the problem as defined by the Special Minister of State. What is the Government doing to alleviate the way in which unemployment breaks people morally? What is the Government doing to respond to the way in which unemployment breaks people physically? What is the Government's answer to the way in which unemployment breaks people intellectually? What is the Government's proposal to remedy the fact that unemployment breaks up families? What is the Government's attitude to the massive poverty being brought about by unemployment? These are the issues as laid down by the Special Minister of State-not by me or the Opposition, but by the Government itself. Neither the Special Minister, nor any other Minister, has sought to resile from this statement of the issues that received such enormous media coverage when it was uttered. This is the statement by a Government that claims that its fundmental objective is to fight unemployment and inflation at the same time. Where is the concern, other than in the rhetoric? Where is the response? This is the Government that is talking about nothing else in relation to the coming Budget other than tax cuts and deficit cuts. What happened to the unemployed? Their interest, and this Government's alleged concern, have been submerged in the struggle to maintain the accord. If it is different, let the Government say it is different. Until it does, it must be clear that the plight of the unemployed, so eloquently advocated by the Special Minister of State, continues to be ignored by the Government. It must be clear that the priorities of the Government are industrial peace, the control of inflation and a Budget that will maintain the accord, and the unemployed can sink somewhere below those priorities. One thing that is abundantly clear to me after speaking with a large number of unemployed people is that the government mechanisms which are designed to assist the unemployed are inadequate. There are principally four responses from government to the problem of unemployment: Welfare payments; the Commonwealth Employment Service; schemes such as the Community Youth Support Scheme and retraining schemes; and finally job creation through the community employment program. In my experience it is almost universally the case that these responses are not relevant to the unemployed. I turn now to welfare payments. Amongst those who have been unemployed for some time, I encountered feelings ranging from helplessness to antagonism towards the Department of Social Security. The size and facelessness of the bureaucracy do nothing to assist those who have to deal with it. They certainly get no inspiration, comfort or encouragement from it. They are forced to deal with the Department but its relationship with its clients is totally impersonal. Perhaps there is no other way, but let us not pretend that what we are providing is in any way adequate. The unemployment benefit system was established in 1947 and was last reviewed in 1977 by Dr Myer for the Fraser Government. Between 1947 and the early 1970s the system may have been adequate, but over the last ten years or so unemployment has gone from 2 or 3 per cent to 10 per cent. The length of time people are out of the work force has risen dramatically and for many it is more like a year than a month. The blowout, even since 1977, in both numbers unemployed and time out of the work force is enormous, yet the government response is to soldier on with a 1947 vintage scheme. Dr Myer was critical of the system in 1977 and proposed changes to make it more relevant and to provide a more flexible financial response to different categories of unemployed people, but for the most part they were not accepted. This Government appears to have no more interest in the Myer proposals or any other reforms than had the previous Government. For how long are we going to require people to sign a form every fortnight that says they are actively seeking work when they have given up months ago and their only hope is a major economic upturn which nobody is predicting, let alone the Government? Are we still going to treat people whose cheque is lost, stolen or bungled like outcasts or are we capable of introducing some compassion into the administration so that people do not feel that any contact with the Department is going to be a confrontation? Can not we, in 1984, faced with a medium term prospect of 10 per cent unemployment, devise a mechanism, a response, that does not create antagonism, feelings of dishonesty and plain hopelessness in the minds of those the system is supposed to be helping? I did not meet anybody who took the CES seriously. It is difficult to imagine anything as irrelevant to its client group as is the CES. I have never believed that all vacancies are registered with the CES any more than all job seekers are . Hence I have always been cynical about the oft quoted ratio between the number of jobs and the number of jobless. But I acknowledge that CES does not have enough vacancies. Nevertheless, most unemployed I have spoken to have zero confidence about getting employment through the CES. In most cases this is after months of experience with the CES. Those unemployed eventually give it away as hopeless. The CES seems to have a system of sending out telegrams to a large number of registered job seekers when a vacancy is listed. Much to the annoyance of the job seekers, if not the employer, the job has normally been filled by one of the others who received a telegram. There appears to be little attempt made to match a person with a job; rather the CES adopts the shotgun approach that normally ensures someone fills the vacancy and so one more statistical success can be claimed. In these circumstances it is hard to argue with the telegram recipient who does not bother to jump to attention, make himself presentable and rush off for an interview any more. I am told that in many cases the jobs on display at CES offices have been filled, but not taken off the board. It is also a common complaint that the desk staff are low level clerks who are unable to be of any real assistance to the genuine job seeker. For these and other reasons, no doubt, most unemployed, including those I believe to be totally genuine, have given the CES away as offering them any chance of employment. I ask myself what function the CES performs that is not fulfilled by the classified advertisements. I wonder who would be affected if the CES did not open its doors on Monday and another means of lodging unemployment benefit forms and organising training schemes were provided. I know there would be some who would rise up if it were suggested that the CES be closed. But if the CES is irrelevent to its clients, and if its clients visit it only because the system requires it, perhaps we may sensibly consider transferring the $120m it costs to run the CES to some other form of assistance for the unemployed that may be of some real value. Let me deal with the schemes. CYSS is potentially a useful scheme but in my experience has not been successful. Its greatest failing is that it does not attract the young unemployed it is supposed to support. It is clear to me, without identifying particular schemes, that the most successful CYSS projects are the ones that bend the rules. Project officers tell me that in order to attract some of the target group and have some beneficial effect on them, it is necessary to turn a blind eye to the guidelines. Is this sensible? Are we spending $25m on CYSS to provide employment for project officers or to try to reach and assist unemployed youth? I do not make the decisions, but if I did I would seriously consider decentralising the CYSS administration out of its bureaucratic environment and down to CES area level. I would have someone familiar with the area and its needs and its problems making the decisions about finding CYSS projects and ensuring they stay relevant and get to the target group. I think we should take advantage of some of the unemployed themselves in staffing and administering CYSS. There are many that have a lot to offer. Who better to ensure CYSS is relevant than those it is designed to help? I predict that the longer CYSS remains a centrally administered bureaucracy requiring 14- page or whatever application forms in triplicate and requiring projects to live within guidelines that are not relevant to its target group the longer CYSS will fail to achieve its potential. While on the subject of schemes, I mention training schemes. I could not help notice how many of the unemployed I came in contact with had either done some training or retraining only to find no job at the end or would not enter into training or retraining because they knew there would be no job afterwards. Again this is an example of a scheme which is seen to be irrelevant to so many of those it is designed to benefit. In regard to job creation schemes, I encountered a general scepticism to the community employment program. For many it was the quality or type of work that was being offered. For others it was the almost certain prospect of unemployment again at the end of the program. Most participants I have spoken to have not felt the work they were doing under CEP would assist them in gaining real employment. Obviously few are prepared to refuse to participate in a CEP scheme, but equally there are few who approach CEP with much enthusiasm. Most agree that CEP is symbolic and a necessary contrast to the attitude of the former Government for the present Government, but at a cost of $300m in its first year, it is expensive symbolism. While CEP is not relevant to the unemployed because it is seen as temporary, unsatisfying and not helpful in gaining a real job, it is not providing much of real benefit for the community either. During the Great Depression many roads and public works were built and remain as a lasting testimony to the willingness of the unemployed and the Government to combine their efforts in the national interest. But that is not the case this time. What is clear is that this Government has no real concern for the unemployed. Even the rhetoric has faded as other priorities have overtaken the fight-inflation-and-unemployment-simultaneously battle cry that emerged from the election campaign and the Summit. This Government deserves to be exposed for the empty vessel that it is. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The technicians working on the division bells system are confident that they have rectified the fault noticed in the system earlier today. To enable a further check to be made, the division bells will be rung for one minute at 6.45 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(8.00) —The three Supply Bills that we are debating provide for the appropriation of funds for the period 1 July to 30 November for the purpose of maintaining Government initiatives and services until the 1984 Budget has received the approval of Parliament. As such, the Bills break no new ground but rather continue the general economic direction for Australia as enunciated by the Government in its first Budget in August last year. It is therefore appropriate to discuss in this debate the success or otherwise of the Government 's policy directions espoused in that first Budget. Honourable members on the Opposition side of this chamber continue to tread the path of economic chaos. It appears to matter little whether they are in government or opposition; the same old disproven policies are paraded continually before this Parliament. When in government those sitting opposite brought this country to its knees, to a position where any economic recovery would be achieved only by a dedicated government prepared to make tough and perhaps unpopular decisions, as this Government has been prepared to do. I believe that with the assistance of the workers of Australia, those involved with the Australian Council of Trade Unions, we are seeing an economic recovery which will provide for the long term economic stability of our nation. The economic recovery that we are witnessing is a soundly based one without any of the fanfare and gimmickry we were used to seeing in the period 1975 to 1983 when many of those sitting opposite had control over the economy. I say 'many of those sitting opposite' because a number of their colleagues either were defeated at the March 1983 election or have resigned in despair since that time. One would not need to be a prophet to predict that after the next election there will be even fewer opposite because of their inane policies and their carping and knocking attitude on economic matters. I realise that in a democracy there are government and opposition, but I have never witnessed such a negative opposition as that which this thirty-third party Parliament has. It is an Opposition lacking in perception and policies. Having given Australia the worst dose of economic medicine since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it wants to prescribe more of the same. The Australian people will not forget the mess honourable members opposite made of the economy and will vote accordingly. When the Australian Labor Party Government came to power in March 1983 the inflation rate was running at 11.5 per cent, the gross domestic product, or the growth rate, was running at minus 2 per cent and there was a forthcoming deficit of $9.6 billion. That was the state of the economy that this Government inherited just over 12 months ago. Hard decisions were needed so that the downward slide in the economy would be arrested and new policies put in place so that the economy could start to move again. As is always the case in Australia, those hard decisions were taken by a Labor government. The Government's policies of reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, with the help of unions affiliated with the ACTU, have worked well to a degree which would not have been considered possible just over 12 months ago. In that short period the Australian economy has shown a remarkable recovery. At present the underlying inflation rate is down to 7.6 per cent, not taking into consideration any alterations or adjustments relating to health insurance levies. The result for the March quarter of this year, excluding again the insurance levy adjustment, is 1.2 per cent, which is the lowest since the December quarter of 1972. There is every indication that by the end of this calendar year the inflation rate will be half of what it was when this Labor Government came to office. The gross domestic product which I mentioned earlier was running at minus 2 per cent when the conservatives were in government. It is now running at over 5 per cent with a continuing improvement forecast because of the general improvement which is being shown in other industrial countries. For instance, the gross domestic product forecast is for a rise of 5 per cent in the United States of America and 4 per cent in Japan. This surely is evidence enough that there is a confidence abroad in a world economic recovery. The only thing that will slow recovery in Australia is the doom and gloom being spread by the Opposition. It is undermining confidence in such a recovery and it stands condemned for its attitude in knocking the Government's initiatives. It would be a tragedy if the recovery now taking place in the business sector were to be slowed in any way. One of the major sectors of industry where recovery has taken place is the housing and construction industry. A recent report from the Indicative Planning Council shows that the number of houses being constructed in Australia has increased from 105,000 in the financial year ended 30 June 1983 to an expected 135,000 this financial year and an anticipated 145,000 in the next financial year. The number of new jobs created since Labor came to office last year now totals over 210,000, which is over 40 per cent of our job target for the three- year period. When we came to office we promised 500,000 new jobs over three years. I am pleased to say that the decrease in the unemployment rate to 9.3 per cent in March is a wonderful achievement indeed in such a short period. The economic recovery in Australia has not been restricted to the manufacturing and industrial sectors but, indeed, has been very well reflected in the rural sector where, with the cessation of the drought and the implementation of Government policies, there has been a miraculous recovery. The good news for our fellow Australians is that there has been a strong economic recovery in the period in which the Government has been in office. With continuing business confidence, that recovery should be translated into the private sector where 75 per cent of employment is positioned. A long term recovery in the economy will be reliant, of course, upon continuing expansion of private sector investment. We on this side of the House are confident that the private sector will take up the challenge. The Government's economic policies are designed to ensure that the recovery now under way is sustained. The signs are extremely good. Strong private consumption expenditure ran well ahead of inflation over the last three months. There is a pick up in profits, which is a good starting point for private sector recovery. The inflation rate is continually falling, which augers well for wage stabilisation and a reduction in the rate at which prices continue to rise. Interest rates are falling, which is one of the reasons why consumer spending in the retail sector and the construction of so many new homes have increased. People can now afford to make a commitment for their future needs. Most importantly, there is a confidence abroad in the Australian community that we have turned the corner and that recovery is under way. It is this confidence amongst ordinary people that will ensure that the recovery continues. They have confidence in their Government because we have the runs on the board. It is a great pity that Opposition members are seeking to undermine this community confidence at a time when they should be joining with us on this side of the House to ensure that the economic recovery now under way is sustained and expanded. We heard earlier this evening from the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur), who made his maiden speech. I congratulate him on the manner in which he made that speech. A number of the matters that he outlined were complaints about the Australian economy and, indeed, the way in which we were heading. But all those remarks by the new honourable member could be sheeted home to the former Government and not the present Government, the Hawke Government, which has been in office for just over 12 months. All of the matters which he raised in that speech, all of the problems that are besetting Australia at present, can be sheeted home to those seven years of conservative government between 1975 and 1983. Just before the suspension of the sitting for dinner, we heard from the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher), who told us all about the problems of the unemployed. The honourable member for Hume during a week just recently pretended to join with the unemployed. Indeed, prior to joining with the people on the unemployment benefit he ridiculed them. He brought to light the fact that many of those people were receiving benefits which they did not need. He considered that a lot of the benefits they received could be reduced. During the week that he spent with those people he obviously found out a few things because the remarks he made in the House tonight show that he has become rather more enlightened than he was prior to spending that week with them. But I believe it was a sham. It is a pity that more members on the Opposition side of the House cannot do exactly what the honourable member for Hume has done. He mentioned what this Government had done for the unemployed. As I mentioned a moment ago, we have created 210,000 new jobs, which is well ahead of target. One could well ask the question: How many new jobs did the previous Government create for the unemployed in this country? The answer is very few. It increased unemployment. There was no decrease in unemployment under its term whatsoever. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(8.11) —Prior to my referring to the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and cognate Bills before the House, and for the moment ignoring the comments of the honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford), I want to take this first opportunity presented to me to make some comments on and references to my predecessor. On the previous occasions that I have spoken in this chamber since re-election on 5 November there have been debates on Bills which have not allowed me to do this. I believe it is fitting that on the night when the honourable member for Corangamite (Mr McArthur) has made his maiden speech and paid tribute to Mr Tony Street, the former member, that I should pay tribute to Sir James Killen. As honourable members of this Parliament will be well aware, Sir James Killen served in this Parliament for 28 years, from 1955 to 1983. He retired at the age of 57. During that time in Parliament he successfully faced 12 elections, which is quite a remarkable feat considering the turnover which goes on in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. He was one of the few people in the Parliament in the 1980s who could make claim to having served his country in both war and in peace. In 1943, at the age of 18, he enlisted in the Royal Australian Air Force. The war ended shortly after but he was there as a very young man. He served as the Minister for the Navy in the Gorton Ministry and later as the Minister for Defence in the Fraser Ministry, which is probably one of the most difficult portfolios that any Australian has been asked to handle. Honourable members who have been in this Parliament for a long time will clearly recall that the Ministry for Defence was a combination of the ministry's for Supply, Army, Navy, Air Force and Defence. For seven years-a record period for any Minister for Defence in Australia-Sir James Killen managed to administer the combination of five very difficult portfolios. He was an able orator and he was committed to the thrust of debate in this Parliament in a way that very few honourable members are. I believe very strongly that he had a very deep love of the Parliament and, most significantly, an appreciation that centuries of slowly constructed tradition have made the Westminster system the best in the world. I believe it would be his one wish that the new members in this place quickly come to understand that his appreciation was not based on a romantic love or nostalgia because he was part of the system, but rather on a recognition that the Westminster system is the only system to have weathered all the assault and abuse that members of parliament have assailed her with over the centuries and across the world. The point I wish to make in the little time remaining to me is that it is proper to recognise that there has been a turnaround in the employment situation . It is also proper to recognise that the Fraser Government was plagued by a world recession. The Fraser Government and all Australians were plagued by a drought, and it was just good luck that it started to rain after the present Government was elected to power. It really had nothing to do with the creation of the rain. It may well have been the prayers and hopes of Liberals across the country that caused the drought to break because there is hardly anyone on that side of the House these days who would even know how to get down on his or her knees to ask for anything. It was honourable members opposite and their manipulators outside who, when in Opposition, thought nothing of pushing wages along harder and harder and winding up the issue, which in turn helped contribute to the growth of unemployment in this country. Mr Hand —What about you and your superannuation? Mr Cunningham —Yes, your superannuation. Mr Brumby —Yes, what about your superannuation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members for Bendigo, McMillan and Melbourne will cease interjecting. Mr DONALD CAMERON —They are all without scruples, every one of them, Mr Speaker. One of the points I want to make in the quieter moments of the debate in this Parliament is that it is proper to look-- Mr Carlton —Just sign a paper telling them that you don't want yours. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Mackellar will cease interjecting. Mr Carlton —Government members are interfering. They are disgraceful. Mr SPEAKER —I remind the honourable member for Mackellar that he is interfering with his colleague who is speaking. