Tuesday, 8 May 1984 The SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the Federal Government's decision to allow publications which consistently incite the use of hard drugs to go on sale in the Australian Capital Territory and its wish that the new Australian capital Territory censorship standards be embraced by the States; and (2) praises the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canberra for his strength in publicly condemning the proposal and expresses dismay at the fact that Archbishop Carroll appears to be alone amongst the clergy in either knowing or understanding and caring about the consequences of the Government's decision. Mr SIMMONS(Calare) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move : That this House- (1) notes that on 7 May 1815, Governor Macquarie proclaimed the site of the town of Bathurst, marking the beginning of the growth of Australia's first settlement west of the Great Dividing Range; (2) congratulates the Bathurst Bicentennial Community Committee for organising an appropriate birthday party to mark this important occasion; and (3) calls on other communities throughout Australia to recognise their historical links through appropriate commemorative services, particularly in the next 4 years as Australia approaches the Bicentennial Year. Mr NEWMAN(Bass) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes- (a) the reported comments of the Minister for Defence, Mr Scholes, in Singapore when he said that a Soviet military build up in South East Asia has made Australia's military presence in the region more important; (b) that recent decisions by the Government have reduced the Navy's ability to- (i) support the deployment of the Army; (ii) protect ocean and coastal shipping; and (iii) provide for its own defence at sea; and (c) that the Navy can no longer be considered as a credible deterrent or as a defensive force in our region; and (2) condemns the Minister for Defence for not providing sufficient financial support to the Navy. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move and the Honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) will second: That this House- (1) notes the comments of the Perth Building Society that 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 in 1982; (2) further notes that according to the Perth Building Society these results clearly underline the strength of the current recovery in the housing market and that the recovery is being fuelled by government schemes and the stabilisation of home loan interest rates; and (3) congratulates the Federal Government and the Government of Western Australia for their housing initiatives. Mr GORMAN(Chifley) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) commends the Rats of Tobruk Association in arranging the World Reunion of that Association on the Gold Coast during the period 11-14 April 1986; (2) believes that consideration should be given to making some special financial assistance similar to that given by the States of New South Wales and Queensland, to ensure that the gallant and heroic service given to this country by the Rats of Tobruk are successful on this memorial occasion; and (3) acknowledges the many hours of hard work involved in arranging this world reunion of the Rats of Tobruk Association by the President of the Association, Mr Bill Franklin and the Organising Secretary, Mr Bill Marshall. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. As the Government's assets test panel is now considering an after death confiscation of assets as a pre-condition to granting certain pensions, is the Prime Minister aware that such a scheme would strike not only at the elderly but also at their children? Is the Prime Minister aware that such a scheme would attack the upward mobility of Australian families, and is the Prime Minister aware that such a scheme would discriminate against the children of income-poor but asset-owning parents? Mr HAWKE —I appreciate the question from the Leader of the Opposition. I simply want to say two things: The Government, of course, has not yet received the report of the Gruen Committee, if I can so describe it. Therefore, it would be premature to make any observations upon any hypothetical proposition. Having said that, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am aware that the sort of proposal to which he refers would cause some concerns of that type. Mr MOUNTFORD —Can the Prime Minister advise the House whether the remarkable improvement in the Australian economy so far this financial year can be continued next financial year and beyond? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Banks for his very penetrating question. Without a doubt, the Government is very successfully laying the basis for long term economic recovery. What is crystal clear is that our balanced fiscal policy and our workable wages policy, based on the prices and incomes accord, will be particularly important in ensuring that long term economic recovery. The economic turn-around which has so far been achieved is remarkable by any standards. Growth through the year will be of the order of at least 10 per cent, the highest of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country. That, of course, reflects in part the very successful economic policies of this Government and also, as is just as clear, it reflects some particular factors like the breaking of the drought. It also reflects the severity of the recession which was inflicted upon this country by our predecessors. In large measure we have achieved the remarkable results this year simply by straightening out the economic mess which we inherited. Next year, we will be consolidating and building upon the gains that we have already made. Having referred to those remarkable results, it is quite clear that no one could expect that during the next financial year or beyond we will continue with those quite stunning rates in economic growth that were achieved in 1983-84. Having said that, it is also equally clear that next financial year we will see growth at very solid levels and at a level which will enable us to continue to wind back the level of unemployment. There will be a minimal wage rise in about October of this year. Very importantly, that minimal wage rise at the end of this year will help us to continue to reduce inflation in this country. It should be remembered that, even excluding the effects of Medicare, we have already got inflation down to the lowest level in a decade. In other words, we have done more in one year than the previous Government did in seven years with its so-called fight-inflation-first policy. We are restoring Australia's economic health, and the Australian people can be absolutely assured that the dark days of double-digit inflation, economic contraction and growing unemployment-there was a rise of a quarter of a million unemployed in the previous Government's last year in office-are behind them. Mr Speaker, the Budget will continue the policy and the process of building Australia's economic growth. It is very important to say that in the next Budget we will produce significant tax cuts. But there will be one thing different from the tax cuts which this Government will produce in its Budget this year. They will not be seized back after the election as they were in 1977 by the previous Government. The people of Australia will recall that in the election of 1975 the present Opposition went to the people and said: 'We will hold on to Medibank and we will hold on to full wage indexation'. It broke those promises. In 1977 honourable members opposite said: 'We will give you tax cuts'. They did and took them back. Honourable members opposite misled people in 1975; they misled them in 1977; and they misled them in 1983. I conclude by saying that since Federation there has been no political grouping in the history of this country which has had such a low political trust factor with the Australian electorate as the people sitting opposite. The situation developed to the point where the people simply did not trust them. They do not trust them now and they will not trust them in the future when they attempt to misrepresent the successful economic policies of this Government. Mr PEACOCK —My question, which is addressed to the Prime Minister, follows in part the previous answer which he gave and which once again he read to the Parliament today. It follows, of course, the earlier question which I asked wherein he conceded that his assets test panel would have, if it brought in the after death confiscation of assets that it is proposing, the following effects: Striking not only at the elderly but also at children; would attack the outward mobility of Australian families; and would discriminate against the children of income poor but asset owning parents. All that was conceded by the Prime Minister. I ask firstly: Will he indicate his disapproval of these effects or is that group of people to suffer the confusion and anxiety that all the elderly have suffered since May of last year as a result of the mini-Budget? Secondly, no matter what the assets test panel recommends, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that under no circumstances will his Government introduce death duties either directly or by stealth of measures such as taxing pensioners' assets after their death? Mr HAWKE —If there is any confusion amongst the groups of people to whom the Leader of the Opposition refers it is because of the deliberate campaign which he and those behind him have been deliberately building up in this country. It is a measure of the confidence that the people of this country and their relevant organisations have in this Government and its approach on this matter that we were able to get such a widely representative group of people to serve with Professor Gruen to deal dispassionately, competently and without political interference. It is not the intention of this Government to interfere in this matter. We will wait until we receive the report of the committee; we will consider it and then we will make the decision which we know will be accepted by the overwhelming majority of the people of this country. Mrs KELLY —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House of the current situation in regard to the lengthy dispute at the New Parliament House site? Mr WILLIS —I thank the honourable member for Canberra for her question. I am very much aware of her concern about this important industrial dispute in her electorate. I assure her that the Government very much shares her concern over this dispute which has now gone on for almost 14 weeks. About 600 existing jobs have been lost because of the dispute and another 600 jobs which would have been created this year will be delayed and put at risk. The background to this dispute is that the site agreement which ended at the end of last year was up for renegotiation. There were three claims of importance in the renegotiation procedures. They were for an increase in the site allowance, the application of severance pay and a superannuation scheme. The Government's view of those claims was that severance pay is simply not on. It is not normally paid, as far as I am aware, in the building industry and is not paid on any government site in Australia. Superannuation was something to be considered in national negotiations which were then foreshadowed and which are still going on. The Government felt that the site allowance was something to be determined by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission within the wage fixing principles. The current situation is that the dispute is now centred around the site allowance. Commissioner Brown has heard argument from all parties about the increase that should be given in the site allowance. He reserved his decision on 18 April, almost three weeks ago, and indicated then to the unions that when there was a return to work he would make his decision known. Since then the unions have not seen fit to recommend a return to work, for reasons which are best known to themselves. However, I am pleased to say that, at the instigation of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, they have now finally agreed to hold a meeting on Thursday of this week at 10 o'clock at the Canberra Workers Club. That meeting will involve all Parliament House workers who are members of the three unions which instigated the industrial dispute-the Building Workers Industrial Union of Australia, the Builders Labourers Federation and the Federated Engine Drivers and Firemen's Association of Australasia. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition obviously is not interested in this issue. Mr Peacock —The dispute has been going on for weeks and all you can do is read your bit of paper. Mr WILLIS —The Leader of the Opposition would like us to give in to the claims. Is that his solution? He would like us to give in to all the claims. Mr Peacock —You have done nothing. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr WILLIS —Is that how he would solve it? Under his industrial relations policy that is how it would be solved. He would solve it in that way. Mr Peacock —You have no industrial relations policy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the Opposition. Mr Peacock —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, your duty is to both sides of the House. Are you warning the Minister as well as me or only me? Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that I was on my feet calling for order. I was going to speak to both the Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister ceased talking and the Leader of the Opposition kept on interjecting. That is why I had to bring him to order. Mr WILLIS —As I was saying, it is unfortunate that there is no certainty that the motion that will be put to the meeting on Thursday by the union delegates will recommend a return to work. I say there is no certainty because we simply do not know, but there are some indications that some unions may not be anxious to support a return to work, despite the fact that the ACTU strongly supports that development. The Government is greatly concerned that a decision could be taken to stay out in the hope of an offer being made. I want to say quite clearly and unequivocally that the Government position is that there will be no offer. What we have said is what will be the situation in the future: This matter is to be decided by arbitration, and we stick to that. Nothing will change our view of that. However, if despite that being clearly understood by all job delegates they were of a mind to take a decision not to go back to work at this stage, they should do so understanding that the Government would then have to consider all its available options, included amongst which would be complete closure of the Parliament House site and the review of the future program of government and government-related contracts for construction in the ACT. Those are quite drastic and unpalatable options but they are options which the Government will certainly have to consider because we will-- Mr Peacock —You are quite correct in doing it. Mr WILLIS —I am so pleased that the Leader of the Opposition agrees. It will be unavoidable if the unions and their members do not accept the dispute settlement procedures which are now available to them. We call on all members who are entitled to attend that meeting to exercise their right to do so, to support the ACTU, the national interest and their own interests by voting for a return to work so that the arbitrator can announce his decision and we can get the Parliament House site going again. Mr STEELE HALL —My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Has the Minister read the editorial in yesterday's Australian Financial Review headed 'Racism and intolerance'? On what basis does the Minister justify his arrogant and intolerant approach to the handling of his portfolio and his persistent tendency to label as racist anybody inside or outside this Parliament who dares to question or criticise his policies and statements? Why does the Minister denounce as hooligans those who dare to disagree with him? Mr WEST —The first point to make in reply is very firmly that I and the Government welcome a debate on immigration policy. The only point that I make is that it ought to be an informed debate. Mr Peacock —Well, you will have to stay out of it. Mr WEST —You are a loud mouthed larrikin, are you not? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that remark that he made across the table. Mr WEST —I withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —I ask honourable members on my left to allow the Minister to answer. I am unable to hear clearly what he is saying. Mr WEST —I have never labelled anyone, in this House or outside, a racist for making informed comment on immigration matters. That is not what we have seen in the last few weeks after the Government and I made certain approaches to the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters for at least an informed debate which might produce a bipartisan policy in answer to certain undesirable elements that were intruding into the immigration debate from outside. Mr Howard —Do you regard Blainey as racist? Mr WEST —I am not referring to Professor Blainey. I am referring to the fact that, as a result of the family reunion policy and the Indo-Chinese refugee policy which we inherited from the former Government-- Mr Peacock —Who are you referring to? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr WEST —I have made it clear that we are getting moderate increases in Asian people as a result of universally applied family reunion criteria, universally applied independent skilled migration criteria and universally applied business migration criteria. The fact is that we inherited an Indo-Chinese refugee program. The number of approvals has gone down from 15,500 people two years ago to 10,000 this year, and further moderate reductions are proposed. The honourable member for Denison and certain members of the Opposition are saying that certain globally applied formulae inside all of the components of the migration program are producing a few more Asians. I have not allowed the favoured arrangements for the Big Brother Movement Ltd to continue, and that position was supported by the former Minister. The honourable member for Balaclava's policy was reversed by the honourable member for Petrie when he became Minister. This afternoon I intend to table the documents during the debate on the matter of public importance. Mr Macphee —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On what basis will the Minister do that? I had to write to the Prime Minister yesterday to ask for those documents and I still have not received them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Macphee —Mr Speaker, it is not that the Prime Minister will not make them available to me; he obviously will and his office has already told me he will. However, the Minister has no right to have them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I understand that that is not a matter for Parliament; it is a matter for the conventions of government. Mr WEST —The former Minister would well know-if he listens I will explain the point-that he was disenchanted with the positive discrimination that was given to the Big Brother Movement and intended to reverse that policy. Before he could do so he was replaced as Minister by the former member for Petrie who reinstated favouritism to the Big Brother Movement. The documents that I have and intend to table are the directions from my Department to my London office. They will prove what former Ministers did. I return to the thread of what I was saying. I am thoroughly discouraged with the attitude of members of the Opposition. The Opposition well knows that we are applying globally non-discriminatory policies. Because those policies are producing a few more Asians it is prepared to jump on the bandwagon. Mr Peacock —You moved. Mick Young developed a bipartisan policy. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition is going beyond the tolerance of the Chair. Mr WEST —We have given members of the Opposition all the facts about this and they well know that we are not anti-British. They well know that we are not pro- Asian. To conclude, in a spirit of consensus, I challenge them-- Mr Peacock —We noted that. He is getting the wind-up. Mick told him to shut up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. An amount of tolerance is allowed to the Leader of the Opposition and indeed to the front bench on the Opposition side, but not to the degree where a Minister cannot answer a question because of the constant exchange across the table. I will have no alternative but to act if it continues. The Minister will conclude his answer. Mr WEST —If members of the Opposition want to persist in saying that our policies are quite coldly and deliberately anti-British and pro-Asian, I want them to tell us where they would make the cuts. Where would they impose the quotas? They can tell me just what they would do. Would they impose quotas in regard to Asians coming here under the family reunion program? Would they cut the refugee program? Would they cut the business migration program? Would the Opposition reduce the family reunion program from 40,000 to the 25,000 that it introduced simply because we are getting too many Asians in that program under globally applied policies? The Opposition has no answer to what I am saying. I conclude on this note: If the Opposition persists in making these charges I want to know where it would make the cuts. Would it terminate the refugee program altogether and thus antagonise our Association of South East Asian Nations partners? Would it cut the family reunion program simply because we are getting too many Asians? Would it impose quotas? I ask the Opposition to tell me what it would do. Why does it not cut out the nonsensical remarks? If we are to have a debate upon immigration, let it be an informed debate and let us aim at some consensus and bipartisanship in refugee and family reunion policy. Mr BILNEY —Is the Minister for Defence aware of the concentrated efforts being made, particularly by the Bannon Labor Government, to present the advantages of South Australia as a possible site for the construction of the new submarines required by the Royal Australian Navy? In light of reports today about a West German interest in the construction of those submarines, could the Minister advise the House on the current situation? Mr SCHOLES —The submarine project is probably generating more activity within Australia and outside than most programs announced by governments. All six State governments are now involved in programs to secure for their areas the construction of the submarines. Certainly all of the members of this Parliament and the Government of South Australia have been promoting their claims to this project over a considerable period. Since I have been Minister, I have met with representatives of either the governments or those seeking to be chosen as the prime contractors from all of the areas which are involved. There are six proposals for a design which are currently subject to a definition study. That design evaluation is expected to be narrowed to two company proposals which will then be subject to further studies for the choice of a design of a submarine for the Royal Australian Navy. I did have some discussions with Dr Westphal, as I have had with a number of others. The Government is not in a position at this stage to indicate either in which State the submarine is likely to be constructed or which design is likely to be chosen for further progressing to the ultimate choice. The design will be finalised in 1986 and contracts should be proposed in 1987. I would anticipate that, in the second definition stage, which will involve the assessment of Australian content, the degree of Australian construction and the proposed location, the present intense competition, especially among the various States of Australia, for the construction program will increase. At this stage it is not possible to give any more precise indication of that. My Department and the Department of Defence Support are engaged in evaluations and when those evaluations are completed an announcement will be made. I thank the honourable member and other honourable members of this Parliament for their support and enthusiasm for this program. Mr CADMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer to the massive cutbacks of 22 per cent in European migrant settler arrivals and 33 per cent in United Kingdom migrant settler arrivals in the period since the honourable member became the Minister. I refer also to the Minister's claim in this House that the reason for the cutbacks is: There has been a lessening interest amongst permanent residents and Australian citizens towards sponsoring family members from Europe and the United Kingdom. How can the Minister possibly justify this statement when figures from his own Department show that applications for family migration in 1983-84 from European countries could rise by 25 per cent and those from the United Kingdom-- Mr Humphreys —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is clearly giving information in his question. I point out to you that the question is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member is allowed to give a certain amount of information to make his question intelligible. His question was becoming rather long. I ask the honourable member for Mitchell to get back to the relevant part of his question. Mr CADMAN —I have almost concluded my question, Mr Speaker. I inform the Minister that the latest figure indicates that applications from the United Kingdom will rise by an estimated 14 per cent this year. Why has the Minister tried so blatantly to mislead the House? Mr WEST —Let us have some quiet if we want some facts and figures. I have been asked a very detailed question and I would like to give a detailed answer. Mr SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for Mitchell that in his question he used the term 'blatantly mislead' which is a direct defiance of the statement I made yesterday. I think he realises that he is in error. I will have to talk to him about it later. I call the Minister. Mr WEST —I will reply with some figures which will tell honourable members exactly what has been happening over the last few years with regard to total settler arrivals. I will start with the figures concerning total settler arrivals for the year 1980-81. The total percentage of settlers from Asia was 22 .47. The percentage from Europe was 18.4. The percentage from the United Kingdom and Ireland was 28.4. In the following year-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I gave some protection to the honourable member for Mitchell in supplying figures. I think that the Minister should be allowed the same protection in citing figures. Mr WEST —In the following year the total percentage of settler arrivals from Asia was 22. From Europe it was 21 per cent. Mr White —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. For the purpose of clarity, can the Minister repeat the figures which he started to give when he answered the question? Mr SPEAKER —That is not a point of order; it is a request. I call the Minister to answer the question. The honourable member for McPherson indicates that he did not hear the initial figures. Mr WEST —Well, I am not going to repeat them. The figure concerning settler arrivals from Europe was 21 per cent. The figure concerning settlers from the UK and Ireland was 32 per cent. Those figures relate to the year 1981-82. Let me compare those figures with those of two years later. For the first half year of 1983-84, the figure regarding Asian settlers had risen to 33.2 per cent. Regarding Europe the figure was 16.8 per cent and regarding the United Kingdom and Ireland it was 28.9 per cent. That means that the figure concerning settlers from the United Kingdom and Ireland has reduced from 32.7 per cent to 28.9 per cent over the past two years. That is certainly a moderate decrease, but it is not an example of anti-United Kingdom bias. It is an example of lessening interest. It is an example of increasing interest on the part of Asian people and of the very fact that, as a result of the previous Government's refugee policy, there are something like 90,000 Indo-Chinese in Australia who have family reunion rights the same as the Europeans. Mr Kent —You brought those Asians in and now you are complaining. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham will cease interjecting. Mr Kent —Listen, I have had enough of this racist debating. You are racist bastards! Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Hotham. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. Interjections on both sides of the House are producing disorder in the House. I ask for them to cease. Has the Minister completed his answer? Mr WEST —I conclude by making the point that I was making when I was interrupted . I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition will take a more constructive position in this debate in future. Mr Howard —Don't be so sanctimonious. Mr WEST —I am telling honourable members opposite that there has been a very moderate decline in the figures for total settler arrivals from the United Kingdom and Ireland and that the arrivals from Asia have moderately increased. That is a result of the previous Government's refugee program. Those people now have family reunion rights. There are 90,000 of them in Australia who came in under the policies of honourable members opposite. There is a slightly lessening number of sponsorships from Europe and the United Kingdom. I cannot force people to sponsor if they are not sponsoring. We are not discriminating against the British. Please do not say that, because we are not. We are not pro-Asian. The situation is a result of former policies that are continuing into the policies of this Government. Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of claims made by the Northern Territory Chief Minister this morning that the Government is ignoring the interests of the mining industry in relation to the management of his portfolio as it relates to the question of land rights and mining? Mr HOLDING —I am aware of the statement made by the Chief Minister. As a matter of courtesy, I sent the Chief Minister, all State governments, the mining industry and the farmers union copies of draft notes and, ultimately, the legislation. Perhaps the Chief Minister, when he made that comment, was unaware of the response to the information provided to the Northern Territory Government by no less a body than the Northern Territory Sacred Sites Authority. That body is regarded highly by the mining industry, and by government and Aboriginal people around Australia. It probably has more knowledge in this area than any other single authority. This was the Authority's comment: As it stands, the Bill is a sensible and sensitive attempt to balance the various community needs and viewpoints and its passage will enable resolution of present and future potential conflicts in our States . . . Yesterday we had the shadow Minister popping up and claiming to represent the mining industry and whining about what he described as a lack of consultation. He claimed that the industry had only-- Mr Porter —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask the Minister to withdraw. I do not represent the mining industry, nor did I in any way give the impression that I represented the mining industry. Now let us have a few truths in this place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Barker will resume his seat. I ask the Minister to withdraw the remark that is offensive to the honourable member. Mr HOLDING —I am perfectly happy to say for those sections of the mining industry which are trying to get this question right that he does not represent the mining industry. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw. All that is necessary is two words: 'I withdraw'. Mr HOLDING —I withdraw. Mr Howard —Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the entirely derogatory remarks made by the honourable member for Casey about the honourable member for Barker. I require that those also be withdrawn in conformity with the ruling that you gave yesterday. He gets away with far too much. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the Minister that those remarks are not recorded in Hansard and are not always audible to the Chair. Mr HOLDING —It was being suggested by the honourable member for Barker that the mining industry had not been effectively consulted. The reality is that the industry received copies of drafting instructions on 18 April and copies of the draft Bill by 30 April. What has been happening is a result of the Government's attempt to establish a genuine area of consultation between Aboriginal people and the mining industry. I point out that this has not occurred but it should have occurred at the initiative either of the Northern Territory Government or the previous Government. Let me quote some comments from Mr Hugh Morgan, on behalf of Western Mining Corporation Ltd, following the first successful meeting at a dinner arranged between representatives of the mining industry and Aboriginal people. This is what Mr Morgan said in a letter to me: I was most grateful to have been included in the dinner you so kindly hosted at Parliament House last Monday. It was an excellent occasion, an industry- Government first, and I believe one that will be long remembered as the turning point in the consultative process between Government and industry. That is a statement in a letter from the Executive Director of the Western Mining Corporation. I do not agree with all his viewpoints, just as he does not agree with mine. But what is important is that that leader of the mining industry recognises the genuine attempts that are being made by this Government to bring the viewpoints of the mining industry and Aboriginal people together for the purpose of finding common ground, and that, to use Mr Morgan's own terms , is a government first. Let me deal with some of the other statements made by Mr Everingham. Let us look at his record. Here is a man who, in conjunction with a Federal Government, froze all mining applications on Aboriginal lands for a number of years-seven to eight years-and then overnight turned loose applications to be processed by land councils when he knew they did not have the resources to deal with them. That was an act of complete and utter political cynicism. His approach to Aboriginal people and to mining interests was that he had a 10-point package in respect of land rights legislation and nothing at all in it was negotiable. Aboriginal people live in the most deplorable conditions throughout the Northern Territory. There was a common agreement on the question of excision among pastoralists, every decent territorian, sociologists and the Government of the Northern Territory, but no action was taken by Mr Everingham and no action was insisted on being taken by the Government that occupied the Treasury benches. Let us look at Mr Everingham's record, this man who now expresses concern about the future of the mining industry in the Northern Territory. What was his approach to mining? Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to round off his answer. He has been speaking for quite some time. Mr HOLDING —This is an important matter. I propose to round off my answer, but I would like to get this fact on record, because it is very relevant. Mr Porter —You are in government now, Clyde, not in opposition. Mr HOLDING —We will be in government for a long time and honourable members opposite will be in opposition for a long time. This man who was concerned about the future of mining in the Northern Territory tried to force upon the industry a mining royalty struck at a rate of 35 per cent of profits. Who was to determine the profits? Those profits were to be determined by the Secretary of the Chief Minister's Department of Mines and Energy. There was to be no effective appeals system. That was his approach to the mining industry. It was a revolt by the mining industry right around Australia which destroyed that policy of a conservative State leader. What we are getting from the Northern Territory Administration, as we move to solve problems which we have inherited by the lack of action on the part of the previous Federal Government and the Chief Minister's Government, is the same kind of political double talk that takes place in this Parliament. The fact of the matter is that Mr Everingham knows he is conning the people of the Northern Territory. He can no longer con the miners. He certainly cannot con the Aborigines but I have no doubt he will continue to con some of the honourable gentlemen opposite. Mr FIFE —Does the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs consider that the 12,500 young people brought from Britain to Australia under the Big Brother Movement for nearly six decades have made a valuable and worthwhile contribution to this nation? Does the Minister believe that the late Ben Chifley was misguided in agreeing to serve for many years as a member of the Board of the Big Brother Movement? Does he believe that Prime Minister Whitlam and the Minister for Immigration, Mr Grassby, were wrong in giving the Big Brother Movement their full and total support in the years 1972 to 1975? Mr Barry Jones —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. The honourable member is seeking merely an expression of opinion as to the Minister's view. It is not a matter for which the Minister is administratively responsible. The question is out of order. Mr SPEAKER —In the initial stage, the honourable member asked a direct question. I believe, with regard to the personalities involved, that he is out of order on those points because they are matters of opinion. Mr FIFE —Finally, I ask: Where does the Minister claim a mandate to terminate the outstanding and beneficial activities of the Big Brother Movement? Mr WEST —I certainly do not want to say in any way that I would dispute decisions taken by any of my illustrious colleague predecessors. I simply make the point, and honourable members opposite should consider it well, that the halcyon days of virtually unlimited immigration, when we took tens of thousands of independent migrants, are virtually over. Only 70,000 people will come to Australia this year. Most of them will come under the family reunion scheme or as refugees. I ask honourable members to consider how British people who might be rejected and do not get through the family reunion assessment system would feel when, say, up to 200 people are accepted by the Big Brother Movement, an organisation which is outside government, and they get through under the criteria determined by this organisation. The decision regarding the Big Brother Movement was a government decision. It was certainly agreed to by one of the former Government's Ministers. That Minister said that perhaps the Big Brother Movement discriminated against the sexes because there was no mention of the little sisters. In 60 years only one female was ever brought into Australia by the Big Brother Movement. Dr KLUGMAN —Will the Prime Minister use his very high standing in this Parliament and the community and ask the Leader of the Opposition and some of the more rational honourable members opposite to behave in a responsible fashion on the question of immigration, remembering that Australia will still be situated in this geographical area well after the next election? Mr HAWKE —I would hope that all members in this House would understand the seriousness of the question and the very important considerations that are involved in it. I assure you, Mr Speaker, that in answering this question I will not make any partisan political points. I hope that in listening to the answer the Leader of the Opposition will accept the spirit in which I make the observations that I do. Mr Speaker, it is legitimate in politics that serious issues of difference of principle between parties should be vigorously aired. I would have thought that one of the redeeming features of the Australian political scene over many years and up until very recent days has been the distinctly