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Everyone seems to be interfering, Mr Speaker. It is proper to analyse where those jobs are going. According to the Treasury-I will settle for the purpose of my argument on the figures produced by the Federal Treasury because it could be said it suits me, but it is at least something I believe in, which is more than I believe the honourable member for Banks, and most definitely the absent Prime Minister, can say-in the past 12 months in which there has been a net gain of 101,900 jobs, 25,000 jobs have gone to the fields of public administration and the defence forces. That is a category. The Treasury also says that in the same period 47,400 new jobs were created in the community service sector. Those jobs are forms of Public Service jobs, whether they be in teaching, hospital administration and the like. The point I am trying to make is that of a net gain of 101,900 jobs, 72,400 were in fact Public Service type jobs. This shows that in the net gain of 102,000 jobs in round figures, three quarters of them are Public Service-type jobs which are funded by the taxpayer. In conclusion, because I recognise my time allocation is nearly up, I can only offer this comment: If the Government expects to solve unemployment in this country by creating three quarters of the new jobs in the public sector, this nation, its taxpayers and work force will be utterly destroyed. I make a plea to the Government in a serious vein that it should look at where the jobs are going , to stop bulling around and stop giving the nation false hope. If the Government were to deal in facts many extra people would be on its side, working with it in accordance with the promised word of 'consensus'. But we cannot be expected to swallow garbage which is without foundation and continue to work and say: 'Yes, let the Government tell mistruths and mislead the people'. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler)(8.23) —Tonight we are discussing the Supply Bills and the Audit Amendment Act. The function of the Supply Bills is to provide funding for the Government to carry out the services and capital works that were announced in the Budget this year. In the short time available to me I wish to make some remarks regarding the programs for the frail aged which the present Government has been carrying out and some areas in which I would like to see the Government move in the future in regard to the provision of services in community care areas for the frail aged in Australia. This year it is expected that the Commonwealth Government will spend approximately $1,000m on institutional care for the frail aged in Australia. Through the Commonwealth Government about $100m will be spent on community care programs for the frail aged. This is a 10:1 ratio, which shows that those people who use community care facilities are not really getting their fair share of government moneys. I commend the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) for the limit on the growth of nursing home beds that he implemented in the first year of his tenure as Minister. That limitation on approvals for nursing home beds has caused great savings of approximately $15m per annum for the Commonwealth. There can be further savings if the Government continues to keep a limit on the growth of nursing home beds. Mr Carlton —He has frozen them altogether. Mr LEO McLEAY —To maintain a system of care for the elderly, in Australia, the Government needs to provide an alternative to nursing homes. There is no point in the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) saying that the Government has broken the nursing home system already. When the honourable member for Mackellar was the Minister he was never game to grapple with the vast blow-out in funding for nursing homes in Australia which occurred at the expense of people in the community care system. The honourable member for Mackellar and his predecessor oversaw a massive blow-out in the Budget in the regulation of appropriations for nursing home beds until the honourable member panicked and took the matter to the Cabinet. By that time it was far too late. If we are to have a restriction on the growth of nursing home beds, we have also to set in train a community care program that can provide an alternative to those people in need of assistance in the community. The Government is presently looking at a number of priorities and options which will go a long way towards helping those people who are presently relying on nursing home accommodation. I remind the Parliament tonight that if the Government continues with its savings as a result of these reductions in the growth in nursing home beds, over a three year period the snowballing effect of that $15m saved this year will account for a saving of about $90m in three years time. That is nearly equivalent to the total amount of money that the Government spends at present on community care programs. So those savings can be put to the benefit of the people who are most in need. For instance, the Department of Veterans' Affairs has had a look at a number of ways in which it can provide assistance to veterans to help them stay in their homes. At present, the Department is funding a home care program under the community employment program which will be of great benefit to veterans in Sydney. I understand the Department is doing the same in Melbourne. However, I believe that the appropriations for these types of facilities should be in the mainstream of the Government's Budget considerations and not be one-off employment programs. When we have a look at the range of programs and appropriations under the aged care heading, there is a great need for the Government to have some co- ordinating unit. I believe that an office of aged care should be set up as soon as possible to plan, research and co-ordinate the present Government's new thrust in regard to the community care programs, otherwise we will have the fragmentation that we had in the old institutional days when we had the Department of Social Security administering one program, the Department of Health another, the Department of Veterans' Affairs another, State governments administering some programs while other State governments would have different ones. There are 11 different appropriations under at least three departments. There is a need to bring them together so that the target group we are looking at-the frail aged and their families-can be helped to cope with the stresses of life and can be given a choice of whether or not to go into a nursing home. Unfortunately, in Australia, under the previous administration no choice was involved at all because insufficient community facilities were available to allow old people to make a rational choice between going into a nursing home or staying in their homes or in rented accommodation and to feel confident that the Government would be able to provide them with the assistance they needed to continue their lives. A number of interdepartmental conflicts have hindered this progression over the years. Those conflicts, of course, will continue. I think it is important, however, that the Government should move and should move swiftly to overcome those conflicts so that we remember what government programs are about. Government programs are not so much about providing jobs for public servants as much as for providing services for people. I think that in the area of aged care too many bureaucrats have for too long looked to protect their empires rather than look at what programs are for. Programs are there to provide services to elderly Australians. Such programs are not necessarily there to provide a continuation of any bureaucratic structures that have been set up. The Government must take steps to ensure that the bureaucrats efficiently and effectively deliver those services to the people for whom the programs are designed-that is the elderly Australians who need them. As I have said, the Government will be spending approximately $1,000m this year on the provision of institutional care and $100m on the provision of community care. The community care program is targeted at about 150,000 elderly Australians, according to figures provided by the family and aging project under the direction of Dr Hal Kennedy at the Australian National University. I must say that the previous Government funded and the present Government has continued to fund this very important project. Indeed, the present Government has increased the funding to ensure that there is a data base on which the Government can make the proper, rational decisions in this area. When we look at the fact that $100m is spent on 150,000 it is important to realise that the $1, 000m that we spend on institutional care goes to less than half that number of people. About 77,000 Australians in the institutional care area receive $1,000m and 150,000 Australians in the community care area receive an appropriation of approximately only $100m. Community care is not the only alternative but a system of care in its own right. I believe that it is a system of care that the governments should fund and expand because it is the area of care which will help the most people and which is the more cost effective. The people whom governments classify as the aged account for about 10 per cent of the Australian population, about 1.4 million people. It is a lot of people but only about 10 per cent of those people at any time ever need the facilities that are provided by government. As I said, 150,000 people are targeted by the community care program and about 77,000 are targeted by the institutional program and this number represents about 10 per cent of the aged population of Australia. The other 90 per cent, of course, do not use any of the facilities that are available and go on leading their lives like the rest of us. All of the people to whom I have spoken, who are in the age group and who may need these facilities have always said to me that the most important thing that the national Government can do is to provide them with a real choice. I have not met anyone yet who was really keen about going into a nursing home if he had a choice. I think the Minister for Health and the Minister for Social Security ( Senator Grimes) have recognised that. The Minister for Health made the discussion of care for the frail aged an item of special business at the recent Commonwealth-State Health Ministers conference at which a wide-ranging discussion took place. I think we are seeing the seeds of a program which will be of benefit to a great number of elderly Australians. There are two significant improvements which the Government has implemented to date and which I think need just a short mention. I refer to the allocation of funds to the New South Wales Government and discussions with other State governments regarding funds for assessment units and to the units which have been set up in the Department of Veterans' Affairs. That will go a long way to ensuring that the most appropriate type of assistance is advanced to elderly Australians. It will also ensure that people are directed to the services which they may not have been aware existed. Too often people through ignorance see the choice for the evening years of their lives as being one of going to a nursing home. I believe that the assessment units that the Government of New South Wales has set up in conjunction with those set up by the Department of Veterans' Affairs are doing an excellent job in ensuring that people understand that many other avenues of assistance are available to them other than to go directly into a nursing home. To wind up, I commend the Government for the moves that it has made in the area of the frail aged and for being willing to make savings and to restrict growth in nursing homes. But I would ask the Minister and the Government to take account of the fact that there needs to be a co-ordinating body. The Government needs to set up an office of aged care so that the programs that account for $1. 2 billion of the Commonwealth Government's money are efficiently and effectively spent for the greater need of all those people of Australia. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.35) —Before going on to what I want to say about the Supply Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 let me respond to one or two things that the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo Mcleay) said. I am accused in this House day after day by members of the Government of being an extreme economic rationalist and somebody who would take a very cold economic view on social questions. That is a misrepresentation of my view which is no clearer than my view in this situation. The honourable member for Grayndler has applauded the actions of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) in saving $15m in the aged care program by freezing the allocation for nursing home beds for elderly people. There has not been a single new approval for nursing home beds since this Government took office. People who are thrown out of private hospitals after 35 days under the new rules have nowhere to go because there are not enough beds in nursing homes as a result of the freeze put on by the present Minister. According to the honourable member for Grayndler, the present Minister has saved a lousy $15m in a $1 billion program, that is, 1.5 per cent of the total program , in order to keep these people out of nursing home beds. That is what has happened. I was certainly very concerned about the fact that in the 1982-83 Budget there was a 29 per cent increase in nursing home costs. This was an allocation for which I was responsible. I acknowledge what the honourable member for Grayndler said about the cost blow-out. But as Minister I was simply not prepared to exclude a single aged person from a nursing home bed until we had a satisfactory means of dealing with those people. The present Minister, supported by the honourable member for Grayndler, has put a freeze on all nursing home bed applications before an alternative program has been put forward to deal with these elderly people. Anybody who talks about cruel economic decisions should note that the present Minister for Health is responsible for that. As prevous Minister I certainly was not prepared to recommend to the Cabinet that there be a freeze on nursing home bed applications if there were not somewhere else for those elderly sick people to go. I am absolutely ashamed that any member of this House, particularly the honourable member for Grayndler who produced a sensible report on this matter, should applaud a lousy $15m saving in a $1 billion program at the expense of the frail and disabled aged. I think that what has happened is an absolute disgrace. By my calculation, $15m represents a 1.5 per cent saving in a $1 billion budget. I would be perfectly happy to accept a 1.5 increase over another 12 months if it meant that we had a satisfactory way of dealing with the plight of disabled and sick elderly people. This is what is happening out in the community at the moment. It is the Labor Government that is acting in this way. Yet, Government supporters are accusing me of taking a cold economic view. But I was simply not prepared to do what the Government is now doing. I think it is a scandal that the honourable member for Grayndler should be claiming credit for something that his Minister has done in the most appalling way. I will not say anything about cuts in money that is going to hostels although that also is causing difficulty in the community. The report of the honourable member for Grayndler on this matter, which was a sound report, is being used by the present Minister for economic-budget-cutting reason at the expense of the elderly. I will now pass on to the matter which I was going to raise before replying to the disgraceful intervention by the honourable member for Grayndler. Last week in this House the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in one of his extremely long and rambling answers tried to make out that the Opposition was about to sell off just about every conceivable government undertaking. Beyond that, he tried to point out to the Australian people that this would be a grave disadvantage to all the people of Australia. I just want to put the record straight on the Opposition's view on this matter. The Opposition has a fairly simple view, and that is, if there is a function to be carried out in our community which could be carried out satisfactorily by private enterprise, by and large it is better to have that function carried out by private enterprise. Generally speaking, ordinary members of the community understand that they would rather have a service which involved a choice and in respect of which they could decide to buy or not to buy. They would rather that there was competition between competing suppliers for their dollar in the market place. In other words , they would rather have the sorts of services that they get from the corner shop, from competing shop keepers, or from Woolworths and Coles and Myers and David Jones. They would rather have that than accept a monopoly service run by a government. I think that is a fairly basic understanding of the Australian people. Mr Cohen —Have you run a business? Mr CARLTON —The Minister at the table asked whether I had run a business. The answer is yes. Until this year, I have spent more time in private enterprise than I have in politics. Therefore, I have run a business. I certainly understand what I am talking about in this respect. However, I do not have to run a business to understand that the Australian people would rather have a choice in the market place and rather have competing suppliers looking for their business. They would rather have the opportunity to decide what to buy and what not to buy than have it decided for them, by somebody appointed by the Government deciding what they should be allowed to purchase or what they will be given by a government service. I think that is quite fundamental. Most Australians would agree that competition in the market place is the best guarantee of better products, of innovation, of creativity in deciding what new product will be offered, of the level of customer service and of the kind of service one gets in a shop or in an institution. They all know that, basically it is better to have that kind of competition than, for example, to be told what they will get from a State railway system. I think that is pretty fundamental. All the Opposition is saying is that every trading corporation run by the Government should be examined to see whether it is possible that a better service might be provided to the Australian people if that corporation were placed in the hands of competing private enterprise. That is simply what the Opposition is saying. We have given a commitment in our policy which was announced by the Leader of the Liberal Party and the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party a couple of weeks ago. We said that in three cases, in the case of the Australian Industry Development Corporation, the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation and Medibank Private, there definitely would be benefits for consumers and taxpayers if those institutions were placed in the hands of the private sector. Our belief is that, in the case of Medibank Private, it would be best if it were not owned by the Government but by the contributors to that fund . It would be better if it were a co-operative run by a board elected by the contributors so that each contributor to Medibank Private would be a part owner of the new fund. In our view that would be a favourable situation for those who wished to insure themselves for hospital and medical services through a voluntary insurance fund. We are examining in the case of Trans Australia Airlines and Telcom Australia, contrary to what the Prime Minister suggested last week, whether the customers and taxpayers would get a better service if those bodies were in the hands of private enterprise. That is what we are looking at. The criterion is whether there is a definite and clear consumer benefit. Will people get better prices? Will they get better quality? Will there be greater innovation in those areas if they are in private hands rather than in the Government's hands? We will be looking at each case objectively to determine whether there will be consumer benefit. Equally we will be looking to see whether, if we place those bodies in private hands, there would be any losers. If there were losers we would have to consider whether there would be any need to subsidise the losers or whether there would be any need to make special provisions to make sure that those who might lose by such transfer would be looked after. That is a simple proposition. The Minister for Home Affairs and Environment who is at the table has run a business. I think it is quite clear to every sensible-thinking Australian person , which is the majority of this community, that, if it is possible to transfer these bodies into a competing private enterprise situation then there would be substantial benefits for Australian consumers and for taxpayers. We will be looking at each individual case to judge that balance. We will certainly not recommend any such move if there are not clear consumer benefits to be obtained by such an action. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(8.46) —It is interesting that the previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), spoke about losers in relation to the management of the economy. There were a lot of losers under his Government. Approximately 250,000 extra losers lost their jobs in the last two years of his Government. There was a record level of bankruptcies of businesses under his Government. His Government performed at a record low in the housing area. His Government did not perform. A lot of people lost under his Government. The same tired old ideology has come creeping back into this place again under a new guise. We are happy to talk about losers. Unfortunately, the people in the electorates do not want to talk about losers because they are aware of it. A lot of them lost. They lost by the thousands and they are still losing. At last we have started to turn the economy around. I think you have to be very careful when you get on to that theme because in many respects you people sitting opposite have a lot to answer for. The answers you have provided so far are just not on. It is the same tired old rhetoric. Let us go back to the 1974 Bills because it is important. That was the first time that you lot opposite decided to torpedo a democratically elected government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will speak through the Chair. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. You did. As a consequence of that you succeeded in producing instability into the Australian political scene. You did it in a calculated way. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member is still not speaking through the Chair. I suggest he does so. I suggest he use the word they. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —As a consequence of that, in 1975 those opposite succeeded in producing instability into politics at that time. It is very interesting for the Australian community to be reminded that these Bills are the same as those that began that period of instability. Unfortunately, the Opposition has not learnt the lesson because there is still a desire by the Australian community to see the Opposition produce a sense of direction. It has not got it. The sense of direction that is needed is essentially to talk about the real needs of the economy. We should not get into spurious debates which we keep having to endure in this place; we should have some substantial economic debates. I accept that the Opposition has gone away and tried to come back with some clear philosophy. That is a good thing. Unfortunately, unless the Opposition does a lot more work, that philosophy will not identify the problems that are important for the Australian community. Those problems are still largely economic problems. We, on this side of the House, try to address those problems in this sort of debate. I do not say that we always win on everything we attempt to do. We do not. That is the nature of politics. The reality is that, at least, we are addressing the substantial economic matters that the Australian community wants us to address. The Opposition is not doing that. I think that is a serious problem. I wish to talk about some of the issues we are confronting. We are confronting an improving economy. There is a clear indication that some 210,000 jobs have been created since April 1983. In fact those jobs are being felt throughout the community. The second thing to point out is that gross domestic product is improving. The Opposition, when in government, presided over a substantial decline in gross domestic product. Under the previous Government, the gross domestic product fell by 2.5 per cent. We have now got a turnaround and are looking at a 6 per cent increase in GDP at the minimum. That is an important consideration. It is no good our coming into this place and talking about a lot of issues which are irrelevant to the economic experience of the community. It is little wonder that the Australian community often wonders what this place is all about. It is because so much of what goes on in this place is irrelevant to its experience. The longer I listen to debates in this place the more I find that the quality of debate is completely removed from the real economic experience. That is a view echoed by many people in the Australian community. I have mentioned the employment situation and the turnaround in GDP. So honourable members opposite will not be disappointed, let me talk about housing. There has been a substantial improvement in the housing area. We are looking at a figure of around 140,000 commencements this year. That compares with an all-time low of housing commencements of 105,000 under the previous Government. There has been an important turnaround in housing. People are actually getting into homes. The housing industry is producing jobs and there is a net effect. It is very interesting that the current figures on applications under the first home owner's scheme show that until the week ending 27 April, 69 ,037 applications were received in Australia. In my home State of Western Australia, 10,025 applications were received. For the last week, in Western Australia 626 applications were received; yet it was planned there would be approximately 170 applications. In terms of a policy approach, we can see that this housing policy approach is delivering because people in the community have the confidence and the recognition that it is an important initiative. It is important to add that to the week to which I referred, 459,367 inquiries were received Australia-wide and 76,904 in Western Australia. The picture in terms of home lending is most encouraging. Honourable members opposite should take good note of it. The Perth Building Society stated: More people in the lower income bracket are now able to afford homes and have a better chance of meeting repayments than was the case 18 months ago. Mr Cohen —Who was in government then? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —The discredited Opposition was in government. It was a discredited government. In the electorate of Stirling I have had cases recently in which people have been able to leave caravans and move into their first home. I think that it is a great disgrace that people on low incomes in Australia have to live in caravans. That situation arose as a result of the effect of economic rationalism. That economic rationalism was applied in a most brutal and unfeeling way. The honourable member for Mackellar, who spoke previously, said that I am accusing the Opposition of being unfeeling. The reality is that the product of the previous Government's policies was unfeeling. The honourable member may not have been unfeeling. It is not our business to make ethical judgments about honourable members opposite, but it is our business to make judgments about the impact of their policies. The impact of their policies with respect to the electorate was unfeeling. I have talked about unemployment and housing and what a disgrace it is that people have to live in caravans. People are still living in caravans, so the job has to be pursued. It is true to say that at least we have begun to turn the situation around. We have got people moving into new homes. That is a major social achievement. I might add that the important point in conjunction with that achievement is that the building industry is recovering. People are obtaining jobs in that area. So two social goals are being achieved. The Perth Building Society pointed out that it had a record lending level of $21m in April. A report states: Approvals last month were the highest in its 122-year history, topping its previous best in the corresponding month of 1978. Loans for the first four months of this year were almost double those of the corresponding period last year. This result clearly underlines the strength of the current recovery in the homes market, according to Mr Pat Ryan, operations general manager for PBS. It was being fuelled by Government schemes and the stabilisation of home-loan interest rates, he said. April figures highlighted the changing nature of the market. Average earnings for people qualifying last month were $22,193, compared with $25,633 in December , 1982. Their repayments-- this is important- had fallen from $414 a month to $367. Government initiatives-- these are the comments of the PBS; not the Government- had attracted many people into the market. While the recovery had started at the lower end there were now clear signs that it was flowing through to more expensive homes. That is an important endorsement. It is not one that we had to go out to seek. That was the conclusion to which the Perth Building Society, which does a lot of lending in my electorate, came as a consequence of experiencing what is going on in the housing industry. When we look at the context of economic recovery, we will see that what we have tried to do in this place and in the wider community is turn debate around. It would be folly to think that everything we said in this place was listened to in the wider community, but it is important to recognise that a debate has been taking place in the wider community and it is a debate that is a vast change from that which preceded it. It was marked by conflict, confrontation, divisiveness and an essentially nasty edge to government policy making. The Australian community expected better of the national Parliament. We asked: 'What can we do in terms of reducing confrontation and conflict and getting co- operation on major economic goals?'. I think it is a credit to the Australian community that co-operation has been forthcoming. People are now supporting government because government is being seen to get away from the position to which the previous speaker referred. The one folly which the previous speaker did not deal with-this is the very worrying thing as far as the honourable member for Mackellar is concerned-was that not all institutions have only an economic role; they also have a social role. If all one ever does is measure institutions in terms of their economic role and say 'We will sell that one off, because in economic terms it makes good sense', what about the social role? What about the social role that is performed by housing and the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation? What about the social role that is performed by Telecom Australia? Telecom provides subsidised phones to people in remote areas. Is it not right that we should subsidise people in country areas? I believe we should, because those people already experience enough disadvantage. In terms of the policy that has been announced by the Opposition, those people would have to pay market rates. The experience of deregulation of the telephone industry in the United States of America was that the rates paid on trunk calls under the International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation went up by 40 per cent. I think that honourable members opposite have to face reality. Mr Cohen —Why do they hate country people? Mr RONALD EDWARDS —I really do not know. Some country people vote for honourable members opposite. I hope that the National Party of Australia will put some pressure on the Liberal Party and say: 'We have a major social responsibility as well as an economic responsibility'. Our job is not finished when the sums add up; our job has only begun. The next part of the job is to ensure that the community understands what we are doing. We require the co-operation of the community. Our policies have major economic and social responsibility. It is clear that this Government is on the right track in terms of its policy making. It is clear that we have begun to get policies that are working. One would hope, in the context of the debate, that the community expects that the Opposition can begin to match some of that performance. At this stage it is clear that it has not been able to do so. We can only hope that it does. In endorsing the Bills I am pleased to say that at least the runs are on the board as far as this Government is concerned. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.57) —The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards ), who has just spoken, seemed concerned with praising the Government for addressing what he termed the real issues of our society, but quite frankly this Government is preoccupied with image. It is ignoring the realities. The honourable member seems quite proud of the Government's record in housing in Western Australia. Let met tell the honourable member that in the electorate of Richmond some 8,500 families live in caravans and there is a seven year waiting list for Housing Commission homes. The waiting list has, in fact, increased since the election of the Hawke Labor Government. That is a record to be truly proud of! Mr Ronald Edwards —They have the wrong member. Come to Stirling. Mr BLUNT —The honourable member is politicising the provision of public housing to the people of Australia. Notwithstanding the discriminatory attitude of the Australian Labor Party to the provision of housing, I point out that it has a similar discriminatory attitude to the provision of roads. In February 1982 we had agreement between the Federal Government, the then Minister for Roads in Queensland and the then Minister for Roads in New South Wales. I believe it was Mr Rex Jackson. I am not quite sure what he is a Minister for now or what he is doing. I believe he sells tickets to various things. Notwithstanding that, a bypass still has not been built between Coolangatta and Tweed Heads, despite the fact that the National Party Government in Queensland has completed the road right up to the border. It amazes me that a government that has chosen to index bicentennial excise on fuel levies cannot find sufficient funds to provide for the construction of this road. It also amazes me that a government which is supposedly concerned with the freedom of information has taken the course of providing for indexed taxation whereby it avoids having to come to the Parliament to increase a tax but it allows a public servant, operating with a degree of anonymity, to increase a tax without telling the Australian people, ensuring that the public in general are not aware of what is going on. I am also concerned at some statements regarding the provision of education. The electorate of Richmond is growing very rapidly. Recently the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs (Senator Ryan) visited the electorate and promised considerable support for the financing of stage two of the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Subsequent to that, the Minister, when speaking at the University of New England graduation day, said that colleges of advanced education could not expect a continuing flow of funds-obviously softening the ground for the news that once again funds would not be made available for stage two of the college of advanced education. I find it quite hypocritical, if that is not an unparliamentary word-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —It is quite all right when used in the plural but not when used singularly against an individual. Mr BLUNT —In that case, I still find it hypocritical that on the one hand the Minister talks about equal opportunity and the need to provide education for women but on the other hand provides no opportunity for people to attend a college of advanced education outside a metropolitan area. I am also concerned at what must be described as a hypocritical attitude towards the provision of finance for students. On the one hand this Government professes concern for the unemployed. We have seen how concerned it is when the only member of this House who has taken any positive action actually to experience the situation in which unemployed people find themselves is the National Party of Australia member for Hume (Mr Lusher). Yet this Government persists in paying a lesser level of financial assistance to students who are improving their ability to contribute to Australia and it seeks to remove unemployment benefit from those people receiving it who are also part time students. I wonder whether the Minister supports recent action undertaken in Lismore to remove from unemployment benefit students who are receiving more than eight hours tuition at the college of advanced education. I wonder also whether she supports a comment made by a senior officer of the Department in Lismore concerning one student who at the time was not publicly known. He said: 'I am afraid that you are going to lose your unemployment benefit because you are not a media property.' That student suddenly became a media property and had his unemployment benefit restored. I wonder what sort of even handed approach to policy that is. I am also concerned that when our local radio station-an excellent radio station with some very intelligent and bright young journalists-contacted the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs for a comment on the situation, a member of the Minister's staff said: 'I am sorry. The Minister is too busy to speak to country radio'. I wonder whether that is really an even handed approach to governing Australia. These are only simple examples of the Government's preoccupation with window dressing, with creating an image rather than addressing the real issues that concern the people of Australia. A classic example is Medicare. Again, we have an example of politicisation of an issue. The electorate of Richmond has population centres scattered almost evenly throughout it. We have three Medicare offices. My colleagues tell me that I am one over quota on that basis. But the distribution of those Medicare offices makes one wonder about the logic. There is one located in Casino and one in Lismore, a distance apart of some 30-odd kilometres. The other Medicare office is located in Tweed Heads, some 120 kilometres away. There is no Medicare office in any other major shopping centre or major centre of population. Why are there no Medicare offices in Murwillumbah, Mullimbimby, Ballina, Byron Bay or Kyogle for that matter? Is it a deliberate policy on the part of the Government in an attempt to force doctors to indulge in bulk billing? Is it a deliberate policy to inconvenience older people? Is it a deliberate policy to encourage business for Australia Post? I do not know the answers to those questions. All I know is that the people of Australia are suffering as a result of that policy. The cattle producers of Australia, and in particular the cattle producers of the north coast, are also suffering from the failure of this Government to recognise the realities of the international beef market. We have a situation in which Japan, a major and significant market for Australia, has consistently refused to respond to representations from Australia, basically because those representations are too little and too late. The Government has failed to appreciate that in the context of an election in the United States of America, the United States Government has made forceful representations to Japan in an endeavour to secure an increasing slice of the Japanese market. What has the Australian Government done to protect the interests of Australian cattle producers? A further example-I do not believe Government members even know of the existence of this industry-is the Australian fruit pulp export industry which is in a similar situation. The United States Government has made strong representations to the Japanese Government and once again the Australian exporters of this product, a small but significant industry, are losing out to United States producers because of the inability or lack of concern of the Australian Government to do anything on their behalf. It concerns me that we have a Government which in these circumstances not only persists in not making representations on behalf of a significant Australian industry but also imposes a significant export charge. We are losing our share of the Japanese market through the failure of the Government to represent effectively our industry, yet this Government persists in imposing a $5.40 inspection charge per beast. In the electorate of Richmond we have a co- operative abbatoir, perhaps the most efficient and well managed abbatoir in Australia. The cost of killing a beast in this abbatoir is $22. The Government export inspection charge is $5.40. Those honourable members on the opposite side of this House may know nothing about the abbatoir industry but let me say that the Casino abbatoir represents an investment of some $10m. It employs several hundred people. The number of people involved and the capital involved in actually slaughtering a beast is substantial, yet the cost is some $22. However, the Government persists in arguing that the cost of inspecting one carcass is $5.40. In effect this is an export tax-a tax which could not be levied at a more inappropriate time. Our industry is under pressure on overseas markets. The Australian Government has seen fit to impose a further cost impost which lessens our international competitiveness and reduces the ability of our export industry to find alternative markets to substitute for the markets this Government has failed to protect. 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. Consideration resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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. Consideration resumed from 1 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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. Consideration resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Dawkins: That the Bill be now read a second time. 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. Debate resumed from 28 March, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(9.10) —I say at the outset of my contribution on the Patents Amendment Bill that I am handling the Bill for the Opposition on behalf of the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards) who is overseas on business in connection with his shadow portfolio of science and technology. The aim of the Patents Amendment Bill is to amend the Patents Act hopefully in a way which will support research and development in biotechnology and also hopefully lead to the exploitation of production of modern biotechnology products in the market-place by both existing and new industries. It is always important when one is discussing a complicated matter like this to have a definition of the subject. Biotechnology is defined as the application of science and engineering principles to the processing of materials by biological agents to provide goods and services. It is worth noting that ancient and honourable processes of biotechnology are practised in the production of cheese and wine in brewing and baking. That brings simplicity to that complicated word; now we all know what it means. I think the community understands that we use fermentation and bacterial action in making cheese. That is just biotechnology. I take the opportunity to say at the outset that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) is, in this legislation, picking up and carrying on the work of the previous Liberal-National Party Government and the former Minister for Science and the Environment, the Hon. David Thomson. I stress that the Government is only continuing the important work that the former Government initiated. In fact, the former Government led the way in biotechnology. The work of the Fraser Government in recognising the importance of science and technology to industry is not widely appreciated. This Bill is one of the few areas in which we have seen some legislative action from the Minister. However, as I have pointed out, it is the result of the work of the former Government. The Minister never stops talking but we see very little action. What has the Minister for Science and Technology actually done to improve the transfer of technology from academia to business, to companies and to the market-place? The answer is very little indeed. The previous Government started the thrust of action in science and technology. The former Minister convened a symposium in November of 1981 which brought together industrialists, research scientists and employers to discuss the full range of potential applications of biotechnology. The former Minister perceived, rightly, that this was a developing technology that could be of great world significance. In May 1982 the then Prime Minister wrote to the Australian Science and Technology Council, noting its intention to report on prospects for biotechnology in Australia and seeking the inclusion in the report of an evaluation of this most promising area and the most promising particular areas for Australia. Later that year, in November, the Minister for Science and the Environment convened a more specialist and concentrated meeting in Canberra with the specific objective of assisting in identifying those research areas and applications of biotechnology which held the greatest promise for commercial exploitation of new biotechnology techniques and for industrial and agricultural exploitation by industry in Australia. The activity, as I have said, was spurred on by the perception that Australia had a potential to have an edge on the world or a comparative advantage in this field because in the area of agricultural science we have great industries. Because of the importance of the rural industries of Australia and the massive research orientation in this country in those rural industries, both crop and animal, there is great potential for biotechnology. There have been great achievements in biotechnology. We have a strong skill base in agricultural science, in animal and plant genetics, and in microbiology and biochemistry related to our great primary industries. There is, however, potential for new crop types, control of diseases, drought resistant crops derived from cell fusion techniques and genetic engineering or by-products of biotechnology. In the area of animal husbandry, biotechnology techniques can be used in the production of veterinary products, both serum and vaccine, for our important rural industries. Some 140 million sheep, of the order of 20 million to 23 million cattle and two million pigs are just examples of the numbers involved in these important industries. There is also potential in agriculture for new pesticides and weedicides. There is great potential for biotechnological products in the area of medical biology-products to improve the health of Australians. Human pharmaceuticals are important, as are vaccines. The Government must create a climate for this development to take place and encourage investment by the private sector. It is a tragedy that the malaria vaccine developed in Australia has to be sent overseas for commercialisation due to a lack of the necessary infrastructure and support facilities. Under the previous Government there were two key ASTEC reports on biotechnology in Australia. The second or supplementary report drew on the 1981 symposium to which I referred, and particularly on the 1982 meeting, to identify and distinguish actual fields and priority areas of biotechnology in which Australia has the potential to have a world leadership position in research and to look at market potential where commercial development can take place. The report referred to those areas-namely, genetic engineering, cell manipulation and culture, fermentation technology and enzyme technology. I think the report tabled by the former Government was a signpost document for Australia. The previous Government recognised the importance of biotechnology, and the report points to the realisation of the potential for commercial exploitation in Australia. I draw the attention of the House to the 1983 Liberal-National Party election commitment to a national biotechnical scheme to fund projects in the field to the amount of $2.5m in the calendar year 1983, with further money to be allocated to the Australian Industrial Research and Development Incentives Board scheme for biotechnology products. From my reading of the Minister's speech on this Bill, and as honourable members will be aware, it is evident that following the change of Government the present Minister took up this proposal of the previous Government. There was also, previously, expenditure by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation on biotechnology research. This Government and this Minister have only picked up the work and initiatives of the previous Government . The 60 Minutes Minister at the table, in his flamboyant