observable and identifiable bipartisanship which has existed in this country on the question of immigration. I refer not only to the question of immigration generally but perhaps most particularly to the question of immigration from Asian countries. It has been the fact that we can say quite accurately that there has been this bipartisanship on the matter generally that I have referred to and on the particular matter. It has been to me, to people on this side of the House and, I thought, on the other side, a matter of pride that in respect of the obligation of this country following, particularly, the conflict in Indo-China-I do not want to go back to the causes and responsibilities in that matter-decisions were taken by the previous Government that Australia had a moral obligation with respect to the situation in which we had been involved there. I repeat: I make no observations about responsibility in that matter because I want this to be a bipartisan issue . But there was across the political spectrum in this country an acceptance of the obligation upon Australia to take into Australia refugees who resulted from that conflict and when our predecessor Government adopted that policy, we in opposition, without equivocation supported that policy. In the event, we know that some emotions were aroused and still exist in this country because of the decision of the previous Government, supported by the then Opposition, that we had a moral obligation to bring in under our immigration program the refugee component from the Asian area. The previous Government did that; we lauded it and we supported it. What this Government has done is to continue those policies . I believe in respect of this matter that the Leader of the Opposition shares the views that we have. In that respect, my attention has just been drawn-I do him credit by referring to this-to a passage from the Courier-Mail of 22 March this year under the heading 'Migrant level no problem: Peacock'. I will refer to what I regard as the relevant passages of the article and obviously the Leader of the Opposition can see the whole of it. However, I go to those parts which I think are relevant to what I have to say. The article states: The Federal Opposition Leader, Mr Peacock, yesterday in effect supported the Federal Government's Asian immigration program. He said provided the Government did not substantially increase the ratio of Asian immigrants to Australia, he did not expect the issue to be 'inflammatory'. The article continued: Mr Peacock also said that Professor Geoffrey Blainey had done the Australian community a service by raising the issue, but had gone a 'little too far' with his description of the 'Asianisation of Australia'. The article went on to say: Mr Peacock said Australia had a 'profound duty' to be sympathetic to the plight of refugees. I applaud the Leader of the Opposition for those remarks as reported. I put this plea to the Leader of the Opposition, and to those behind him who I think share that responsible view: I believe it is in the interests of this country and in the interests of our relations with the countries of this area that we do not sink into the situation where, on either side, we try to score cheap political points on an issue which all of us know constitutes a very grave risk of rousing uninformed emotions, bias and prejudice in this country which raise the possibility of injury and damage to citizens of this country and of damage to the relations with other countries in this area. I say straightforwardly to the Leader of the Opposition that I seek no political advantage in what I am saying. I believe that we are entering into very dangerous waters if there is any attempt to seek political advantage out of this emotional human issue. I say to this House and to the people of this country that this Government will continue, without discrimination, the policies that were instituted by the previous Government. I repeat that I applaud the previous Government for those policies. I believe they were correct and humane. This Government is continuing them without fear or favour. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and those around him will join with me and with those on this side of the House in saying once and for all that we will not allow to become a political issue in this country the question of Asianisation or the question of immigrants coming into this country from one area or another. We will not introduce discriminatory quotas. The previous Government refused to do that and it was right. We will not do it either. We do not seek to inflame base emotions in this country. It will be to the great service of this country and all its citizens, and to our relations with countries in this area, if we cease to allow, by anything that we on either side of this House say or do, this very dangerous issue to be raised and to become something that is in the forefront of political debate. Honourable members on both sides of the House have a duty and a responsibility, not immediately to the people that we represent but to all the people of Australia and to the countries of this region, to bring an end once and for all to the misleading suggestion that there is some preference for Asians, some Asianisation. That is not the case. Mr Peacock —We did not say that. Mr HAWKE —I am not saying that the Leader of the Opposition said it. These suggestions are being made. I do not want to throw the blame at any person. I make a plea to the Leader of the Opposition and those around him to join with me in giving an undertaking to the people of Australia and the countries of this region that we will not allow this emotional issue to raise its head any further in this country as a result of anything that anyone on either side of this House says. I ask that further questions be-- Mr Peacock —Give me the opportunity to ask about that. I want to ask about that. Mr SPEAKER —What is the Leader of the Opposition seeking to do? Mr Peacock —I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question. Mr HAWKE —I had intended to ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I understood that the Leader of the Opposition indicated he would like to ask me a question related to what I said and, of course, I ask that he be allowed to do so. Mr PEACOCK —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and I preface it by saying that all members on this side of the House endorse the ideals that he has stated. Nobody on this side of the House with tacit or avowed support would engage in racist propaganda. Indeed, my length of service in the field of international relations and all the work that I did in this area in conjunction with Ministers for immigration and ethnic affairs, and in my portfolio of external territories, put down anything contained by way of implication in that regard. We look back on our record with pride in human value terms in what was done for the nation. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get to the question. Mr PEACOCK —My question to the Prime Minister is: Will he accept, in the spirit of what he put down by my endorsement of it, the right nevertheless of any Opposition at any time to ask legitimate questions of the policies of his Government? Secondly, will he ensure that the honourable member for Hotham withdraws the remarks that he made against us during Question Time. Mr HAWKE —The answer to the first part of the Leader of the Opposition's question is yes. In respect of the second part I must say that I did not hear what the honourable member for Hotham said. The responsibility for the conduct of the House in these matters is in your hands, Mr Speaker. However, let me say that we did go through an emotional period in the House then and probably people on both sides of the House said things that would better have been left unsaid. I simply say to members on both sides, and I include my own in that, that I hope, in the spirit of what I have said and what the Leader of the Opposition has said, that there will be no more statements of a kind which will in any way raise this issue beyond where it should be, that is, it should be a non-issue in this House and in this country. Mr Peacock —What about legitimate questions? Mr HAWKE —I was talking about the latter area. I answered the first question by saying yes. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Hotham has sought my indulgence for a certain purpose. I think that when honourable members hear the purpose they will appreciate that I should grant him indulgence. Mr KENT(Hotham) —I was just challenged by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to withdraw some remarks I made. I do not intend to withdraw anything but I want to apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to the House for the probably temperamental behaviour I displayed. I want the House to understand that I was born in Europe. I came from Yugoslavia and have been here a long time. I am one of the products of Arthur Calwell's immigration policies. I settled here more than 30 years ago. My parents are buried in my electorate and my grandchildren are growing up here. At a young age I witnessed, during the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia, racism at its worst. I have seen people put to death because of their nationality and race and, of course, I am offended by the behaviour of the Opposition which wants to introduce-- Mr Peacock —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to put up with this and neither are my people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I say to the honourable member for Hotham that he was given indulgence for a purpose. He should not use it in a partisan manner. Mr KENT —I withdraw the generalisation because I have seen people as victims of generalisation; let me put it that way. But there are some members-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Hotham should not debate the issue. He has been given indulgence. Mr Cohen —That is how it started in Nazi Germany-by just this sort of attitude. He is right. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr KENT —There are 72 different nationalities living in my electorate of Hotham. They are all Australians, and their children will be Australians, no matter where they come from. I resent and find offensive any imputation that people of different origins, whether they come from Ireland or Yugoslavia, or from Vietnam for that matter, are any different. I have seen people put to death because of such imputations. Mr Speaker, I thank you for your indulgence. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move a motion in regard to immigration. Is leave granted? Mr Peacock —The Leader of the House was going to indicate to me, in the spirit of bipartisanship of which the Prime Minister spoke before, the matter to be raised. The Leader of the House indicated that he would tell me what it was about. I will not give leave until I know what I am supposed to be giving leave for. Mr YOUNG —Mr Speaker, I have explained-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House and the Leader of the Opposition will resume their seats. The procedures of the House cannot go on in this manner. I ask the Leader of the House to make clear what he wants to do, for the information of the Leader of the Opposition. We will proceed from there. Mr YOUNG —It is my intention to move 'that this House supports the Government's continued adherence to the long-standing non-discriminatory immigration policy of this country'. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted to suspend Standing Orders? Mr Peacock-Leave is granted. Mr YOUNG —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs from moving forthwith: That this House supports the Government's continued adherence to the long- standing non-discriminatory immigration policy. I think that the way in which I have placed the motion will give sufficient numbers of speakers from both sides of the House the opportunity to partake in a rational debate on this matter. It will enable the Government, through the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and other speakers, to outline what has occurred since March of 1983, when we were elected, and in some way will enable members on the Opposition side to outline what occurred during their reign of government between 1975 and 1983 and the way in which they may feel that that policy has been deviated from now. I think that will be much more constructive and beneficial than allowing the matter of public importance to come on later. That is why I so move. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(3.13) —Mr Speaker, I move: That this House supports the Government's continued adherence to the long- standing non-discriminatory immigration policy. I welcome this opportunity today, if not the way it has come about, to explain to the House fully and formally what the Government's immigration policies, which are applied in a non-discriminatory manner, are all about. I may not have all the information that I normally have for a formal statement. Nevertheless, I am quite prepared to stand before my colleagues of both sides of the House today and to the best of my ability inform them of what the Government has said before and what it will continue to say in the future. I should preface these explanations with a few remarks about the issues and the way that this matter has come up. I am concerned that the Opposition-I am not saying this in an inflammatory way-has to some extent been involved in a disturbing campaign in this House, a campaign which, to be charitable, can be misconstrued. The fact is, as I said at Question Time, that I welcome a debate upon immigration policy. I suggest that it be an informed debate, not an irrational debate or one full of invective and not one which encourages in the community hatred from bigots and racists. I suggest that some of the comments made in this House and on national television-I do not say this in an inflammatory way-by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) have not really helped the situation. I am sure that all honourable members agree with that. I cannot see that what we have done in our immigration policy has been an example of a radical and dangerous turn to the Left. In fact, I defy any reasonable person to explain to me how the taking of large numbers of right wing conservative refugees, many of them economic refugees, I suppose, from Vietnam, is in any way radical or leftist. Certainly most of them do not vote Labor, that is for sure. The honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) knows that. I will explain later in this speech exactly how the program came about and what we have done. But I am getting ahead of myself. Just let me say that there is no justification for the statements that the shadow Minister and the Opposition have made. Nor is there any justification for the statements that Professor Blainey has made. However, I do not dispute his right to say them because I am not a racist. I will not say that anyone in this House or anyone outside in the community who wants to start a debate on this matter is a racist simply because that person wants to discuss the issues. That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if we are to have a debate let it be an informed debate in the best interests of this House and the nation. Mr Macphee —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This debate is about immigration policy. There is no need to talk about the history of the refugee program. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! That is not really a point of order. Mr WEST —That is part of immigration policy, I suggest. I suggest also that I take a few minutes to refute the claims of the Big Brother Movement because that in a way is what has created and instigated this debate today. I refer to its statements in the community and those it has made through its representatives in this House. I say to that Movement that we are not anti-British. We are not pro- Asian and I am not looking forward, as it seems to believe, to the Asianisation of Australia; not at all. As I said at Question Time I do note that there is some element of sexual discrimination in the Movement's activities because since 1925 it has brought into Australia 12,000 young males and only one girl. What it was doing might have been all right in the halcyon days when we were bringing in tens of thousands of independent immigrants, but we are not doing that any more. To allow the Big Brother Movement to be an organisation acting outside the parameters of government, determining its own standards of entry, is just not on in a situation of considerably reduced numbers. The former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Balaclava, well knows all that. On 19 August 1981, he met with the President of the Movement, Brigadier Sir John Pagan, who, I think, used to be the President of the Liberal Party. The former Minister said that we would not be able to continue with financial assistance to the movement. He further advised Sir John that, because the movement could be seen as discriminatory in both terms of source and its restriction to males, he did not think that new financial arrangements would be acceptable to the Government. The next Minister, the then honourable member for Petrie, reversed all that. He had my Department send a cable to London which stated that the Big Brother Movement was to interview and process its own nominees; the standards and criteria to be applied were to be decided by the movement; and the movement was not bound to ensure that the qualifications of its nominees would be recognised in Australia. Quite frankly, I think that should end the debate. We cannot have any organisation choosing and processing its own migrants and putting them up to the Government on an accept or reject basis. We cannot have that. If we do we will have to give the same facilities, if requested, to many other migrant organisations in Australia, including those that represent the Greeks, the Italians, the Yugoslavs, the Asian countries and so on. I hope that I have answered the assertions of the Opposition. I will not accept that what we have done is an example of anti-British or pro-Asian behaviour. I have simply removed the positive discrimination in favour of the Big Brother Movement. It is not an example of anti-British behaviour or pro-Asian settlement. That is simply nonsense. I now want to address my attention to the remarks by Professor Blainey. I said that he had a right to say what he liked and that the community and this House would judge him. He said that the Government is letting in too many Asians. I say that that is a result of non-discriminatory policies in family reunion and refugee policies and in other areas such as skilled migration, lesser programs and business migration. Professor Blainey is really saying to me, in reply: ' Well, if that is so it may very well be, but what I want you to do, because it is producing that result, is change the components, change the intake, change the set-up altogether, so that you do not get too many Asians'. He is saying that if we do not apply all of these selection procedures globally and there is discrimination with the result that it produces too many Asians, we should simply change the situation. What he is saying is 'Cut out the refugees; turn them down to a negligible number and reduce the family reunion program', or else he is saying 'Let us have quotas or tougher selection measures'. Because I know that my own people support me I say to the Opposition: 'The day there is a government, any government of any colour, in this nation which goes back to imposing quotas under a global migration program, say, a family reunion program, or makes the selection procedure tougher for brothers and sisters, spouses, aged parents or non-dependent children to enter this country, or imposes a tougher system of selection on Asian people within those categories that apply for Europeans then we are gone. We are half way back to white Australia'. We cannot have that. Just what are members of the Opposition saying? What would they like us to do? Would they like us to cut the family reunion program and the refugee program? The States do not want us to cut business migration. Before I conclude I will inform honourable members of the procedures that are adopted. I will tell them what it is all about. Looking at the clock, perhaps I should start to do that now. We have concentrated on family reunion and refugees . We have increased the number of family reunions from 27,000 to 40,000-plus in one year. We had a mandate to do that. We have kept up the refugee program. I said that we would take 18,000. This year we are taking 17,300. I agree with what the former Government did regarding the Indo-Chinese. I do not remember which Minister was responsible. I do not think that the honourable member for Balaclava, who is sitting opposite, endorsed the program-I will mention the history of it in a minute-but he certainly carried it on and the former Minister started it up. Two or three years ago that program was at its peak, when 15,500 Indo-Chinese came into this country after fleeing Vietnam, and later, Cambodia and Laos. There was nothing going on except resettlement. Last year 12,500 Indo- Chinese came into the country. This year, 1983-84, we have toned the figure down to 10,000, not for racist reasons but for other reasons that I will now explain. The history of the program should be well known. It arose out of the Vietnam war, the fact that many people fled Vietnam and the fact that later the Khmer fled from Cambodia into Thailand as a result of the conflict in Cambodia. Since the Geneva Conference of 1979 it has never been anything but a resettlement program. Nothing else was tried. At first there was no orderly departure from Vietnam, no attempt at voluntary repatriation and no attempt at local integration. It was all resettlement, as honourable members know, by five major nations-Canada, Australia, the United States of America and, to a lesser extent, France and the United Kingdom. But Australia was always the biggest nation in terms of per capita acceptance. It still is, although it is reducing its intake a bit now. As I have said, we have reduced it from 15,500 people to 10,000 people-not because I am crooked on the Asians; not at all. It is because I could see that resettlement alone was not the answer. I went to an intergovernmental consultation in Hawaii last year and consulted with the Americans, the Japanese, the Canadians and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as to what we should do. I later engaged directly in consultations with Dr Mochtar of Indonesia, the Prime Minister of Thailand and the Foreign Ministers of Malaysia and Singapore. I then consulted with Paol Hartling, the High Commissioner. We came to the conclusion that we had to start doing things other than just resettle. Otherwise it would go on for ever, honestly. So we paid more attention to orderly departure. The former Government, to its credit, started that off. But we have accentuated it. We have said: ' Orderly departure is better than disorderly departure. Let us turn the refugee tap down, discourage the boat people from leaving. We will have a family reunion base to the policy here in Australia, call it orderly departure and turn up the wick on family reunion'. That is what we have done for the Vietnamese. As the refugee figures have come down from 15,500 to 10,000-they will perhaps come down a little more this coming year-we have turned up the wick on orderly departure, from nothing to 600 last year, to 20,000 this year and to a few more next year. Gradually, as one area of refugees comes down, we will build it into the family reunion program. I said that as a result of the policies of the previous Government there are now 80,000 to 90,000 Indo-Chinese in Australia. We have continued the program that brought them here. Those people now have a family reunion base. We are moving the refugee target down and lifting the family reunion program. That is proper as long as there is not another blow-up over there. The situation in Cambodia is in the hands of the member countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations, the Vietnamese and, I hope, my colleague, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). I will not comment too much on that except to say that we want to see more voluntary repatriation-I stress, voluntary-back to Laos . That is already occurring under the auspices of the UNHCR. If possible we want to see voluntary repatriation back into Cambodia with aid being directed at the villages, not just at the border, to attract that voluntary repatriation. In other words, we are trying to do more than just resettle refugees. The point is that we already have 90,000 people from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia in Australia now and they are entitled to family reunion, as is anyone else. That is one of the reasons why we are getting more Asian people here under the family reunion orderly departure program. They have their rights. We have turned up the program slightly. There are about 30,000 nominees in the pipeline. I stress that only 2,000 have been accepted this year. Far from giving the Indo- Chinese favouritism over the British, we are actually saying that because the administrative procedure is slow the option is to take only the children, parents and spouses of people already in Australia and no brothers and sisters. But we do not say that to the British or to Europeans; of course not. If there is any discrimination, it is a discrimination built in through administrative procedures on the Vietnamese side. It is not that we are anti-Asian, and we are certainly not pro-Asian. They are some of the things that we have done. We have also diversified the refugee program. Our program has given refuge to people from the Middle East, including Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Chile. This year we have taken 1,500 Lebanese, 500 Sri Lankans, 300 White Russians, 200 East Timorese-some of them from Portugal-400 Assyrians from Athens and Rome, 400 others from the Middle East and 300 Chileans. The former Government took only 50 from the whole of Latin America while our total this year from Latin America is 1,300, and we have taken 200 of those from El Salvador. They are some of the things that we are doing. Mr Uren —What about from Turkey? Mr WEST —Yes, we will take them too if they can establish a case. We have diversified in that way. Let me explain to honourable members the actual components of the intake. When the Government took office the emphasis was on skilled migration. The categories were called occupational demand, business migration and labour shortage. In total I think the former Government accepted about 40,000 in 1982-83 under its program; 27,000 were accepted under the family reunion program. The