manner, has tried to create the impression that this development is his brainchild, his idea. It is not. It is interesting that one of the few areas in which he has actually been able to do something since he became Minister for Science and Technology was initiated by the previous Government. For instance, we have not yet seen the venture capital taxation legislation that is needed and which is supplementary to the management investment company legislation already passed by the House. Perhaps the Minister might tell us when it is intended to introduce that into the Parliament. Perhaps the Leader of the House (Mr Young) might enlighten us also. Biotechnology often depends on genetically altered micro-organisms, either having mutations-small changes-in their DNA genetic material or having a completely new segment of genetic information added to their DNA, which is genetic engineering. For example, Sydney research on the production of alcohol from starch has revealed that genetically altered bacteria can achieve this more cheaply than conventional yeasts. Normally in Australia university and CSIRO scientists have quickly published their research, thus losing any proprietary rights which should have accrued to the university or the CSIRO and the nation. They have been too anxious to get their results published. I think this is an interesting aspect of scientific work in Australia and may well be one of the reasons why there has been too little application of science and technology in the private sector. It is one of the reasons, I suspect, that technology transfer to manufacturing industry has been so low. It is an area that merits great study because the scientists have done a disservice to the practical application in the market-place of inventions. We have great scientists and great inventions but something gets lost on the way to their development and exploitation commercially in the market-place. I suspect that one of the reasons is that scientists have published too early and that research is lost and picked up overseas. The Patents Amendment Bill 1984 has three major advantages: It encourages the patenting of specially manufactured micro-organisms; increases the accessibility of such micro-organisms; and sets up repositories which will be recognised by the patent offices of other countries under the Budapest Treaty of 1977. Special provisions for patentable micro-organisms are required because as yet it is not easy to describe such organisms on paper in such a way as to enable independent production. At present the only sure way of documenting a micro-organism is to hold a number of sample cells in permanent storage. Australian biotechnology companies, by their very nature, can be classified as small businesses. They face most of the classic problems of small businesses- problems of finance, of obtaining venture capital for research and of getting the money to do the research. They face the added problem of getting finance from bankers for investment in a new field. The bank manager may not understand that field or may think that it has no potential. Protection of expensive research and development work by patenting is extremely important. Perhaps for this reason there has been almost no public debate in Australia on the question of patentability of micro-organisms, as there has been in countries such as the United States. Australia is in the phase of catching up in the protection of ideas. We have not talked in this debate about the non-patentable area, about trade secrets. I think that is another area for study. Biotechnology research and development is particularly expensive. In Australia the need to be a little more selfish nationally and not to give so much of our scientific results to the world via scientific publication is important. This was passed by in the plant variety rights debate. The Minister, in his second reading speech to the Bill, oversimplified the subject of patenting micro-organisms. Firstly, patenting itself as presently administered is being increasingly questioned around the world. The Minister did not refer to this. One is reminded of the famous Arthur Pedruck of the British Patent Office who, tired of processing unnecessary patents for useless inventions, filed 200 useless ones of his own. One of his final successful patents described a scheme for blasting the Patent Office into space as a satellite. Secondly, the Minister should have known or suggested that patenting of biotechnology is a legal minefield. For lawyers at any rate it promises to be a sunrise industry. But small business and business generally cannot afford the massive legal wrangles over patents indulged in by larger companies and by the transnational companies. It is up to the Federal Government to ensure that simple-looking patent applications by Australian companies do not fail in their intent because of legal loopholes exploited by larger overseas corporations. For instance, at what point should the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office declare that one micro-organism is different from another? A single nucleartide base park determines the effect of some cancer genes. Thus I ask the Minister: Can a competitor gain access to a patented micro-organism according to the Budapest Treaty, alter the genetic material, the DNA, slightly by mutation, and then claim to have developed a new micro-organism? Mr Young —I don't think so. Mr SHIPTON —The Leader of the House does not think so, but perhaps he will get the $64 question answered by the Minister at the table. Mr Jacobi —He knows all the answers in the world, no worries. Mr SHIPTON —The honourable member for Hawker interjects. I am glad that he is in the House to learn something. I am sure that he would agree that the Patent Office must spell out and define micro-organisms to industry so that there is certainty about what constitutes a different micro-organism. Any number of useful results of such mutations might be claimed, yet the expensive original research work would not remain protected. In summary, the Minister needs to treat the subject in a more detailed way. Mr Orrie Friedman, chairman of a United States biotechnology firm, is quoted as saying recently: If I had a child headed into a career now, I'd want him to be a patent lawyer- preferably a biotechnology patent lawyer. There is in Australia a great potential for the industry surrounding biotechnology. There is potential for Australian investors, inventors, entrepreneurs and firms to take commercial advantage of developments in the field. It is to be hoped that amendments to the Patent Act, as proposed in this legislation, will improve the opportunity for this to happen in the market-place . If it does not, the Government should be prepared to amend the legislation further to enable this to occur. What is needed is for the Government to create a climate for business to prosper and take full advantage of new technologies for investment, profit and jobs. The Opposition does not oppose the legislation. Debate (on motion by Mr Snow) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr JACOBI(Hawker)(9.27) —Many years ago the Arab-Israeli conflict was wisely summed up by a noted Arabist: To forgive and forget past injustices is sometimes not only virtuous but wise. And since the Arabs could not forget their betrayal, and the Zionists would not forget their ambitions, Palestine was doomed to disaster. Of the many legacies of colonial rule inflicted on the people of the Middle East , it is the legacy of Palestine that refuses to pass into history. The Arab peoples regrettably lost the struggle early in the fight, certainly post-World War I, on the all important question of the safeguards for their legitimate political and economic rights which should have flowed from the Balfour Declaration. This declaration led to partition and left a legacy of bitterness, hatred and frustration. But it ought to be recalled that the conflict was between a nationalism that was being satisfied, under powerful protection, and a nationalism in process of frustration. The dismemberment of Palestine ran counter to the lessons, to the dictates of history, geography, national economic forces and the laws of human relationships . Above all, it paid scant regard to the doctrine of consent. The treatment suffered by millions of Jewish people was an appalling indictment of our civilisation. But in all sense of equity and justice, to place the burden upon the Arab people is an erosion of the duty that lies upon those who perpetrated that morally outrageous act on Jewish people. No code of moral behaviour can justify the persecution of one people in an attempt to relieve the persecution of another. The problems are enormous. They are extremely complex and certainly will not be solved in an atmosphere of hate, prejudice and distrust. They will be resolved only through dialogue, trust and mutual understanding. The prospects for progress on negotiations on an Arab-Israeli peace have rarely looked more gloomy in the 35 years of the conflict. Israel's invasion of Lebanon in June 1982 effectively stalled the peace progress precariously begun with the efforts of the Camp David Accord and its aftermath; it cut the feet from under the Reagan plan of September of that year. Israel's invasion of Lebanon has radicalised anew, rather than destroyed, the Palestine Liberation Organisation. It has pitched Assad, with the Soviet Union behind him, into the position of arbiter of the fertile crescent. The invasion has caused unprecedented division within Israel. Let me quote the statement of Abba Eban: When the real effects of the Lebanese war sink in, the question will be asked: What was the use of the exercise? Five hundred were killed, thousands wounded, and we have several thousand Arab civilians on our conscience. We are involved now in a tense confrontation with the Soviet Union and Syria. It has contributed to the worst economic crisis in Israel's history and has brought premature elections, the outcome of which can only be guessed at. However deep their differences, Syria and Israel entered Lebanon for much the same reason-to prevent the PLO from developing an independent power base that would challenge their own hegemony in the region and to procure a Lebanese government favourable to themselves. They both failed. They both failed to destroy the PLO. Despite the devastating military blow the PLO suffered in Lebanon at Israeli hands, it was not politically destroyed because its power base in Lebanon was not the reason for its political being. The political basis of the PLO is the predicament of the Palestian people. Despite Syria's subsequent attempt to destroy Arafat, I believe, he has emerged stronger with his people. Now Syria has lost the Palestinian card it can no longer deliver the Palestinians in any regional peace negotiations. In revenge against Syria, Arafat helped to bring Egypt, Syria's sworn enemy, back into the Islamic fold and back into the Arab family. What problems did it give birth to in Egypt? It was five weeks after Israel withdrew from the Sinai that it invaded Lebanon. What did Lebanon do for Mubarak? It put him on the defensive and, regrettably, Washington did not give him an argument to use with any comfort with his people. In this way Israel's Lebanon adventure pushed Egypt in a direction in which it is bound to go and thereby changed the political map of the Middle East with little benefit to itself. The American marines, for an altruistic and limited purpose of overseeing the evacuation of the PLO from Beirut and then returning to help restore calm after massacres at the Palestinian refugee camps, moved to support the Government of Gemayel. As he lost credibility because he reneged on the commitment to redress the power imbalances between the Christians and Moslems in Lebanon, so the Americans lost credibility with him. One of the results was the appalling attack on the marines at Beirut with such a heavy loss of life. America's response to shore up its strained relations with Israel served only to alienate the moderate Arabs and so limit the prospects of their participation in the peace process. America's credibility as an objective party or mediator in the problems of the Middle East is at its nadir. President Reagan sought what he was repeatedly warned were unattainable gains. In a country that has known little peace for a decade he thought the warring religious factions could be reconciled. In a divided country that has scarcely ever known stability, he tried to achieve it under a weak, American supported Christian Government. In a land where Syria has strong interests and historical claims he worked to exclude Syria from a voice in Lebanon's future. The Americans ought to have taken notice of Abba Eban's statement prior to that. One can point to moments which are critically important in the failure of the United States of America in this area. One was the aftermath of Camp David in 1978 when the Carter Administration failed to hold Begin to what Americans thought was an undertaking to freeze settlements. Begin disputed that interpretation. He said that he never made such a commitment. The settlements went ahead and the Americans failed to block them. That became, and remains, a major obstacle to peace. The second factor was when the Americans decided not so much to order Israel out of Lebanon-I doubt whether it could have done so-after its invasions in 1982, but to negotiate it out. It can be argued that the 17 May agreement on the withdrawal of foreign presence gave Israel the right to remain as long as Syria did. As a result Israel remains on the West Bank, in the Gaza Strip, in the Golan Heights and in southern Lebanon. It is undeniable that the United States, obsessed with Lebanon as it has been in the past two years, has permitted serious negotiations on the core Arab- Israeli issues to languish and atrophy to a point at which virtually nothing has happened. No real substantive negotiations on either the West Bank, Gaza or the Palestinian question have taken place throughout this time. On the West Bank we see creeping annexation of that land which we see already as de facto annexation . De facto annexation means that resolution 242 is destroyed and with it the fundamental bargain of exchanging territory for full peace-a bargain that has been the basis of whatever progress has been made to date. The West Bank problem will be expanded into an East Bank problem with a danger to the Jordanian monarchy. The progress that has been made through the various disengagement agreements, Camp David and the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty will be placed in jeopardy. Some settlement buildings on the West Bank contribute to Israel's short term security; I concede that. But Israel ought to ask itself whether such security is worth the price of foreclosing the process of peace and a more lasting security based on political agreement rather than force of arms. Today there is a growing comprehension in the Arab world that the Palestinian problem must be dealt with in the context of the existence of Israel. This was made clear enough in the plan put forward by the Arab League summit meeting in Fez shortly after President Reagan put forward his peace plan in September 1982. The most striking feature of the Fez summit was the virtually unanimous Arab endorsement of the need for a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict . The Reagan initiative of September 1982, for its part, attempted to reconcile Israel's security concerns with the rights of the Palestinian people. Israel alone cannot be asked to make concessions. The PLO must work to secure amendments to those clauses of the Palestinian National Charter which deny Israel's right to exist. This would be the single most important means by which the PLO could secure further international recognition and with it, ultimately and inevitably, a place at the negotiating table. A recent statement by King Hussein perhaps best sums up this aspect. He said: When we look at the possibility of a PNC meeting, it is ironic that you have two sides that are preventing the previously silent majority which isn't silent anymore, from expressing themselves. Israel on one hand, and others in Syria who would not participate in the talks, they are preventing people who really matter from expressing themselves. If both super-powers are taking the position of alliance with some of the belligerents, namely Israel on the one hand and Syria on the other, obviously they alone cannot make a contribution to the solution, particularly when they themselves do not have any meaningful relations at this point. What constructively can be done? It is my personal belief that a new initiative to ease tensions is called for. But who can take that initiative and whose proposals will be credible and duly considered? Why should not the Australian Government, whose image is high throughout the Middle East and which has demonstrated its willingness to make a commitment to the peace of the region through its even-handed approach to the problems and through its participation in the Sinai force-I support the commitment to that force-take such an initiative? The Government ought to call upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to consider the establishment of an international commission, which would not be the first of its kind that the Middle East has known, to look into the problems of the region with a view to seeking a way forward. Mr White —Do we participate in that process? Mr JACOBI —Wait a minute. The Government would thereby establish an agenda for a peace negotiating process. It could suggest that this international commission be made up of countries which are not and have not been parties principal in the Arab-Israeli conflict, countries with a reputation for neutrality and even- handedness in a highly emotional conflict in which the super-powers themselves and a number of the European greater powers have already dirtied their hands. There may be no more effective way forward in the near future than the establishment of such a neutral and credible international commission which would at least, in the short term, keep the dialogue going and in the long run perhaps, find in its conclusions the common ground between the disputants that provide the basis for restarting the so dangerously stalled Middle East process. I think we all ought to understand that there are some lessons of history. We can ignore them, we can accept them and do nothing, we can repeat them-we have done that twice, after 1917 and after 1947-or we can acknowledge them and in fact learn from them. I regret to say that we have done neither of the latter. There was an international commission in 1919 but its report was buried for nearly four years and it was not made a public document until 1947. It is a tragedy. If the policies of the 1919 commission had been implemented we would not have the problems in the Middle East that we have today. It was a travesty that that report was not made public until 1947. To be fair, the Palestinian tragedy was not all the fault of Britain, the Western powers or the United Nations. The Arabs had thrown away a number of opportunities of compromise and settlement. Some of the blame must be attached to those false prophets who misled them and whose blind extremism demanded the rejection of any compromise. To the outside world the solution is plain; it must involve the acceptance of both claims, the renunciation by each side of any wish to dominate and deny the rights of the other. Within Israel there have always been advocates of peaceful co-existence between the peoples of Palestine. When tragedy was imminent Dr Judah Magnes, the founder and the First President of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, warned those who sought political domination in an exclusively Jewish State. He said: We seem to have thought of everything-except the Arabs . . . But the time has come for the Jews to take into account the Arab factor as the most important facing us. If we have a just cause, so have they. If promises were made to us, so were they made to the Arabs. If we love the land and have a historical connection with it, so too have the Arabs . . . If we too wish to live in this living space, we must live with the Arabs. That is as true today as it was in 1938. (Extension of time granted) I thank the House. I will be less than a minute. I want to make a simple observation to all honourable members of the House in dealing with the Middle East. This is my humble assessment. Prophecy is most difficult, for the Middle East is a university in which the scholar never takes his degree. I thank the House. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(9.42) —I would like to congratulate the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi) on a thoughtful speech which gives rise to lots of propositions which I think we could well dwell on. What interested me most was the fact that the arguments he was putting forward were very much in favour of our continued commitment to play a part as Australians in this part of the Middle East. I see him nodding as he acknowledges that point. Although he said during his speech that he was happy to see us continue, the fact is that the statement put down by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this House today was not a commitment to continue, much as he and others of us would like to see; it was a commitment to withdrawal. That is the tragedy of the whole statement today. It was not only the honourable member for Hawker who put that proposition; the whole tenor of the document and the speech read out by the Minister in this House a few hours ago was along exactly the same lines. As I listened to and read the Minister's speech I came to the conclusion, before he actually made the announcement, that he was committing Australia to take its place in the peacekeeping force, not to withdraw within two years, but to play our part as our original commitment envisaged that we would. I intend to confine my remarks mainly to our commitment to the Multinational Force and Observers and not to get involved in other aspects of Middle East problems. They have been emphasised enough by the honourable member for Hawker and the Minister for Foreign Affairs during their speeches made today. I think in relation to Middle East problems generally it is worth while quoting part of the speech of the Minister for Foreign Affairs. He said: Lebanon is being dismembered; Israel is deeply troubled; the Palestinian people remain dispossessed, permanent casualties of the region's most intractable dispute; Syria contrives regional successes but achieves uncertain influence; Iraq reportedly poisons the battlefield with chemical weapons and Iran reportedly litters it with the violently wrecked bodies of unarmed children pressed into service as human land mine decoys. It is a terrible and tragic summary of a particular part of the world. Because of that I very deeply believe that we have a commitment to play a part in trying to bring some sort of peace and stability to this troubled area. During October 1981, when the question of the Australian presence in the Middle East was being discussed, some very extreme statements were made in this House by members of the now Government. The Minister for Foreign Affairs was one of them. He emphasised the lack of confidence he had in the influence and presence of the United States of America. He saw our commitment as assisting the Americans to extend their armed influence in the area. He was particularly vicious about Israel and in particular about the then Prime Minister Begin. On 22 October he said: The Begin Government is the greatest threat that the world has to international peace. In fairness to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in his statement today he did go a long way towards ameliorating that description. On 22 October he talked about our being hostages of fortune. He said: . . . we commit ourselves to become hostages of fortune . . . He spoke about the Australian peacekeeping force being overrun. He said: Australia, as part of a very small peacekeeping force, could be overrun and we could be in serious trouble. He also mentioned during that speech his total opposition to our commitment to that part of the world. When we read through that debate we see that he was not the only one. Indeed, the now Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) said: But I am of the most determined view that there must be no Australian involvement. He went on: Finally, there is little hope of Australia's presence . . . contributing to a broad peace. Again, that is entirely untrue. The now Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in that same debate was against all overseas commitment. I believe he has a genuine view in this regard in view of his own history, but he was certainly correct in one aspect during that debate. He said: Our involvement will detract from the upgrading of our required domestic defence capacity. Our domestic defence capacity is a subject to which I will return in a moment. It is interesting to see during that debate about our commitment to the Middle East peacekeeping force what the now Minister for Defence said. He was most critical of the whole involvement. He said in part: We are committing that force with clapped out equipment which will be of a lower standard than any other armed force in the world would provide. The Government has no intention at this stage of providing the basis of our defence forces with modern equipment in areas in which we would expect them to be competent and in which they would be required for their personal defence. Australian armed forces with obsolete equipment are going into an area and the Government will ask others to provide the equipment and the security which is necessary for our defence forces. I put to the House: Just what has the Minister for Defence-if he believed this so passionately in those days-done for our defence forces in that area, since he has been the Minister in the last 12 months? It is to the credit of the Foreign Minister that he has now come to a vastly different conclusion, as his speech today indicates. I believe that other honourable members, who made some extreme statements during the period when this subject was discussed, have also changed their minds because none of their fears have come to pass. The Australian force has performed magnificently in its duties in the Middle East. There has not been a single breach of the ceasefire. The force has never been in danger. It has not proven to be an extension of the American military presence in this area, for the simple reason that it is trained for and committed to an entirely different project. The Commander of the MFO has requested that Australian troops remain. Egypt and Israel have been pleased and delighted with their performance and have also requested that they remain. Our presence in the Middle East has not hurt our trade in any way. Our contribution to the MFO in this area has in no way, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs said today, contributed or encouraged Israel's invasion of Lebanon. The Minister, in his speech today, said: I am convinced, however, that it was not the-or even a-pre-condition for Israel 's invasion of Lebanon. It is a dubious argument-one contrary to historical experience-that Israel would not have gone into Lebanon had there been no peace with Egypt. Israel has always had to maintain a state of readiness on all fronts and is still acknowledged as having this capability. So with all those arguments in favour of our staying and being committed to this area and playing our part-a very small part, but a significant part-in trying to establish some peace in the Middle East why are we withdrawing? The whole tenor of the Minister's speech has been to put forward arguments why we should stay. He says the Government wants to help make secure a part of the Middle East; to allow continuing dialogue between Egypt and Israel; to meet our commitment to the United Nations where possible, but if not possible, to a multinational force . So why are we pulling out of this area? The only conclusion I can come to is that, as so often happens in policy matters where the rhetoric does not meet the action, the Government is pandering to the left wing of Labor Party. Mr Jacobi —That is a load of rubbish. Mr WHITE —I have yet to hear an argument from the honourable member's side of the House which would give me any cause to think otherwise. It seems to me that the Minister's statement today is having a little both ways. It promises the Left that Australia will pull out in due course, but as far as public opinion is concerned for the next few months and up to the election, we will keep the force there because that is what public opinion wants. If there is any other reason, it has not come through in reading the Minister's speech or in listening to speakers from the opposite side of the House. All the arguments have been in favour of a continuing commitment to the Middle East, yet the decision at the end is to pull the force out. Having argued for our commitment to remain, the Minister gave the crunch line. He said: In these circumstances, the Government has agreed to a limited extension of the participation of the Australian contingent in the MFO for a maximum period of two years. It is a two year maximum. The force can come out at any time. It is hardly a commitment. The force could be withdrawn at any time, and I have no doubt that after the election it will be. It is a sad and strange decision for a country which has enjoyed and enjoys a reputation as a middle-ranking country in world affairs. I commend the Minister for his statement and for the logical reasoning in the paper he presented, but the decision was contrary to all the arguments he put forward. I believe this decision is a sad sell-out of our Australian representation in that part of the world. We are saying one thing and we are doing another. The fact is that other options are open for Australia if it is not proposed that we have an open ended commitment. One of those options could be a rotational system with other countries whereby Australia would do its bit for a while and then another country would step in and do its bit. I notice that the Minister said that it would take 18 months to find another country to take our place. So be it. Let us make a firm commitment for another two years, and during that time let us find another country or let the MFO find another country to take our place. We can go back, if necessary, in due course. That is one option. The other option is simply to leave our personnel there and to bring home our helicopters, which are badly needed in this country, and take on and use American equipment or equipment provided by another country. By sending 99 men and eight helicopters to the Middle East we have certainly weakened the defence forces of this country. It is a disgrace that a country like Australia, with a population of 15 million people, cannot send 99 men and 8 helicopters overseas without weakening its defences, which God knows are in bad enough shape already. To illustrate how poor the Defence Force is, I will quote from the Australian of Saturday, 5 May. I have spoken in this House on this matter on previous occasions. Talking about the capability of our Mirage squadron, the article states: The support problem has become so desperate senior RAAF officers comment privately they would have difficulty keeping any sort of war going ''for much more than a long holiday weekend''. That, sadly, is what we have come to in this country. In conclusion, the facts are that all the arguments support our continued commitment to the MFO-the Middle East peacekeeping force. It has been successful. We have contributed significantly towards assisting this troubled region. Many arguments have been put forward today on both sides of the House, but in the end we have sold ourselves down the drain and the Minister and honourable members on the other side of the House know it. We are saying one thing; we are doing another, and this will not assist this country in holding up its head in international forums in the near future. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(9.58) —The honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) has canvassed the statement made in the House today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). The honourable member has drawn some of his own conclusions from that statement. One of the things that he has put to the House is that there is no firm commitment. On a number of occasions during his speech he has suggested that the continued presence over the next two years of Australians among the peacekeeping force in the Middle East is in doubt. That is not what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said. The Minister made the Government's position quite clear when he said: The advice I received was that it would take a minimum of 18 months to find, and conclude negotiations and related arrangements with, a suitable replacement. In these circumstances, the Government has agreed to a limited extension of the participation of the Australian contingent in the MFO for a maximum period of two years. I agree that it will be for a maximum period of two years. Mr Mackellar —It is a sell-out. Mr CROSS —That is the honourable member's opinion. It has also been suggested that this decision is pandering to the left in the Caucus, and that Australia should seek to play a positive role. I find it passing strange to hear such comments coming from the other side of the House, because one thing that is crystal clear under the administration of the Hawke Government and in particuar under the present Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Oxley, is that the Labor Government in Australia is seeking to play a much more positive role in world affairs than its predecessor, the Fraser Government, played at any time throughout its period of office, the one exception, I think, being the role played by the Fraser Government in the internal affairs of Africa , which is a matter of such great controversy on the Opposition side of the Parliament even to this day. Mr White —What about aid to Vietnam? Is that a positive contribution? Mr CROSS —Everything comes to those who wait and that includes the honourable member for McPherson. Let us just consider some of the initiatives taken by the Hawke Government and in particular by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. We have sought to play a much more active role in our region in trying to solve some of the problems of Indo-China. We have not been content to be a bystander. The honourable member raises the question of aid to Vietnam. I think that he would be well aware, as every member of this House and every well informed member of the Australian community is aware, that the Australian Government has been seeking by quiet negotiation and discussion to bring about a situation where foreign troops can be withdrawn from Kampuchea and Laos and where some arrangement can be made to restore peace to Indo-China and to minimise the great power involvement in that part of the world. Mr MacKellar —How is the fighting going on on the border at the moment? How many refugees have been killed? Mr CROSS —I do not know what the honourable member is suggesting that the Australian Government should do about that more than what the Government has done, which is a lot more than what the previous Government did in its period of office. Another question that the honourable member for McPherson raised was the option of a rotation system under which another nation might take our place. I point out to the honourable member that the Minister for Foreign Affairs said: The advice I received was that it would take a minimum of 18 months to find, and conclude negotiations and related arrangements with, a suitable replacement. So the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs allows for that option . The honourable member went on to some other matters. He suggested that we might leave our forces there and bring the helicopters home. He pointed out the extent to which the capacity of our defence forces were damaged by the actions of his Government in sending those helicopters overseas in the first place. I hope he is not suggesting that the situation in Townsville, for example, where the third brigade has only three out of four helicopters available at any time for training purposes, was brought about by any action of this Government. However, it is the view of this Government that the force should be left in the Middle East with Australian equipment. It was suggested that we might use American equipment. However, while those American helicopters might be available to us we would again be placing ourselves in the position that the previous Government placed Australia in over many years of seeming totally to be carrying out an American protege role in our military and foreign affairs activities overseas. Again, that would impair the independence of this country. It is much better to leave the Australian task force there with its own equipment until such time as it is withdrawn. Mr MacKellar —Okay! Mr CROSS —Can I just make this point again: The Labor Government is very keen that Australia be seen to be playing a positive role in its own right throughout the world. If the Labor Government had been in office at the time the request was made for Australia to send that force it would be most unlikely that we would have sent it. But that is not the position that we have today. The force is there and Australia would not wish to do anything irresponsible or precipitate to damage what has been a fairly fragile peace negotiated between Israel and Egypt. I think all honourable members would know that that peace is a fragile peace because the good will that was shown in earlier days when President Sadat was the President of Egypt is somewhat diminished today. I do not intend to take up my full time. However, I would like to say a few brief words on this subject. Australia has a responsibility to play a positive role in world affairs, not only in our region but also in other regions throughout the world where such a positive role might be called upon. We as a party have always been internationalist as well as being nationalist. We have had a great deal of faith in the United Nations. Therefore, the way in which our platform spells out peacekeeping roles presumes that such peacekeeping roles will always be at the behest of the United Nations. One of the things that we have all discovered over recent times is that on many occasions, particularly crisis occasions, the United Nations, because of the power of veto in the Security Council and the cumbersomeness of the decision-making process in the General Assembly, is very seldom able to act with expedition. So it might well be, for example, that at some time in the future Australia might have to play a peacekeeping role in Indo-China. It is very difficult to see, with the super power involvement, that the United Nations would ever be the sponsor of such a force. I want to deny that this decision involves in any way a retreat to isolationism . It is an indication of the fact that Australia is not prepared to make an unending commitment to a peacekeeping force in that situation because our presence in the Middle East as part of a peacekeeping force is not going to solve the problems in the long term. Israel, the Arab countries in the region and the other countries involved all have a role to play. This decision is an earnest of Australia's intention to continue to play a positive and responsible role given the fact that the peacekeeping force is there but to say to the other countries involved: 'This is not an endless commitment into the future; it is about time that other people realised that there should be a sense of urgency in addressing the very serious problems in the Middle East'. I do not disagree with any of the statements that have been made by the Foreign Minister and my colleague the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi). Mr White —They were good. It is just the decision that was wrong. Mr CROSS —I am pleased that the honourable member for McPherson ackowledges the wisdom expressed by my colleagues. I support the decision made by the Government and I look forward to seeing the Australian Labor Party continuing to play a positive role in the future. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.08) —The statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is unhappily-I say 'unhappily' meaning it because one expects and hopes for better-a shocking and, in fundamental respects, a shameful one. Its basic point is that Australia will withdraw its contribution to the Sinai peacekeeping force and abandon the only important role it has been playing in the Middle East and, therefore, the only possibility of having an influence on events. The honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) says that we are playing a responsible role. But the fact is that we are giving up the only possible chance we have of influencing events. This decision means scuttling the principal active expression at the moment of the Australian-American alliance. To make it worse, this betrayal of our basic commitments is dressed up in a general commentary of the Middle East as a whole, a commentary that is remarkable only for its fatuity. Back in 1981-82 when the Sinai commitment was being debated in this House the Labor Party spokesmen, then in opposition, had a dozen or more so-called reasons -weak, inconsistent reasons-why Australia should not join with its natural allies in an attempt to maintain peace in part of the Middle East. The House will recall those so-called reasons. We should go only, they said, if it is under United Nations' auspices, even though there was no possibility of that, given the Soviet veto. The honourable member for Corio (Mr Scholes), now the Minister for Defence, said that we should not go in any how. The honourable memer for Wills (Mr Hawke), now Prime Minister, said we should not go because the public opinion polls were against it. The honourable member for Oxley (My Hayden), then Leader of the Opposition and now Foreign Minister, said that the Government of Israel was not a fit government to deal with, that it was the greatest threat to peace in the world today, to which the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West), now the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, said he did not agree because in his opinion it is the United States of America that is the greatest threat to peace in the world today. The former Leader of the Opposition also said that the whole thing, Sinai, was all too far away. The honourable member for Reid, the now Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) said that Sinai was another Vietnam. The honourable member for St George (Mr Morrison) said that the Multinational Force and Observer Group was unnecessary. The honourable member for Kingsford-Smith and now Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that the Multinational Force and Observer Group was to be part of a rapid deployment force, but anyway the whole thing was illegal in his opinion. Others said that it would damage our trade with the Arab states and so on. Now the Minister for Foreign Affairs has told us, because even the Minister for Foreign Affairs has to acknowledge a plain inescapable reality, that those old Australian Labor Party arguments against Australia's participation in the MFO were baseless. He said that the MFO is not part of any rapid deployment force. He said that there is no United Nations alternative to the MFO. He said that the MFO and the Australian contingent have not been the Subject of any direct threat . The MFO has contributed to peace in an otherwise turbulent region, he said. The Minister's written speech went on for some pages disposing of critics of the MFO and singing the praises of the MFO and the Australian contingent. He said that both Isreal and Egypt welcome the Australian contingent and want it continued, as does the MFO Secretary-General. He said that there would be no trading or other repercussions in our dealing with the Arab states because of our participation. The Minister for Foreign Affairs told us that it is a fine and gratifying story from any aspect. Then suddenly, and almost without warning, at least in his speech, after all of this the Minister said that the Government is going to close it down and withdraw the Australian contingent some time within the next two years. He said it will stay on only for as long as it takes the MFO to find some other country willing to take over Australia's contribution . If it does not find another country Australia will withdraw anyhow. It is a shameful decision and a serious blow to our American alliance. It is a serious capitulation to the socialist Left in the Australian Labor Party. We are contributing here and now to peace and stability. Our contingent is not under threat. We are committing ourselves to supporting our allies. Now, suddenly to appease the Left we are giving all that up in an unnecessary withdrawal. As the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) put it well, we are ceasing to be contributors and becoming commentators. What a pitiful commentator we have in our Foreign Minister. Apart from the decision to withdraw from Sinai, the rest of the speech is a set of vacuous declarations. What else could they be since we are abandoning our only means of serious influence. The Minister apparently believes that he has solutions for all the problems of the Middle East. We have only to follow up his fine and beautiful thoughts. For example, there is a problem between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organisation. Our Minister for Foreign Affairs has straightened that out. He has declared that the PLO and the Arabs are to recognise Israel, the Palestinians are to get an independent Palestinian state, and Israel is to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza. As honourable members can see, that our Foreign Minister has solved it all. It is amazing Jerusalum and Damascus did not ask him to stay over there to solve all their other problems! He has fixed Lebanon up too. His solution is that all the fighting is to stop immediately and Israel and Syria are to withdraw their forces. That is the Minister's solution. Indeed, he is a miracle worker! The Minister also has the solution for the Iran-Iraq war. Do honourable members know what it is? They are to stop fighting, immediately. I am sure Tehran and Baghdad will be deeply impressed by our Minister's insights into Middle East affairs and, indeed, into the human condition itself. As for what he calls super-power rivalry, well, he has solved that too. The Soviet Union will become 'constructive' and then it can become involved in the Middle East negotiations. A more amazing set of pious platitudes ignoring the hard problems would be difficult to find from the Foreign Minister of any country, and it has been delivered in the very speech which announces this country's renunciation of any actual influence in the Middle East. There is one other theme in the Minister's speech on which I would like to touch. The Minister once gave a speech which contained, I thought, some excellent statements that I hoped would indicate a new and welcome direction for him. It was in his speech last October to the United Nations General Assembly. In it he told the General Assembly: There is no ambiguity in Australia's position in the broad picture. We are allied with the United States. We are a democracy. We support democratic institutions and those who share our values. That was well said. Everyone who is interested in democracy would agree with it. But this theme is entirely absent from the Minister's speech today. When he discussed Israel, there was no acknowledgement that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that if we are concerned with the preservation and extension of democracy, then we must be committed to supporting Israeli democracy. Mr Holding —He has acknowledged that on dozens of occasions and you know it. Why do you persist with this nonsense? Mr COLEMAN —Would the honourable member just quieten down. If he wants to give a speech then he can give one but stop interrupting. He is a pain in the neck. He should be quiet while I try to make my points. Mr Holding —You know he has said it dozens of times. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister will pipe down. Mr COLEMAN —I know the Minister has had a bad week. Mr Holding —I can't sit here and listen to this nonsense. You know it is crook. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister will remain silent. Mr COLEMAN —I will do my best to ignore the buffoon at the table. After all, Israel is a country where governments change by popular elections and where, if there is a public scandal, there is a judicial inquiry and a public exposure. Mr Cunningham —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the remark made by the honourable member for Wentworth in calling the honourable member a buffoon is totally unparliamentary. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the honourable member for Wentworth to withdraw. Mr COLEMAN —I withdraw, but the Minister did not object. One could say the same of the Arab country Lebanon. However, one has to ask, unhappily, of what Arab country can one say it today. Is this not, for us and for our ideals, an important matter? The most famous statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs about Israel is that the Government of Israel is the greatest threat to peace in the world today. That is the most famous statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs which is best remembered in Israel. The Minister spoke, of course, of Israel's right to exist but there is no taking up of his United Nation theme of last October or a plain recognition of the fact that, until a democracy emerges in the Arab dictatorships, Israel is our natural ally. There is not one element of that theme in the Minister's speech. Mr Holding —You are describing all Arab countries as dictatorships. It is not as simple as that. Mr COLEMAN —It is a fact, is it not? Mr Holding —What a reactionary clown you are. Mr COLEMAN —Name the democracy. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark. Mr Holding —I withdraw. Mr COLEMAN —I would be grateful if the Minister would tell us about the Middle Eastern democracy other than Israel that he has in mind. Does he have one in mind? Can he name one? No, he is silent. That shows how fatuous that Minister is . Similarly fatuous was the Minister for Foreign Affairs and his comments on Lebanon. If there is one group in that once democratic Arab state which looks to the Western democracies and which has a natural and traditional tie with them, it is the Lebanese Christians, whether Maronite, Greek Orthodox or Greek Catholic. Quite apart from the important fact that that is the biggest Lebanese or Arab group in Australia, it is subject to the most horrific attacks by the PLO, the Druze, the Syrians and other Moslem militias. Their homes and churches are being destroyed and civilians and children are being slaughtered or driven abroad. These people naturally look to Paris, Rome or Canberra rather than to Cairo, Tehran or Damascus for support, but they do not get it. They do not get a word from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in his detached and magisterial sermon. Of course, the Lebanese Christians have their terrible sins of omission and commission. Who can forget the massacres? But this ancient Christian Arab community is being eliminated without a word from the people to whom it looks. This people, which until recent times, ran the only Arab democracy in the Middle East, received no foreign support or sympathy. I would have hoped for at least a word from the Minister for Foreign Affairs. All this seems to be linked with his detached remarks about rivalry between the super-powers as if we were neutral observers in a 'rivalry' that is unnecessary. I do not think the Australian people feel neutral about it at all. The United States is the leading power of the democracies, the last hope for the world. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics would, if it could, reduce the world to a totalitarian slum. We are not neutral on this question. The Minister for Foreign Affairs put it well last October at the United Nations. I believe he summed it up well in the passage which I quoted. But how can he repeat that theme today when the Government is walking out of a peacekeeping force based on the American alliance? No wonder he has to speak with great detachment-blind detachment-of super-power rivalry. In withdrawing our small force from Sinai, the Government is capitulating to its left wing and abandoning any hope we may have had of influencing developments in the Middle East. The Minister's speech was a deplorable one, one of which this country will be ashamed. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(10.21) —The statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Mr Hayden) addressed the three main areas of conflict in the Middle East, three areas which unquestionably have the potentiality-I would argue the greatest potentiality in the world at the moment-to produce a super-power confrontation and nuclear war. We have the Israel-Arab conflict and the obvious risk involved there with the possible use-looking in the medium to long term-of nuclear weapons. Suggestions have been made that at least one power, Israel, has already acquired nuclear weapons. Given that situation, it is not all that long down the track that one of the Arab states will acquire nuclear weapons. Whilst the Israelis might be able, by exercises such as the bombing of the Iraqi reactor, to delay that for a period, I do not think that anybody would suggest that is any long term solution. Then there is the Lebanon conflict, which again had an extraordinarily dangerous potential, a potential which has been reduced for the time as a result of the withdrawal of the United States and other forces from Beirut. But there was a period during which United States and Syrian forces, with Soviet advisers, were in pretty close proximity, were exchanging shots and there was a real possibility of Soviet casualties being inflicted and the terrible dangers that could flow from that. Then, of course, there is the Iran-Iraq war which is developing into a World War I style conflict with casualties of an order of magnitude that one would expect to be associated with that war. Appalling tactics are being used by both sides. As the Minister pointed out in his statement, there is solid evidence of the use of poison gas and the use of children in war situations. There is no doubt that such things are appalling in terms of the human toll. Of the three areas of conflict at the moment, that one is the worst. Likewise, that conflict has a vast potentiality for escalation, if the Iraqis attack a ship carrying Iranian oil and the Iranians make good their threat to block off oil flowing from the Persian Gulf. Then there is an obvious risk that one or other or both of the super-powers could intervene in the region. Again, that is a terribly risky situation. There is not doubt that, were a nuclear war to start between now and the turn of the century and one had to put a finger on a location from where it would emanate, the Middle East region, one or other of those trouble spots, would have to be one of the major candidates. I believe it is incumbent upon us to take an interest in that part of the world , to do what we can to minimise tensions and the risk of war and, if war looks like occurring, to minimise the risk of its extending. So far as the conflicts in the region are concerned, I believe it would be true to say that our capacity to intervene in the Iran-Iraq situation is near zero. Our capacity to intervene in the situation in Lebanon is fairly negligible. The only area in which we have taken an action that has had any practical consequences is that of the Israel- Arab conflict. That action was in the form of our committing a contingent to the Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai, a decision which has been extended for a further two-year period as a result of a Cabinet decision which the Minister's statement reports. There is no doubt that the Australian Labor Party strongly opposed that commitment at the time it was made. It did so on a variety of grounds. There was general opposition to committing Australian forces other than in the context of a United Nations contingent and a fear that Australian forces could be drawn into a wider conflict that may have arisen, particularly in a situation where the United States Rapid Deployment Force was to be utilised. I think it would be true to say that severe reservations were expressed on this side of the House as to the efficacy and justice of the Camp David Accord, or at least the way in which they were being implemented by the parties to the Peace Treaty. My view is that the Palestinian people have not received justice and would not have received justice under the Camp David Accord, although I do not minimise the benefit that flows from minimising the risk of conflict on one particular frontier. One substantial concern that existed at the time was that stabilising one of the frontiers of conflict in the Middle East-that between Israel and Egypt- involving the most militarily significant power in the area, rather than reducing the probability of war in the Middle East may have actually increased it. The sort of scenario which was considered was that the stabilisation of one frontier reduced the risk of elements involved in the state of Israel taking military action on one of the other frontiers. Some would argue that subsequent developments in Lebanon have conformed to that sort of scenario. Honourable members will probably recall a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald fairly recently which referred to a senior Israeli defence spokesman. This was at the time of the visit to that region by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The article reads: A senior Israeli defence spokesman conceded the presence of the force had eliminated some of the risks attached to Israel's invasion and had provided valuable moral support in its planning and execution. The admission was made by the Defence Ministry's senior spokesman in Jerusalem, Lieutenant-Colonel Ranaan Gissin, in a briefing for Australian journalists . . . Those sorts of arguments were adduced at the time of Australia's involvement. I think that a different set of considerations are involved in Australia's decision on extending the commitment to Sinai from those operating when the decision to commit the force was made in the first place. One could argue that Australia's decision to commit a contingent to the Sinai force was instrumental and catalytic in the establishment of the force in the first instance. If one had reservations about the effect of that force it would constitute a ground for opposing the initial commitment. That commitment having been made, Australia now being confronted with a decision as to whether to extend its tenure involves a different set of arguments. If the Australian contingent were to be withdrawn, it is certain that the MFO would continue to exist in some form. Whether a replacement of the Australian contingent would be found is a matter about which one can speculate, but the consensus seems to be that it would not be found quickly. What we would then have would be an increased American dominance of the MFO. The risks that are attendant to that have been perceived as an extension of United States foreign policy in the region. So a different set of considerations is involved in the decision to extend the contingent, it having been sent and there being a decision to dispatch it in the first instance. That is the sort of basis and consideration that the Government has obviously had to take into account. I think that a lot of the commentary from the Opposition benches-the honorable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) was the last speaker-perceived the whole thing in terms of a clash between Western democracy and Soviet totalitarianism, seeming to ignore the very substantial long term considerations of nationalism and religion which are enormously significant factors. The honourable member seemed to disregard the possibility that a state that might have nominally democratic institutions, such as the state of Israel, contrasted unfavourably with the Arab regimes. It cannot be denied that most of the regimes in the area range from bad to abominable. There is no inconsistency between a state having democratic institutions and being capable and willing to perpetrate acts of military expansion and annexation. At the time of the Lebanon incursion a staunch conservative like Senator Barry Goldwater in the United States referred to the state of Israel and its actions as the actions of a militarily expansionist power. There has been the Lebanon incursion and the annexation of the Golan Heights. There is also the massive settlement program on the West Bank . Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.30) —Following statements in the House by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) I sought from the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs precise details of the number of applicants from countries which traditionally supply migrants to Australia and the precise numbers of families making application to be reunified with families in Australia. I sought a country by country breakdown and I wish to present to the House the results of those inquiries. The information has been supplied to me by the Department. For the sake of clarity, I will divide the countries into European and Asian nations. I will designate the number of applications there have been for family reunion in all categories in 1982-83 and in the year 1983- 84. However I inform the House that, as December is the last figure available for the 1983-84 year, I have taken a yearly projection by doubling the six month figures that were supplied to me by the Department. If one assesses the applicants for family reunion from Yugoslavia one sees an increase from 750 in 1982-83 to 1,104 in 1983-84. For the sake of brevity I will give the two figures one after the other, the first figure being the number of families that applied in 1982-83 and the second figure the 12-month's projection for 1983-84. The figures are for Germany 532 and 678; for Greece 468 and 612; for Ireland 174 and 258; for Italy 352 and 374; for the United Kingdom 5,340 and 6,108; and for the United States of America 1,122 and 1,568. I will give details of the applicants from Asia in the same order. The figures are for Hong Kong 1, 327 and 1,806; for India 813 and 727-that is, a drop in the number from India; for Malaysia 671 and 706; for the Philippines 2,380 and 2,976. Now we come to two significant countries, the ones that have been shown particular interest by the Minister. I refer to the figures for Sri Lanka of 192 and 1,736 and for Vietnam 654 and 2,006. One can see from these figures if they are quickly added that it is simply not true what the Minister said, that is, that there has been a fall off in applicants for family reunion from Asia. The fact is that in every country there has been a significant increase in the six months to December, and the projected figures for the full year, on the previous year in the number of applicants seeking to rejoin their families from those countries. These figures are tabled from base of application. That does not necessarily indicate the nationality of the person making the application; the figures relate to the country of application; that is the qualification on those figures. In assessing the figures of Asian applicants for family reunion, for the normal country of no political significance to the Minister, the growth is normal and reflects precisely the same growth as in the number of applicants from Europe. However, in the two countries in which the Minister has a significant political interest, the countries of Sri Lanka and Vietnam, there is a vast increase in the number of applicants seeking family reunions. In statement after statement in this place, the Minister has said that there has been a drop off in interest in migration and that there has not been the number of family reunion applications that there has traditionally been. In fact, that is grossly misleading. He has misled the House with those figures. The figures from his Department show that there is a great and increasing increase in migration on a family reunion basis from Europe. There is also a great interest from Asia. The Minister has misled the House in his statements on the figures that he has produced. He has not produced a single fact except bland statements which are untrue, based on figures supplied by his Department. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.35) —I wish to express serious concern regarding the lack of application of the previous Government to espouse principles and decisions, with particular reference to the so-called offsets procedures and policies. I recall about two years ago a member of the previous Government speaking of that Government's need to be seen to be doing something. The offset policy is just that; it gave the Government of the day a chance to be seen to be doing something when in fact what was taking place was very little and in many cases quite counterproductive. The offsets policy involves the requirement that 30 per cent of the value of imported goods of government purchases be spent in Australia. It applies to defence and it also applies to civil matters. In the year 1978-79 the amount spent on Australian offsets was some $48m; in 1979-80 it was $31m; in 1980-81 it was $61m; in 1981-82 it was $62m; and in 1982-83 it was $35m. That amounted in those five years to $237m. The previous Government thought that was terrific and that it was doing extremely well. It tended to laud itself about what a wonderful thing it was achieving. But the fact is that that expenditure was less than half of what was required and it was getting further and further behind to the stage where at the moment there is at least $600m in unspent money and companies with contracts to the Australian Government have failed to meet their obligations. This has been done by the use of clauses like best endeavour, competitiveness and goods being up to standard. Those three clauses have allowed a massive letout. For example, I know of one company associated with the leopard tank tender which in fact spent 12 months working on the leopard tank bridge. At the end of the project it was never told what was wrong or whether its price was competitive. It was not even able to find out what happened. The whole thing disappeared. The Government was told that Australian firms could not do it. That was one device, the uncompetitive one. I understand in recent months that Todd's shipyard has taken seriously the requirement to show the potential of local industries. On a piece of equipment that was purchased in Canada for every single FFG, a Newcastle firm quoted a price of 40 per cent of the Canadian price. It looks now as though it will supply that piece for all the ships that Todd's shipyard produces in the future; so much for being uncompetitive! The device of best endeavour meant that a firm was asked to produce something that it could not produce. Australian industry was asked to tender on the parts that it could not produce. It was not told of all the things that were needed, although that would have been possible; it was told only of the parts that it could not handle. That means that the company made its best endeavour and met the contract but could then walk away from it. It is my very strong belief that departmental staff aided and abetted that process and that in fact there was a conspiracy between departments and suppliers to ignore, to avoid and to subvert that policy and that process. In the last 12 months members of the Government have been looking at this important area. It has become clear that unless the current Government can recapture and claw back that backlog of $600m of unspent money that has been promised we should not allow those companies which failed to meet their obligations in a massive way to tender for Australian Government purchases. We should not give them credence in our trading. We should indicate very clearly that that breach, irrespective of the letout clauses, will not be tolerated. The morality is that they took our money in good faith; they put forward their tender in good faith; we are paying them in good faith; and good faith requires that they meet their obligations. This backlog represents about twice as much money as the amount allocated for this year's community employment program. We are talking about many thousands of jobs in real industries. We are talking about real work. That is a major component. At the moment we have a trade mission overseas attempting to renegotiate those outstanding liabilities. Ministers and every department involved should do everything they can in the ensuing months to ensure that those obligations are in fact met, and met in a meaningful way. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(10.40) —At the moment there is a dispute between Qantas Airways Ltd and the Flight Stewards Association of Australia and I am very pleased to see that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) is in the chamber. This dispute has arisen as the result of the introduction of direct flights across the Pacific, from Sydney to Los Angeles and back again. This dispute is awaiting arbitration and it is certainly not my intention to attempt to discuss working conditions, manning levels and so on. But there is another level to the argument and it has been raised by the Flight Stewards Association. I refer to public safety. I cannot put it better than it is put in a pamphlet put out by the Flight Stewards Association entitled 'Your safety is our job'. Its case is put in these terms: We don't want to frighten anyone. But we do want the travelling public to know that Qantas proposes to fly its cabin crew for periods of up to 20 hours straight. Should an emergency occur your successful evacuation from an aircraft would be totally dependent upon the quick and effective actions of the flight attendants. Escape from a burning aircraft must be completed in a matter of seconds-not minutes. Amid the confusion, disorder and panic that would exist in any such emergency it is the flight attendants that would lead and direct the evacuation. The dangers of explosion, fire or poisonous fumes would be so severe that even momentary delay could be disastrous. Passengers must be confident that each time they fly, there will be adequate professional help there to lead them out of danger should an emergency occur. Flight attendants want to make sure that Qantas passengers can continue to rely upon professional, well trained and alert cabin crew to assist and protect them whilst travelling. The availability of such attendants could mean the difference between your life and death. Our members undertake to do their best in any circumstance, but even with the flight attendants' extensive and comprehensive training and depth of experience, their best efforts are subject to many factors. Not least of these is crew fatigue. We are concerned that should an incident occur on arrival in Los Angeles or Sydney after these extremely long flights, the flight attendants may not be in a fit state to effectively carry out their emergency duties. I am not in a position to give an answer to this problem or to be dogmatic about it but if the dispute on an industrial level is being subject to arbitration at the moment, the dispute with regard to public safety seems to me worthy of an inquiry or worthy of more public comment than the Minister has yet given us. I know it is immediately said by people associated with Qantas, or even by the travelling public itself, that as Pan Am can manage without the same manning levels that Qantas flight stewards are asking for, why is Qantas so different? In fact, there is a difference. First of all, Pan Am has a special arrangement with its staff because of its very severe financial difficulties. Salaries have been frozen at 90 per cent of what they were in March 1982, and will remain frozen until the end of this year. That is a special industrial situation. But even on the public safety level, when Pan Am crews cross to Sydney they do regional flights to New Zealand, Singapore or wherever-they are in a position to do that because they have a network that allows it-before they take on the big and exhausting crossing back again. Of course Qantas is not in a position to do that in Los Angeles. So the two sets of working conditions cannot be easily compared and therefore the safety conditions cannot be compared either. I do not want to be dogmatic about the matter or say that I know the answers to the questions, but these questions should be publicly ventilated and they are as much worthy of an inquiry as the industrial dispute. I hope the Minister, who is in the chamber now, will make some public comment, or preferably comment in this chamber, on this aspect of the dispute though not the aspect of the dispute before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.45) —I have been concerned for some time about the introduction of computerised checkouts in Perth supermarkets which eliminates the individual pricing of goods. Though this new technology has many benefits, the deletion of prices from each item is just one disadvantage of the system. This particular drawback was graphically demonstrated in a Tangney supermarket last week. Mr Frans Schutte of South Perth was overcharged by one dollar on an item at Charlie Carters in Garden City, Booragoon. The product was Sicof apple syrup and its computer price at Charlie Carters, Booragoon, was $2.40. The normal price of the syrup at other Charlie Carters stores is $1.40 and, after leaving the Booragoon store, Mr Schutte purchased the product at another Charlie Carters shop for $1.40. Had Mr Schutte not been watching the checkout carefully and been aware of the item's correct price, he would not have known that he was being overcharged. No price appeared on the item. Mr Schutte could not remember seeing the shelf price, but he buys the product regularly and knew he was being charged too much. The operator ran the product over the sensor three or four times and still came up with the wrong price. The incorrect price had been fed into the computer. Another Perth shopper came to me last week with a similar complaint. Mr David Jones, of Karrinyup, discovered that out of thirteen items he was purchasing at Charlie Carters in Wembley, nine prices were wrong. Again, if Mr Jones had not been extremely conscious of prices, he would not have known he was being charged the wrong amount. He had written all the prices on his shopping list and queried the shop assistant. The new system uses product number codes as a way of gaining access to prices in the checkout's computer. When one takes the unpriced item to the checkout, the operator passes it over a sensor which tells the computer what the product is. The computer then searches its memory for the price it has been told to record for that product and rings it up on the till without the operator touching the price buttons. If the wrong price has been entered into the computer memory, all customers will be charged the wrong price even though the correct price may be listed on the shelves. How many consumers would remember prices for every item they put into their shopping trolleys? How many shoppers have the time to write each individual price onto a shopping list as Mr Jones did? How many times are the incorrect prices fed into the computer memory bank? How can the consumer be sure that a number of goods in his or her shopping trolley have not been incorrectly priced? This is just one problem brought about by the new system. Another less tangible disadvantage is highlighted by these two cases. Mr Schutte and Mr Jones were both highly price conscious, but can we expect all consumers to be on their guard? This system reduces price sensitivity of the shopper. Our Tangney prices action group strives to build consumer awareness about the weekly shopping bill. This means being able to check prices of individual items which is made difficult if prices are only placed the one time-on shelves. What chance does the average shopper have of remembering those prices, and how often have we been into a store where the shelves are not neatly arranged? Just imagine if the only price for all products was the shelving tag. We believe that by highlighting prices, price rises and price differences and allowing the consumer to compare prices, the shopper will be able to make a more informed decision each week. By not putting individual prices on goods, it makes it so much harder for the consumer. Another concern is the pricing of old stock at new prices. In the past, the consumer has at least enjoyed the benefit of buying old stock at old prices, but now the consumer stands to lose that benefit as the computer will hold the new price. Low income earners and pensioners particularly look for lower priced old stock and this system will disadvantage them. We have been promised cheaper prices from using the new technology but a study in Victoria has indicated that this does not necessarily follow. Twelve stores in that State have introduced the scanning system and one store has been carefully monitored for price changes. Instead of a price reduction, there has been a significant price rise. It may be that shoppers in that store have become less sensitive to prices, allowing the subtle increase in charges. The benefits of this new system should also be noted. For the consumer it means a more detailed docket, telling exactly what each item was, though the consumer remains disadvantaged by not having any products actually marked so a check at home is impossible. The system is easier for the store manager who now has a computer printout telling him how much he has sold and how much he has left in stock, and some computers may be directly linked to a warehouse so reordering is automatic. For the store this means less labour in certain areas, less chance of running out of stock, supposedly faster checkouts and easier identification of popular items for shoplifters. This information may mean that stores will drop some items that do not move fast. It certainly has its pluses, but there is a real threat to consumer awareness that must be removed. The simple task of placing prices on each item in the store will eliminate that threat, and it would seem to me to be good public relations for stores. Not only are they providing a better, faster, clearer service for their customers, but also they are giving the customer the added bonus of individual product pricing. It is an added bonus many consumers would find attractive but they should avoid the situation that happened last week in two Charlie Carters stores. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.50) —Mr Speaker, I believe you would agree with me that it is absolutely fundamental to the working of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia that the truth be told in this place, particularly in answers to questions where it is absolutely vital that the answers be both accurate and correct. If they are not, the whole system of parliamentary democracy in Australia is in danger and, in fact, will break down. I believe it is my duty tonight to dispute the accuracy, the veracity, of an answer given in this House on Wednesday, 2 May last, by none other than the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in response to a question asked by the honourable member for Macarthur ( Mr Hollis). It will be recalled that the honourable member for Macarthur specifically asked the Prime Minister: . . . what progress the Government has made in meeting its target of creating-- I emphasise the word 'creating'- 500,000 new jobs in its first three years of government? The Prime Minister's answer appears on pages 1632 and 1633 of Hansard for 2 May. It has to be said that quite frankly the answer given is not correct. The Prime Minister claimed that since the National Economic Summit Conference last April: . . . we have created-- I emphasise the word 'created'- 210,000 new jobs-that is in 12 months. He went on that that represented over 40 per cent of the job target for three years, 'so we are obviously very well ahead of target'. He further claimed: . . . between June of last year and the present time we have created-- I emphasise the word 'created'- 186,000 new jobs. . . The Prime Minister concluded his answer in typical self-aggrandisement by wrongly claiming: The magnificent achievement of this Government, of creating- again we see that word- over 200,000 jobs in its first year. . . The facts are that the Hawke socialist Government has not created 210,000 jobs in the past year or anything like it. That 210,000 people may have become employed in the past 12 months may not be disputed. Indeed, the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures would seem to prove that fact. But to say that these alleged jobs have in some way been created by the present Government is a patent untruth. To boast about an alleged achievement knowing that it is not a bona fide achievement is a cruel and in my opinion wicked deception of the people of Australia, particularly the unemployed. It is well known that the Prime Minister is in diabolical trouble. He knows that he cannot honour his promises to create 500,000 additional jobs in his first three years of government. I suggest that he well knew that when he delivered his policy speech at the Sydney Opera House. He knew that he could not achieve his promise. To that extent I have to say, in conjunction with your ruling, Mr Speaker, that I believe the Prime Minister misled the people of Australia at the Sydney Opera House last year and again in this House on Wednesday of last week. It is said that anything can be done with figures, particularly if the person using them is prepared to use them or misuse them in a certain way. I remind the House that the Australian Financial Review of 11 April of this year, in stark contrast to the Prime Minister's figures, said that the number of additional jobs created, from February 1983 to February 1984 was 101,900. That figure is less than half that claimed by the Prime Minister to have been created between April 1983 and April 1984. What does the Prime Minister say about the 15,700 jobs lost in the manufacturing sector since this Government came to power? What does he say about the 11,300 jobs lost in agriculture since he became Prime Minister? The plain facts are that for whatever reason the Prime Minister misled the House last Wednesday. His answer cannot stand investigation. It is fair to say that his answer is just not true. I suggest further that he knows it. I would have preferred to have used stronger language but, in conjunction with your ruling, Mr Speaker, I will content myself by saying that the Prime Minister has misled the Parliament and, through it, the people of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.55) —During Easter I attended an international conference in Madras hosted by the Chief Minister of the Tamil Nadu Government. The conference was opened by the Speaker of the State Assembly and its purpose was to discuss the sad plight of Tamils in Sri Lanka. People of very diverse political opinion like my colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), a conservative member of Parliament from West Germany, a Canadian jurist, a Norwegian human rights activist and I, just to mention a few, assembled at short notice thousands of miles from our homelands in response to a call to oppose racial violence and to defend the human rights of the Tamil minority in Sri Lanka. There was no other reason or motive to abandon our Easter holidays with our families but to raise our voices against the genocide perpetrated on Tamils by the Government of Sri Lanka. Both my colleague and I went to Madras to express Australia's horror and revulsion at the racial violence and the continuing persecution and killing of Tamils. We raised our voices against killings, unlawful imprisonment and torture of Tamils because these events have not held the attention of the Western media. Since July 1983 the Sri Lankan Government has exposed the Tamil minority to continuous and organised racial violence. Hundreds of Tamils were killed and are still being killed. Tamil property is being destroyed and hundreds of Tamils are being held in prisons without charge or trial. The security forces are being given a licence to kill as the Government has brought in regulations to allow the police to dispose of bodies without any inquiry or inquest. As late as March of this year the Sri Lankan armed forces opened fire on the civilian population, men, women and children, in the Jaffna district, killing 12 Tamils and wounding over 50 others. These events get very little mention in our media, but the killing of one white policewoman in London more than a fortnight ago is still headline news. Such neglect by the media allows the Sri Lankan Government to plan and execute the genocide of 2 1/2 million Tamils in Sri Lanka virtually unnoticed by the rest of the world. Neither the West not the East is willing to put pressure on President Jayewardene to stop the killings. The crime of genocide is not and cannot be an internal matter for the Sri Lankan Government. The continuous violation of the human rights of a minority concerns us all; racial violence is a concern for humankind. Forty-five years ago the world stood by while Hitler was building the gas chambers to prepare his final solution to the Jewish problem. The world, both the West and the East, warned against fascism. It was concerned about persecution of the Jewish minority, but no one did anything about it and 6 million Jews perished. Today, 40 years later, the world displays the same latent racist ignorance about the persecution of 2 1/2 million Tamils in Sri Lanka. It is true that our Government has expressed its concern for the events that are taking place on that otherwise tranquil island. The action of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) to speed up family reunions for Sri Lankans is also commendable. However, immigration of Tamils is not the solution. Already there are more than 50,000 refugees even though the Tamils do not want to leave their homeland where they have lived for 3,000 years. Only the threat to their lives and property makes them flee and settle temporarily elsewhere. They do not want to abandon their homes and families. They are prepared to stay and fight for their dignity and for national self-determination. I have discussed the plight of the Tamils with the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I know that he is well briefed and concerned. However, our concern and its expression to the Sri Lankan Government are not enough. We should use our good offices in international circles to raise our voice and concern so that international pressure is brought about on the Jayewardene Government to stop the persecution of the Tamils in their own homeland and to bring those who committed atrocities to justice according to law. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m. the debate is interrupted. Mr Beazley —I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The debate may be extended until 11.10 p.m. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Aviation)(11.00) —I was given notice by the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) that he intended to raise the question of the industrial situation of the flight stewards of Qantas Airways Ltd. I am grateful to him for doing that and also for the measured, and given the side of the House on which he sits, somewhat surprising line that he took on the matter. I will endeavour to set his mind at rest on one or two things and answer the more general points that he made about the industrial and safety situation as regards Qantas operations. Qantas intended to introduce non-stop flights to Los Angeles on 31 March this year. Because agreement on crewing could not be reached with the Flight Stewards Association the introduction was delayed until 7 April 1984. The dispute went before Mr Justice Marks of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on 10 April 1984 and subsequently both parties agreed to arbitration by the judge involving a 30-day trial. The interim agreement applying during this trial period includes the following conditions: The first, I am advised, is that no more than three non-stop services per crew member per year may be flown. That is, a crew member would not have to go through that long flight on more than three occasions in the course of a year. The second condition is that a minimum rest period in Los Angeles following such a non-stop flight shall include two local nights. Thirdly, horizontal rest facilities for seven flight attendants have been provided on board Qantas B747SP aircraft so that there is the opportunity for some hours off in the course of the flight. In normal circumstances it is anticipated that no flight shall extend beyond 17 hours. A flight may extend in exceptional circumstances but only to a maximum of 20 hours. No duties whatsoever shall be rostered on the day immediately prior to a direct service. So a number of industrial conditions attach to this flight to head off what would undoubtedly be an exhausting situation were it to require 17 or 20 hours of non-stop work, both in terms of rest at the beginning and end of the journey and the fact that it is limited to three such services a year. Mr Justice Marks, as well as performing local inspections, decided to travel on two of the flights, one flight manned by 14 cabin crew on 26 April 1984 and another flight manned by 16 cabin crew. On the morning of 26 April 1984 Qantas discovered that the pamphlets referred to by the honourable gentleman were being distributed, which implied that Qantas put money ahead of safety. Qantas at that point wrote to the Flight Stewards Association indicating that it might take legal action if the Association continued to issue the pamphlets and advised Mr Justice Marks, who instructed the Association to cease issuing them. No further pamphlets were issued after 12 noon. The statements made by the Flight Stewards Association in the pamphlet which it distributed over a brief period must, I think, still be seen in the context of an industrial dispute that it has had with Qantas management and which is currently being arbitrated by Mr Justice Marks. I think honourable gentlemen should keep in mind that Pan Am had been operating non-stop services between Australia and the United States for approximately 12 months. These flights operate with a cabin complement of 12 and have proved successful. I am not aware of any claims that the operations are unsafe. I concede the point made by the honourable gentleman that the Pan Am crew flies elsewhere before flying back but I think one could see the Qantas rest periods before and after the flights, the arrangements for sleeping on the flights and the larger crew as Qantas's way of addressing the same problem which arises in this instance. I am concerned that industrial relations in the sense of the relationship between Qantas and the flight stewards have come to the pass that they have. It is a little difficult to see how that might be avoided. I constantly encourage Qantas to operate a constructive dialogue with all sections of its work force. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises he may continue. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I understand from representatives of a number of associations that they believe that dialogue with Qantas over the last 12 months or so has improved. It obviously has not improved to the extent of obviating the problems to which the honourable gentleman alluded and I think that is a matter for considerable regret. Whether or not a safety question is involved, I do not believe, on the material that I have presented here, that that position could be sustained. Ultimately the requisite level of crew to operate this flight, what is thought to be a fair thing and a secure thing as far as the passengers are concerned, is now in the hands of Mr Justice Marks. I certainly await the outcome of his arbitration with very considerable interest. I again thank the honourable gentleman for the measured way in which he raised a problem which has certainly exercised my mind and worried me considerably over the last month or two. I hope I have been able to set some of his concerns to rest in the answer that I have given. One or two other points were made in the course of the adjournment debate to which I think I should respond, including remards made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) when I entered the chamber. I do not propose to go into the detail of what he said because I am clearly not the Minister responsible in the area of immigration and am therefore not across all the data associated with it. But I am concerned as an ordinary member of this Parliament and as a person with a wide variety of people of ethnic backgrounds and a large number of people of British origin in my electorate, at the continuing remarks which have been made in relation to Vietnamese migration to this country. I think several facts are being lost sight of in this debate. They are being lost sight of largely as a result of the presentation of the issue by the Opposition. There are two reasons why there has been a very large migration of Vietnamese to this country. The first arises because we were involved in the Vietnam war, against the better judgement of the people on this side of the House. I recollect that in the debates that took place on the Vietnam War many opponents of it, like Jim Cairns, who were ridiculed when they made these suggestions at the time, pointed out that moral obligations would descend on the Australian people as a result of involvement in that war. They said that as a result of our encouraging the people to fight, and if the South lost the war, there would be a refugee problem which Australia would be obliged to confront. The second reason why there is so much community concern about that issue arose as a result of the refugee problem that came directly from that war. It needs to be recollected that by no means is that the only refugee problem that the world confronts. There is one in Afaghanistan and there is one in Ethiopia but in neither of those situations is there any suggestion that we should take large numbers of those refugees. The situation in Vietnam arose directly from decisions by previous governments, both in the first instance to fight in that war and, in the second instance, to address ultimately the problems of the refugees created by it. It has created for this country and its people an extraordinarily difficult situation. It is not a situation that we will resolve easily while maintaining sound relationships in Asia, as the Vietnam refugee issue affects not only Vietnam but also countries with which we have had over time a closer association in the Association of South East Asian Nations. If this is permitted to become a political issue in the way in which I fear it will , the damage to this country's relationships and its moral standing will be absolutely enormous and enormously destructive. If we are no longer in government, whichever government emerges will pay the penalty of that damage. That is a situation that I think all honourable members ought to bear in mind the when the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs accepts Vietnamese refugees. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11.10 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.10 p.m. The following notice was given: Mr Hodgman to move- That this House condemns the intolerance and arrogance of the Government with respect to public debate of its policies-and particularly in the area of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-and calls upon the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to cease continually labelling as 'racist' people both inside and outside this Parliament who dare to disagree with what he says. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 7 May 1984: Defence Amendment Act-Interim Determinations-Statutory Rules-1984-Nos 70, 71, 72. Homeless Persons Assistance Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1984, No. 69. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations-1984-No. 78 (Health Commission Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 331) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 23 August 1983: (1) Is it a fact that while the Reserve Bank publishes at half-yearly intervals advances classified by interest rate and fixed deposits classified by term and interest rate, the Bank fails to publish an average rate current. (2) Will he undertake to instruct the Reserve Bank to publish at regular intervals the interest rate current on outstanding bonds, term deposits, bank advances and building society advances, on the grounds that the reserve Bank's charter instructs it to provide as much financial information as is possible to the Australian financial community. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Reserve Bank publishes in its Bulletin half-yearly data on advances classified by interest rate and on fixed deposits classified by term and interest rate. Data are not readily available to enable an accurate calculation of a weighted average rate of interest on advances and term deposits. (2) The Bulletin does, however, provide information on most of the specific interest rate series mentioned by the honourable member, including monthly data on Commonwealth Government securities with yields estimated for stock with 2, 5, 10 and 20 years to maturity, based on transactions that have taken place on stock exchanges. The Reserve Bank has assured me that it continuously seeks to improve and extend the range of financial and economic statistics that it publishes. In considering the range of financial and economic statistics regard must be paid, of course, to the costs of collection and compilation relative to the likely benefits and usage of the information. (Question No. 653) Mr Reeves asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 November 1983: (1) What sum did the Northern Territory Government receive from the special temporary revenue assistance grant of $155m to the States. (2) Was the grant applied to specific purposes; if so, what purposes applied in the case of the Northern Territory. (3) If no sum was received by the Northern Territory from the grant, what were the reasons. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Nil. (2) No. See also (1) above. (3) While the financial arrangements between the Commonwealth and the Northern Territory are similar in many respects to those between the Commonwealth and the States, there are some important differences which assist the Territory's budgetary position vis-a-vis those of the States. One such difference is that the Northern Territory is currently eligible for a special grant to enable it, by reasonable revenue effort, to provide standards of government services not appreciably below the standards of the States. While the States formerly had access to similar arrangements, they are not available to them under the current tax sharing arrangements. In 1983-84, the Northern Territory has been paid a special grant of $16.9m, in respect of 1981-82, bringing total Commonwealth payments (net) to the Territory in this year to an estimated 17.3 per cent higher than in 1982-83, compared with an estimated average increase of 13.8 per cent in payments to the States. The Northern Territory has applies for special grants in respect of both 1982-83 and 1983-84. The application in respect of 1982-83 is currently under consideration by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and the application in respect of 1983-84 has also been referred to the Commission for consideration. (Question No. 664) Mr Moore asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 November 1983: (1) Did he state in the 1983-84 Budget speech that the Government's decision to tax remuneration received by the Defence Force Reserve would yield revenue of $ 5m in 1983-84 and $20m in a full year and does attachment A of the Budget statements state that the estimated cost to revenue of non-taxation of this remuneration was only $11m in 1980-81. (2) Have there been any significant changes either in size of or remuneration to the Defence Force Reserve since 1980-81; if not, how are the figures in part (1) explained. (3) What are the reasons for ending this tax exemption. (4) Does the Government not support the concept of the Defence Force Reserve; if not, is this contrary to the Government's adoption in May 1974 of the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Forces that the Defence Force Reserve be exempt from tax. (5) Will reserve pay be taxed at marginal rates; if so, will the civilian tax position of each Defence Force Reserve participant be subjected to the rate of tax applicable to the participant's annual income. (6) Will senior Defence Force Reserve officers, who in civilian life have senior occupations with higher incomes, be most heavily affected by marginal tax rates on their defence force remuneration. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The estimates of $5m and $20m appear in my 1983-84 Budget Speech and the Papers associated with the Speech. The figure of $11m appears in Attachment A of Appendix II to Statement No. 4 in the 1982-83 Budget Paper No. 1. (2) On 30 June 1980, the strength of the Army Reserve was 23,883. The expansion undertaken during 1981 saw the strength of the Army Reserve reach 33,474 at the end of October 1981. This exceeded the agreed target strength of 30,000 established at the time of the 1980 expansion. It has been necessary to restrict recruiting activities and allow natural wastage to reduce the current numbers to achieve the target strength by 30 June 1984. Since November 1981, salary rates for the Reserve Force have been related to the daily rates for members of the Permanent Force in the following manner: Officers of the ranks of 2nd Lieutenant to Major inclusive 90 per cent of the daily rate for equivalent rank and increment in the Permanent Force Officers of the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel and above and other rank members 85 per cent of the daily rate for equivalent rank and increment in the Permanent Force Previously, rates of pay for members of the Reserve Force were determined by references to a complex formula in relation to Permanent Force rates. The amount of $11m provided as the cost of exempting from income tax the pay and allowances of part-time members of the Defence Force Reserve was based on actual payments of $34.5m in 1980-81. The estimate of $20m was based on estimated payments of $54.1m to Defence Force Reserve members in 1983-84. (3) Like several other taxation measures announced in my May Economic Statement and the 1983-84 Budget Speech, the Government's decision to phase out the exemption from income tax available in respect of the pay and allowances of part -time members of the Defence Force Reserve was based largely on a desire to improve the equity of the taxation system. In the light, however, of concerns expressed regarding the effects of the decision on the Reserve, the Government decided that the second stage of the removal of the exemption should not proceed. Accordingly, one half of the pay and allowances of part-time members of the Reserve Defence Force will remain exempt from tax. (4) The Government is committed to the retention of adequate Reserve Forces. The 1974 report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Citizen Military Force recommended changes in all aspects of Reserve service, many of which were approved in principle. However, on certain of the proposals relating to pay and conditions of service, including the retention of the tax exemption, no firm conclusions were reached. Subsequently, the Committee of Reference for Defence Forces Pay was requested to review the remuneration of the Reserve Forces and to advise on the effectiveness of the tax exemption as an incentive to service. In its report of March 1975, the Committee of Reference discussed an alternative to the tax exemption, but advocated the retention of the exemption as the more effective means of providing the incentive for service. The Government's decision to reduce the tax exemption, and initiate an inquiry into the appropriate rates of pay and allowances for members of the reserve forces in the light of that decision, is not indicative of any lessening of support for the Defence Force Reserve. (5) One half of payments to a member in respect of part-time service in the reserve on or after 1 December 1983 will be included in the member's total assessable income derived during the year of income and, after the deductions of all allowable deductions, taxed at normal rates. (6) Part-time members of the Reserve with the highest incomes from other sources will be most affected by the withdrawal of part of the former tax exemption. Conversely, the same members received the greatest benefit from full exemption. By having only one half of remuneration for part-time service included in assessable income, however, members of the reserve are effectively taxed on that income at half the marginal rates of tax applying to other income. (Question No. 759) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 November 1983: Did the Minister's Department, and any agencies reporting to the Minister, put in place alternative mailing arrangements during the recent Canberra mail strike ; if so, what was the extra cost in each case. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: On one occasion during the Canberra mail strike the Treasury found it necessary to organise alternative mailing arrangements. As a result a total of $39.60 was expended. In the case of the Australian Taxation Office alternative mailing arrangements were introduced. Specific records were not maintained of the costs incurred, however, they are believed to have been relatively small. No other arrangements were made by the Treasury or agencies for which I am the responsible Minister. (Question No. 815) Mr Milton asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 17 November 1983: (1) Are all foreign investment proposals referred to the Foreign Investment Review Board; if so, are they assessed by the Board. (2) Is the Australian Heritage Commission informed of foreign investment proposals which might affect a place in the Register of the National Estate as required by sub-section 30 (3) of the Australian Heritage Commission Act 1975 whether or not the proposal is assessed by the Board. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. The following types of proposed investments by foreign interests are required to be submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board for examination: (a) all proposals falling within the scope of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 ( that is proposals by foreign interests to acquire shares or assets which would result in, increase, or alter the ownership of a substantial interest in a corporation that carries on an Australian business, and agreements or arrangements relating to the participation by foriegn interests in the profits, management or other aspects of control of an Australian business); (b) all proposals to establish a new business or project in the finance, insurance, media, civil aviation, uranium and uranium-related sectors of the economy irrespective of the size of the investment; (c) proposals to establish new businesses in other sectors of the economy where the total amount of investment is $5m or more; (d) all direct investments by foreign governments or their agencies, excluding investments relating to their official representation; and (e) proposals to acquire real estate not constituting the assets of a business with the exception of first acquisitions of real estate valued at less than $350 ,000. Proposals to acquire second and subsequent holdings are examinable even where cumulative total investment would be within the $350,000 threshold. Rural properties are normally regarded as a business so that proposals to acquire such properties are normally subject to examination under the Foreign Takeovers Act irrespective of value. (For the purposes of the Foreign Takeovers Act and the foreign investment policy, a foreign interest is defined as: (a) a natural person not ordinarily resident in Australia; (b) a foreign controlled corporation or business; or (c) any corporation or business in which there is a substantial foreign interest regardless of whether the corporation or business is foreign-controlled . 'Substantial interest' is defined in section 9 of the Act and covers a holding of 15 per cent or more of the issued shares or voting power of a company by a single interest or associated foreign interests and a holding of 40 per cent or more in aggregate by two or more foreign interests.) Every proposal submitted to the Foreign Investment Review Board is initially examined by the Executive of the Board which, in consultation with relevant Commonwealth and State Government Departments and Authorities, prepares a report on the proposal. The nature of the report and the person to whom it is submitted is normally determined by the features of the foreign investment proposal. In the case of proposals which are of significance, either because of their size, complexity or the policy issues they raise, a full report to the Board is made. Following the examination of a report, the Board puts forward a recommendation to me or to the Minister Assisting the Treasurer for decision. There are also arrangements under which authority for the approval (but not the rejection) of certain types of proposals which do not involve issues of significance have been delegated to the Executive Member of the Foreign Investment Review Board. These include proposals which come within the exemption provisions of the Foreign Takeovers Act and the foreign investment policy; proposals which involve no effective change in ownership or control; proposals to acquire real estate valued at less than $500,000; and proposals involving farm-ins or acquisitions of mineral rights at the exploration stage and certain relatively small acquisitions of businesses which do not raise policy issues. In respect of a third category of proposal, that is cases that do not raise significant issues but which are not covered by the delegation to the Executive Member, reports are forwarded direct from the Executive Member to me or the Minister Assisting the Treasurer, in summary form, for decision. While the Foreign Investment Review Board examines proposals and makes recommendations to me as the Minister responsible for foreign investment matters , the Board's functions are advisory only. Responsibility for administration of the Government's foreign investment policy and for making decisions on proposals rests with the Government. (2) Foreign investment proposals subject to examination under the Foreign Takeovers Act or other aspects of foreign investment policy are referred to the Australian Heritage Commission for comment where the proposal may impact upon aspects of the National Estate. (Question No. 828) Mr Blanchard asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: Is he able to say whether the Institute of Applied Economics at the University of Melbourne has started a case study of the economic and employment reactions brought about by the injection of funds into the area of the Ash Wednesday bushfires by cash-flows of relief payments and insurance settlements; if so, has progress been made in the study to the extent that preliminary findings can be indicated; and, if so, do the preliminary findings tend to show that the sudden flow of funds in a district suffering disaster acts as an economic stimulant on employment within the district. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research has advised the Treasury that it has not undertaken a case study of the economic impact of the injection of funds into the area of Ash Wednesday bushfires. (Question No. 838) Mr Leo McLeay asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 November 1983: (1) What inter-departmental committees (a) does the Minister's Department and ( b) do instrumentalities under the Minister's control (i) participate in and (ii) chair. (2) What is the subject matter of these committees' inquiries. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The following inter-departmental committees are those established at the specific direction of the Government and by the authority of Cabinet or the approval in writing of the Prime Minister and are of an on-going nature: (1) (a) (i) Inter-departmental committees in which the Treasury participates: Inter-departmental Committee on Academic Salaries Tribunal Inter-departmental Committee for Advising Departments on Preference Matters Inter-departmental Committee on Antarctica Inter-departmental Committee on Australia/Indonesia Maritime Boundaries Inter-departmental Committee on Export Finance and Insurance Corporation National Interest Applications Inter-departmental Committee on Food and Beverage Services Pricing Policy Inter-departmental Committee on Information Policy Inter-departmental Committee on law of the Sea Convention Inter-departmental Committee on Medical Fees Inter-departmental Committee on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal Inter-departmental Committee on Relations with ASEAN Inter-departmental Committee on the renegotiation of Commonwealth/State Housing Agreement Inter-departmental Committee on Financial Structures and Statutory Financial Objectives of Australia Post and Telecom Inter-departmental Committee on South-West Tasmania Inter-departmental Committee on Torres Strait Treaty Inter-departmental Committee on Youth Policy Commonwealth Government Counter-Disaster Task Force Standing Committee on Japan Standing Inter-departmental Committee on the OECD Sub-Committee on Foreign Fishing Proposals Wages Policy Task Force The subject matter of these Committees' inquiries wil be set out in the replies from those Ministers whose Departments chair the Committees. (1) (a) (ii) Inter-departmental committees chaired by the Treasury: Inter-departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes (1) (b) (i) Inter-departmental committees in which instrumentalities under my control participate: Inter-departmental Committee on Co-ordination in Aboriginal Affairs Inter-departmental Committee on High Technology/Growth Industries Inter-departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes. (1) (b) (ii) Inter-departmental committees chaired by instrumentalities under my control: Nil (2) The subject matter of the Inder-departmental Committee on Retirement Incomes, which is chaired by the Treasury, is all aspects of retirement incomes. (Question No. 884) Mr Andrew asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 1 December 1983: What (a) revenue was collected from (i) customs duty on imported fortified wines and (ii) excise on Australian fortified wines in each month since July 1982, inclusive, and (b) are the current estimates for revenue from each duty in 1983-84. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) (i) Unpublished Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data to December 1983 show the following customs duty collections for sherries, other dessert wines ( including muscats, madeira, tokay, marsala and port) and vermouth. CUSTOMS DUTY ON FORTIFIED WINES: Other Dessert Sherry Wines Vermouth Total $ $ $ $ 1982 July 2,079 3,203 2,605 7,887 August 2,001 8,910 2,360 13,271 September 741 6,048 295 7,084 October 1,069 3,262 2,706 7,037 November 1,621 7,750 874 10,245 December 2,289 3,905 442 6,636 1983 January 1,142 2,352 629 4,123 February 1,368 4,281 1,673 7,322 March 1,669 1,618 642 3,929 April 682 5,196 4,061 9,939 May 3,156 3,035 1,540 7,731 June 240 1,915 1,233 3,388 July 1,500 5,341 1,009 7,850 August 2,450 2,916 4,594 9,960 September 1, 554 3,118 2,870 7,542 October 1,550 4,609 288 6,447 November 1,116 2,390 3, 129 6,635 December 2,816 8,679 1,206 12,701 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics (a) (ii) There is no excise on Australian fortified wines. However, the 1983-84 Budget included the re-imposition of an excise on fortifying spirit used to fortify Australian wine or grape must; the rate of excise was initially set at $ 2.61 per litre of alcohol but this was modified to $1.50 per litre of alcohol. The most recent ABS excise data show that $15,000 of excise had been collected on clearances of fortifying spirit over the period August to October 1983 with less than $500 of this total collected in each of August and September. The bulk of fortifying spirit use is concentrated in the final months of the financial year-immediately following the vintage-and collections are expected to follow a similar pattern. (b) (i) The estimate for customs duty on imports is compiled at a highly aggregated level and there are no separate estimates for fortified wines. The figures given above indicate that, in the first-half of 1983-84, revenue from this source was marginally below collections in the comparable period of 1982-83 . (b) (ii) As announced in my press release of 21 September 1983, the revision to the excise rate for grape spirit used for fortifying wine was not expected to reduce significantly revenue from this source. However, recent industry advice suggests that the initial estimate of $13m may now not be realised. The precise extent of the expected shortfall is still under review. (Question No. 930) Mr Lloyd asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 7 December 1983: Has the Minister's Department, or statutory authorities for which he is responsible, (a) made or (b) plans to make, an application for community employment program grants for employment creation in the electoral division of Murray; if not, why not. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Neither the Treasury, nor the authorities for which I am responsible, conduct programs of a kind which could involve employment creation in the electoral division of Murray. (Question No. 1016) Dr Klugman asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Why are average weekly earnings in Australia usually defined as adult male average weekly earnings. (2) What are the average weekly earnings of all fulltime (a) adult employees and (b) employees. (3) What are the median average weekly earnings for all fulltime (a) employees, (b) adult employees and (c) male adult employees. (4) Is the median weekly earnings a more accurate statement of the income of the average worker. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Official estimates of average weekly earnings in Australia, compiled by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) on a quarterly basis, are no longer expressed in terms of adult male average weekly earnings or adult male unit equivalent. Up to the June quarter 1981, these estimates were obtained principally from ABS processing of State and Territory payroll tax records and the sources of data used did not provide male and female earnings separately. However, since the September quarter 1981, data on male and female earnings have been obtained direct from employers and published results include dissections by sex of employee. (2) For the December quarter 1983, the most recent period for which data are available, the average weekly earnings of fulltime adult employees was $371.70. Corresponding data for all fulltime employees are not collected separately. (3) Calculation of a median requires data relating to each individual covered and therefore is not possible for the quarterly series of average weekly earnings published by the ABS. The source for this latter series is returns by employers of total wages and salaries and total numbers of employees in various categories. Every two years employers are asked for data on a sample of non-identified individual employees. Hence for this data it is possible to calculate both median and mean (or average) earnings. The group covered is fulltime adult non- managerial employees and in May 1981 the figures were: Mean or Average Median Adult Males $297.5 $275.6 Adult Persons $278.6 $259.6 Corresponding figures relating to May 1983 should become available in the near future. (4) Generally speaking, mean (or average) earnings can be expected to be greater than median earnings because of the nature of the frequency distribution of employees classified according to earnings. Whether one measure is more accurate than another depends on the purpose for which the measure is used. (Question No. 1065) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 2 March 1984: How many (a) males and (b) females have been engaged in (i) the Minister's Department and (ii) any statutory authorities reporting to the Minister, as temporary employees under the community employment program, in each of the months December 1983 and January and February 1984. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No males of females have been employed by my Department or any statutory authority within my portfolio under the community employment program in December 1983, January 1984 or February 1984. (Question No. 1175) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 8 March 1984: (1) What sums have been spent to promote Medicare in each of the States on (a) metropolitan, (b) regional and (c) rural (i) television, (ii) radio, (iii) newspapers and (iv) magazines. (2) Has he received complaints that the country media were ignored by his Department in the advertising campaign; if so, what was his reply. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The sums spent on the Medicare information program in each nominated medium are listed in the attached table. In the absence of specific criteria with which to differentiate between regional and rural advertising, further division beyond the metropolitan and provincial categories shown is not possible. (2) Country media were not ignored during this program. Per capita expenditure in metropolitan and country areas was virtually identical. Complaints were received from the proprietors of a few (non daily) country newspapers and their industry association. These related to non-use of such papers during the initial, enrolment phase of Medicare. My reply was that their use was not seen to be necessary at that point, since the primary information vehicle being employed was the national mailing. This item was delivered to both business and private addresses in country areas. I further indicated that a role for these newspapers was likely during the second, announcement phase of the Medicare program and they were indeed utilised at the time. Table MEDICARE INFORMATION PROGRAM NET MEDIA COSTS ($) BY TYPE, STATE AND REGION Television Radio Magazines Press Ethnic State Met. Prov. Met. Prov. Met. Prov. Met. Prov. Met. Prov. Total N.S.W.1 373,720 196,293 76,583 64,493 23,181 17,972 175,529 138,258 37,694 1,103,723 Vic. 323,818 101,012 60,455 25,120 19,883 9,546 124,089 64,592 26,125 754,640 Qld2 138,384 55,660 28,918 31,151 8,426 11,904 73,491 86,586 2,074 436,594 S.A. 108,945 11,390 23,700 4,594 7,379 3,557 37,824 20,058 1,651 219,098 W.A. 102,595 22,163 21,075 9,518 6,096 3,317 37,731 19,444 1,303 223,242 Tas. 8,075 19,916 3,788 5,869 2,149 1,385 13,014 27,087 539 81,822 Total 1,055,537 406,434 214,519 140,745 67,114 47,681 461,678 356,025 69,386 2,819,119 1 Includes A.C.T. 2 Includes N.T.