rest were refugees and a few in business migration. We changed the emphasis and we have taken 40,000 under family reunion this year and only 11,000 all up in the occupational demand and business migration categories. We think there will be an increase in that in the future. I think the business migration category is warranted provided we can keep it well monitored. I also think there is a case to increase skilled migration slightly under the new system of selection which the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Ralph Willis, and I have expounded, called the occupational shares system where we will attempt to predict the future needs in certain key areas rather than look to the past and rely on Commonwealth Employment Service figures. There is no discrimination in the business migration program. About 2,000 applicants will come in this year. The criteria is that they live permanently in Australia, that they introduce new industries to Australia, employ permanent residents or citizens of Australia and preferably introduce new technologies. All of this is not new. I predict a moderate upsurge in business migration in the next year. I hope Opposition members will support that because their colleagues in the States have made it plain to me that they do. They are all the things we have done. I repeat that we have allowed an increase in the family reunion category. We have reduced to a certain extent the reliance on skilled, English speaking, rich family reunion aspirants and given the battlers a chance. We will not turn it down too low so that we take a whole lot of elderly and unskilled people. We cannot do that. But everyone in Australia knows that people who are not so skilled, not so rich and who may be middle aged at least now have a chance for family reunion that they did not have before. We cannot take them all, but we have tried. The increase in family reunion has gone up by 13,000. There have been problems in category C mainly because people cannot comply with a job offer and because there has been a lessening demand from certain European countries. We are looking at some measures to try to lift up the numbers of younger skilled people from, say, Europe. I hope that honourable members opposite will at least pay me the credit of being able to put a fairly comprehensive statement down at short notice as to what we are all about. I challenge them to say whether they think they could have done better. Mr Donald Cameron —The Department wrote it two days ago. Mr WEST —No, I have hardly looked at a note, as I have told the honourable member. (Extension of time granted) I was saying that we have increased the family reunion intake, diversified the intake of refugees, kept up the business migration program and taken a whole lot of other initiatives that are generally supported in the community. I said that there was no evidence of anti-British or anti-European behaviour in any of this, that it was not pro-Asian in an intended way but certain results were coming through due to the former Government's policies and our continuing with the refugee policy. I said that there was probably a case to increase the numbers of younger skilled people who would possibly come from Europe, the United Kingdom, other places and Asia too-as part of the family reunion program in category C-without a job offer. I flagged that I would like the Government to look at that. I think it is probably a good idea. I am not saying that because I want to drag in more Europeans to balance the intake of Asians; I am saying that because I think as a result of the upturn in the economy due to the Hawke Labor Government we probably need a few more younger skilled migrants who would be good settlement risks. We can look at that. I want to conclude on the note that I introduced in Question Time today. I refute the evidence that the Opposition tries to give of this massive upturn in Asian entry. Let me put the situation on the record. I will go back to 1980-81. I hope I do not weary honourable members with figures but I do think this is necessary. Total settler arrivals in 1980-81 were 22.47 per cent from Asia, 18.4 per cent from Europe and 28.4 per cent from the United Kingdom and Ireland. Total settler arrivals for 1981-82 were 22.4 per cent for Asia, 21 per cent for Europe and 32.7 per cent for the United Kingdom and Ireland. I am not dealing with other countries, I am just comparing Europe, Asia and the United Kingdom. Total settler arrivals in 1982-83 were 26.37 per cent from Asia, 21.2 per cent from Europe and 29.3 per cent from the United Kingdom and Ireland. For the half year 1983-84, the last section for which I have figures, 33.2 per cent were from Asia, 16.8 per cent were from Europe and 28.9 per cent were from the United Kingdom and Ireland. That is a 0.4 per cent fall from the United Kingdom and Ireland for total settler arrivals. The figures for sub-category C, which is mainly brothers and sisters, was slightly different. The figures for the United Kingdom and Ireland fell from 50 per cent to 37 per cent. This is from 1982-83 to the half year of 1983-84. The figure for Asians rose from 12.2 per cent to 20.5 per cent. I stress that those are total settler arrivals, not applications or visa issues. That is the position. There is nothing very savage or outstanding about those figures which indicate a swing from Britian and Europe to Asia on the basis of sheer political bias against the British or sheer political bias against Europeans in favour of Asians. We have not done that. Before I conclude I thank the House for allowing me the extra few minutes, and I will not try honourable members' patience by taking up all the time available. All of the categories and all of the selection procedures that the former Government implemented have been continued. We are the inheritors of the former Government's policies. We have moderated the entry and selection criteria for family reunion to give the battlers a better chance and I have diversified the refugee intake to get away from a total reliance on Indo-China. That is what we have done. We have inherited the former Government's policies. We said we would give more emphasis in future on family reunion, and we did that. The figures relating to those who entered Australia under that program have gone up to 43, 000 from 27,000. I am not quite sure yet what the final figure will be, but I do not think it will be under 40,000-from 27,000. The number of refugees to enter Australia is about the same. The big difference is that the number of Indo- Chinese refugees has been reduced and we have taken more people from other troubled areas of the world, because they are in trouble and because they have a base of community support here in Australia. I refer to the Lebanese, the Sri Lankans, the Chileans, the Salvadorans and even the Assyrians. I refer also to the conservative Assyrians in Athens and Rome. We have even inherited the previous Government's White Russia program, but I think that will probably be terminated because I do not think there are many more White Russians left in China. We have continued with the business migration program. The same criteria prevail except that I am a whole lot tougher about what we would term to be bodgie inquiries. I think that is proper. This program should be monitored more toughly to see that business applicants are not just coming in to get a permanent entry card, buy a block of flats, then shoot through and run around the world for the rest of their lives. They may come here if they have the capital, the technology, a worthwhile project and if they employ Australians or permanent residents. I have said that we will tune up the skilled migration program and make it more responsive to future needs. We will not look back to the past and get a list of categories from the Commonwealth Employment Service which say that six months ago such employment categories were in short supply. That is the system I inherited. I had experiences last year and the year before as the steel industry turned down in Wollongong of seeing United Kingdom migrants who had been brought out here under the employer nominated scheme sacked three months after they arrived by the Australian Iron and Steel Ltd, at Port Kembla. This occurred after they had sold their houses, their cars and everything they owned in England. That is the sort of employer nomination occupation demand system that I inherited. The Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) and I have decided, and Cabinet has agreed, to slot the immigration skilled labour intake into a total labour force and educational planning processes whereby we will attempt to predict over the next three to five years the numbers which will be required in about 60 key areas. That is a far better system than looking back to the past. I think that I should conclude my case there. Other speakers from the Opposition side and from my side of the House will take up these very important national issues. Let me conclude on this note: Remember what we can do in a spirit of consensus and bipartisanship on issues on which we are not divided. In the last two or three months in this House and in the community the Government and I have had to endure attacks which were not genuinely based. I hope I have refuted such arguments today. I do believe that honourable members opposite are entitled to participate both in this place and out in the community in an informed debate on anything including the issue of immigration and ethnic affairs policies, but for God's sake let it be an informed debate. Please do not climb on the bandwagon of all those people who come out of the woodwork when they see misstatements being made. We are not racist. We are not pro-Asian or anti-British and we are not anti-European. The Government is committed to a total non-discriminatory policy in all of those components of the migration program that I have described. They will be implemented under global pre- selection criteria which will be applied without fear or favour, whether a person be Vietnamese, French or British. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Denison speaking for a period not exceeding 30 minutes. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(3.44) —The Opposition welcomes this debate. I would like the people of Australia to know that we had proposed for debate in this House this afternoon a matter of public importance which had been accepted by Mr Speaker and would have been called on for debate had the present motion not been moved. Our matter of public importance was in the following terms: The rapidly rising community concern about the Hawke Government's divisive handling of Australia's immigration policies. In this debate, which I too hope will be rational and reasoned, some things will have to be said by Her Majesty's Opposition in the interests of ensuring that the people of Australia are aware that there can be differences of opinion in an area which hitherto was renowned for its bipartisanship. It has to be said that the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is, in our opinion, the most dangerous, radical and arrogant Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Australia has ever had. We believe he is far more dangerous than even Mr Grassby. We believe he is far more radical than Mr Grassby and we believe he is far, far more arrogant than Mr Grassby ever was. No area of government policy is more critical to the future of Australia than our immigration policy. I want to emphasise that statement, because I think the point must be made that while other areas of government policy may be more important in the short term, I believe, as does the Opposition, that in the long term it is a fundamental axiom that the immigration policies we implement today will impact on Australia long after policies on Treasury matters, trade and the like have faded into oblivion. It must be said that the immigration policies of today will impact on this nation not just for one or two years but for generations to come and will shape the face of Australia as we move into the twenty-first century. The immigration policies of today will determine the sort of Australia we will have for decades to come. It is, as Professor Geoffrey Blainey has so eloquently pointed out, absolutely crucial that we now have both inside and outside the Parliament a reasoned and rational debate on Australia's immigration policies. The Opposition's immigration policy will be publicly released in a few week's time. I believe that document will present to the people of Australia a balanced and rational blueprint for immigration and ethnic affairs policies. I believe that document will afford the people of Australia the opportunity of judging between the hopes and aspirations on this side of the House and the misguided approach of the Hawke socialist Government, in particular that of the Minister. That the Minister is both dangerous and radical is, I believe, self-evident. It is not surprising, as he is as everyone knows the senior socialist Left Minister in the Hawke socialist Government. As I said on the very first occasion when I spoke as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, it was my prediction and indeed my fear that under this Minister immigration policy would take a radical and dangerous turn to the Left, and that the former bipartisan approach built up over many years would be shattered and destroyed. Sadly, that prediction has come true. The present Minister can take credit for single- handedly destroying the bipartisan approach which previously existed. Only in the area of our humanitarian obligations to refugees can it be said that the bipartisan approach of yesteryear still prevails. In almost every area of immigration policy, the Minister, listening to all the wrong people and pandering to left wing, republican and extremist groups, has veered dangerously and inexorably to the Left. I can demonstrate in chapter and verse the areas in which the Minister the the Hawke socialist Government have created division and disunity in the Australian community as a result of their immigration policies and relentlessness with which they have pursued their twisted ideologies. Without any mandate this Minister and this Government have moved to destroy the oath of allegiance by deleting all reference to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Mr Punch —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. The motion moved in this House, which is now being debated, stated: That this House supports the Government's continued adherence to the long- standing non-discriminatory immigration policy. It is quite obvious that the shadow Minister is clearly moving away from that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —There is no point of order. Mr Punch —The Opposition shadow Minister is clearly moving away from that. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I think the manner in which the motion before the House was moved allows all speakers the opportunity to put their point of view. Mr HODGMAN —I repeat: Without any mandate this Minister and this Government have moved to destroy the oath of allegiance by deleting all reference to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Without any mandate whatsoever, this Minister and this Government have, as Professor Geoffrey Blainey correctly points out, adopted the most anti-British stance which we have ever seen in this country. Without any mandate whatsoever-- Mr Hand —That is lie No.1, Hodgman Mr HODGMAN —This Government has brought about a substantial reduction- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that remark. Mr Hand —What remark? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will withdraw his interjection. Mr Hand —Lie No.1? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member knows which interjection the Chair requires to be withdrawn. Mr Hand —Well, to you, I will withdraw it but he is a liar. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I wish the honourable member to withdraw without any equivocation. Mr Hand —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. Mr HODGMAN —To repeat: Without any mandate this Government, as Professor Geoffrey Blainey correctly points out, has adopted the most anti-British stance which we have ever seen in this country. Without any mandate whatsoever, this Government has brought about, and the figures prove it, a substantial reduction in British and European migration to Australia altering dramatically the traditional proportions of Australia's immigration policies which have been so successfully implemented by governments of both political persuasions over so many years. Without any mandate whatsoever, this Minister and this Government within 19 days of coming to power, took a brutal stock whip to an Australian charity, the Big Brother Movement Ltd, by cutting off its support and putting it out of business, notwithstanding the fact that great Australians such as the late Ben Chifley, a former Labor Prime Minister, served on the board of the Big Brother Movement for years and Prime Minister Whitlam and the then Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Mr Grassby, to their great credit, continued to fund and support the Big Brother Movement between the years 1972 and 1975. The vicious attack on this organisation, an Australian charity, is dramatic evidence of this Government's mean minded paranoia and this Government's continuing anti- British bias. The Big Brother Movement has brought to Australia more than 12,500 young people over the past 56 years. Many of these little brothers have grown up to become outstanding Australians and have made a magnificent contribution to this nation. About 200 a year have come to Australia for nearly six decades. But this Minister, autocratically and without any consultation with the Big Brother Movement put it to death within 19 days of his coming to office. Worse still, for nearly a year he refused to meet with the representatives of the Big Brother Movement, telling them bluntly and arrogantly that the decision was made and that there was no chance of that decision being reviewed, let alone reversed. When finally an appointment was made and representatives of the Big Brother Movement came to Canberra the Minister was unfortunately unable to meet with them in his office but, in fairness, he did condescend to have a brief meeting and drink with them in the non-members' bar after Parliament had risen that evening. The preceding remarks bring me to the question of the arrogant and authoritarian manner in which the Minister handles his portfolio. This was evidenced earlier in his term as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs when he effectively decreed that persons in Australia on visas would not be able to apply successfully for permanent resident status unless they married an Australian citizen or there were other special humanitarian grounds. Whilst obviously ordinarily applications for permanent resident status should be made in the country of origin, there have been many cases where, for proper reasons, Ministers for Immigration from both sides of the House have permitted persons in Australia on visitors' visas to obtain permanent resident status without having to go to the enormous trouble or expense of returning to their home country. This was a classic example of the proper exercise of ministerial discretion. But this Minister, with the stroke of a pen, effectively and in a most authoritarian and arrogant manner wiped out this procedure to the very great detriment of this nation which has now lost effectively the talents and abilities of many brilliant people and mainly brilliant young people. I have seldom been more impressed than I was by the quality and the excellence of the editorial in the Australian Financial Review of Monday, 7 May. Under the headline 'Racism and intolerance' this editorial pinpoints the basic arrogance and intolerance of this Government and this Minister with respect to anybody inside or outside this Parliament who dares to disagree with what they say. Let me read to the Parliament some extracts from the editorial which commented upon the recent contributions to public discussion by Professor Geoffrey Blainey and Mr Hugh Morgan of the Western Mining Corporation Ltd. Naturally, my area of responsibility is the area in which Professor Blainey expressed his views. Let me say, on behalf of the Opposition, that whilst I do not agree with everything that Professor Blainey has said, I want publicly to congratulate him for his courage and his intellectual integrity in raising this substantive issue for debate in the Australian community. I think Professor Blainey has once again done this nation a great service. I deplore the ignorant and arrogant manner in which the Minister first responded to Professor Blainey's considered remarks. The editorial to which I refer commences: There is a degree of intolerance of dissent in certain public discussions, and indeed a dislike of public discussion itself unless it follows tame orthodox lines, which does the Australian policy a grave disservice. This is part of a tendency to howl down-- these are important words-- points of view which do not fit into current fashionable ideas about what is progressive, or necessary, or somehow moral. Interestingly enough, anything which can now be classified as by any stretch of the imagination racist is treated in exactly the same way as those once classified as racist treated their victims-as beneath serious consideration. The two recent examples are, of course, the contributions to public discussions by Professor Geoffrey Blainey with respect to Australia's immigration policy, and the comments by Mr Hugh Morgan of Western Mining Corporation on Aboriginal land rights and mining. Both of these made comments which their own backgrounds and roles entitled them to have taken seriously, and debated coolly on their merits and demerits. Instead, they stirred up a hornet's nest, much to their own surprise. The next paragraph I wish to read, I believe, is of fundamental importance. The editorial continues: The real danger of the treatment which is being meted out to Blainey and Morgan is that it may be successful in silencing those who want to draw the attention of the community to the need to discuss and come to definite conclusions on issues which can arouse strong inarticulate feelings in the community. The fact is that these feelings are repellant to those who would wish for communal harmony without the evils of racial prejudice is not good reason to pretend that they do not exist. The feelings will not go away if the issues are not discussed . Those views, so eloquently expressed, do not apply only to this Minister in this debate. They are symptomatic of the attitude of the Hawke socialist Government from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) down. Indeed, the Prime Minister himself must accept the major responsibility for this new element of arrogance and intolerance which has crept into Australian politics since he came to power. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) has correctly denounced this new authoritarianism. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has correctly denounced this new McCarthyism. For my part, I join in denouncing this intellectual thuggery under which proper debate is stifled and those who dare to criticise are denigrated and defamed. I have been called, wrongly and unjustly, a racist in this Parliament. Mr Hand —And you are. Mr Goodluck —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask for that remark to be withdrawn. Mr Steele Hall —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ask that that defamatory remark be withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I did not hear the remark. I am sorry; my attention was distracted. Who made the defamatory remark? Mr Steele Hall —I understand it has been withdrawn. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —It has been withdrawn? Thank you. Mr HODGMAN —That proves the point which I have just made to the people of Australia who are listening to this debate. I just said in this Parliament that I have been wrongly and unjustly called a racist. As soon as I said that, a member of the Hawke socialist Government said that it is true. The plain fact is that I am not a racist. Those who know me and who know my work with ethnic communities over more than 20 years know that I am not a racist. Those who know my involvement with European, Asian and British communities in Tasmania know that I am not a racist. If honourable members sitting opposite do not believe me they should talk to the Overseas Students Association at the University of Tasmania, they should talk to the Fiji-Australia association, the Australian- Italian club, the Croatian club, the Polish club and many others. I make it clear that I am not a racist. Mr West —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the Opposition spokesman is probably referring to me when he makes those charges about people calling him a racist. I put it on record that I have never called him a racist, merely a political opportunist. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison did not name anyone. Mr HODGMAN —I am not a racist. Honourable members of this Opposition have been called hooligans; we are not. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition was called an orang-utan; he is not. I tell the Minister bluntly and emphatically that his tactics will not silence me or the Opposition and most importantly of all they will not fool the people of Australia. The facts speak louder than the Minister' s outbursts. His anti-British and anti-European stance is now exposed for all to see. No amount of denials will gainsay that fact. His policies will cost this Government tens of thousands of votes-some say hundreds of thousands of votes-at the next Federal election. With no mandate from the Australian people he has pursued a course of divisive and provocative action which, in turn, has brought about rapidly rising community concern at the manner in which the Hawke socialist Government has implemented and continues to implement its dangerous and misguided immigration policy. On behalf of the Opposition I want to say that Australia is the greatest country in the world. We on this side of the House want the best possible migrants for Australia. We want those who will make this nation even greater tomorrow and in the years to come. I place on record our gratitude to all those who have come to this country from all parts of the world and who have enriched this nation with their presence and their talents. I said all parts of the world and I mean all parts of the world. Upon our return to government we will present a balanced-- Mr Leo McLeay —Don't hold your breath. Mr HODGMAN —It will be sooner than the honourable member thinks. A 2.3 per cent swing puts the Prime Minister out of the Lodge and the Leader of the Opposition into the Lodge. We will, upon our return to government, present a balanced, rational and acceptable immigration policy to the people of Australia which will have the support of the overwhelming majority of Australians and which will still give recognition to our humanitarian obligations. We will not veer dangerously to the left; we will correct the balance. We will not politicise the refugee intake as the Minister did when he said that he would pick out refugees from El Salvador and Chile. He also said that he would bring in refugees from Ethiopia and Africa. To hell with the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees! Why does he pick out El Salvador and Chile and not, for example, Nicaragua or Guatemala? Why does he pick out these countries and politicise the refugee program? I repeat that we will not politicise the refugee intake. We will not deny any Australian citizen, old or new, the right to swear or affirm allegiance to Her Majesty, Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia. Government members can laugh as much as they like but they have no idea how much damage they have done to themselves in the community because of their vicious and continuing attack on the Queen of Australia. This country is still a constitutional monarchy; it is not a socialist republic. When the Government attacks the Queen, threatens to tear up the flag, changes the national anthem or bans the Victoria Cross it loses votes. If Government members do not believe me they should have a look at the latest gallup poll on what Australians feel about this country remaining a constitutional monarchy. The Government is so far out of step, with its socialist republican points of view, that it is not-- Mr Punch —I raise a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member' s remarks are quite plainly outside the terms of this debate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr HODGMAN —We will not see our Australian flag torn up to satisfy the panderings of an extremist, but to this Government very influential, and noisy minority. When we return to government we will not politicise ethnic affairs, nor will we patronise only those who support our Party philosophies and slam the doors on others who do not. Worse still, this Minister keeps out organisations which he thinks might not support his policies. Because of the name of one organisation he made a very big mistake, because it comprised union secretaries. I call on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to take charge of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to bring him back to reality. I call on the Hawke socialist Government to desist forthwith from its divisive and misguided policies in the area of immigration and ethnic affairs. I call on the people of Australia to contribute rationally their views in the great immigration debate of 1984 for the benefit of this nation, not merely today but in the years to come. I confirmed on national television last night that whereas there was bipartisanship in almost every area of immigration and ethnic affairs, with the exception of the refugee obligations, there is no longer bipartisanship. There was bipartisanship when the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) was the shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and when this area was the responsibility of the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) or the former member for Petrie. One of the first things this Government did when it came to office was to repudiate its fundamental commitment to the size of the migration intake and to the mix and proportion of the intake. The responsibility for the lack of bipartisanship comes directly as a result of the Minister's action in moving away from what was accepted across party lines for many many years as the proper approach to migration policy. The Government had no mandate at all to decide that it would change the oath of allegiance or to deny to people who wish to become Australian citizens their right to pledge their loyalty to their Queen . The Minister had no right to do the most unfortunate thing in the Bill, to switch it around so that the 81 per cent of Australians who want to take an oath of allegiance are told that the first option is a pledge and that if they really have to swear an oath of allegiance, they can do it as a second option. The Minister had no right to take a stock whip to the Big Brother Movement which brought in 200 kids a year, which he was not prepared to accept. Instead of attacking the Big Brother Movement, upon which Ben Chifley served, and which was supported by Prime Minister Whitlam and Minister for Immigration Grassby, why did he not support other ethnic groups such as that excellent Italian organisation, CO-AS-IT, chaired by Sir James Gobbo? Why did he not encourage that organisation to do with the Italians as he knew the Big Brother Movement did with young people from Britain for 56 years? Why did he have to turn his attention on this organisation within 19 days of coming into office? He could not wait to get his hands upon it. He should not come into this Parliament and say that we have stirred all this up. The debate in Australia has been stirred up by the people of Australia. Mr Scott —By you. Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member should look at the letters to editors columns and what has been said on the public affairs programs. Government members can try to blame me as much as they like but unfortunately for them the public opinion polls show that it is the people of Australia who have rejected-and who reject emphatically-the line that the Government is taking. So that we can get some truth and reality into this debate, I will move an amendment to the motion moved by the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I believe in these words and I repeat that the Opposition's detailed immigration policies will be released publicly in just a few short weeks and then the people can judge between us and the Government. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: 'this House calls on the Government to return to proper, balanced and rational immigration policies for Australia'. In the debate that follows I predict that I will be subjected to further attack, criticism and abuse. I conclude by saying that attempts in the past to silence me have been singularly unsuccessful. The people of Australia will recognise the truth, as have the hundreds who apparently rang in after the program on Nationwide last night. The Minister continues to deny the truth and the reality of the vicious anti-British and anti-European stance when there has been a 33 per cent cut in British migration. If he does not want to talk about Britain, let us look at all the Italian and Greek families, the intake of which has been cut by 22 per cent since he came to power. He should not stand in this Parliament and say that that is just not true. The facts are that it is true. The statistics are there. I do not believe that any British migrant in Australia today will ever vote for the Australian Labor Party again. I can tell the Minister that he is well on the way to ensuring that the majority of Italian, Greek and other European migrants, who are now starting to realise what he is up to, will not vote for the ALP again either. The Opposition calls on the Prime Minister to pull his Minister into gear, to listen to what the Australian people are saying and to adopt rational policies. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Mackellar —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the Gallery today the honourable Dr Mario Fioret, the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs from Italy. On behalf of the House, I extend to Dr Fioret a warm welcome . Honourable members-Hear, hear! Debate resumed. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(4.14) —I support the motion which has been put before the House and I oppose the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). He observed, with a well developed martyr complex, that he would be pilloried and strictured and subjected to goodness knows what sorts of taunts in the course of this debate. I scarcely think so. My sole observations are limited to these: His display was a presentation of volume without content, and he addressed himself to a range of issues as diverse as the monarchy, the oath of allegiance, the national anthem, the flag and bolshevism in the parlour, to all of which he has addressed himself on a number of occasions in the past and in circumstances which have established some renown for him. They may well be proper matters for debate in the Parliament but, I suggest, on another occasion. There is a need for a display of some conciliation in the course of this debate . Perhaps in that spirit I could start by observing that I find no reassurance at all in recalling that, except for one other colleague in this Parliament, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), I now become in terms of service in this place the father of the Parliament, except for one, by some months. I have had the opportunity over the years to get to know people in this Parliament, to know the moods of this establishment and particularly to observe how volatile attitudes can be in this place. I prefer to believe that what we saw happen at Question Time today-I apportion no blame because that would be totally unproductive-was a classic case of too many of us getting lost in the turbulence of a sudden storm of misunderstanding. I want to say, from my extensive experience in this place and I think my fairly wide knowledge of honourable members on both sides of this House, that I know of no member of this Parliament who is a racist. I trust that that conclusion is a correct one and that in the course of this debate we will see no evidence to dislodge that firm conviction. Therefore, in that respect, I believe that we are in a pre-eminent position to give leadership in the community on an issue which has become extraordinarily sensitive in recent times. It is an issue which should be debated and should be properly canvassed in careful, thoughtful terms-terms which do not inflame extremism in the community. Of course, that is the issue of the immigration policy of this Government with respect to Asian people. There are legitimate differences in the community on the issue of immigration policy. It is the proper conduct of this place that they should be aired and canvassed. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and any other member of this Government should be brought to account if it is believed that there are serious differences and that those differences are such that they should be aired and that the public should be given the choice between what the Government is doing and what the Opposition believes it should be doing. After all, this place performs many functions. One of them is a pressure release on built-up feelings in the community. But, having said all that, it would be most undesirable if the nature of the debate, if the quality of expression, was carelessly chosen by any member of this Parliament, regardless of side, or by any member of the community. In terms of the community, I refer in particular to people who have distinction, who are respected and whose views are carefully attended to because it is considered that they are better informed and would be more objective than others in addressing themselves to particular issues, for instance issues which have a potential for being inflammatory in the community. We all have responsibility to analyse these things, to debate them and to address ourselves to any shortcomings as honestly as we can. We also have the responsibility to do that in a properly restrained and informed manner. We should not at any time aim at dividing this community because there is too much to be lost. I believe that is the position from which we should start. I make that statement because some who may be listening to this debate at this point may be wondering what it is about. After all, we did fly through the flag, the oath of allegiance and many other unrelated matters. This debate is about some rather passionate feelings which were expressed on both sides of the Parliament at Question Time. I impute no one in terms of motivation. It is unfortunate that it happened and the sooner we get it behind us, the better. There are better issues upon which to divide ourselves and this country, if that is found necessary, than by miscalculation to divide this country on the issue of racism, by carelessly giving the initiative to the extremists in our community. That is a very important point that deserves to be made early. As one who has not been terribly well informed on the details of immigration in this country-perhaps I should be censured for that, but let us go into that on another occasion-because I have been preoccupied with my own responsibilities, I am rather nonplussed by the nature of this debate when today I pick up bar charts on immigration and the componency of immigration provided by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. My understanding from the quality and emotionalism of this debate is that it is being said that people of British background, of British stock, are being unfairly treated and that there has been a rather radical change in the whole posture of our immigration policy in that we are rejecting them and bringing in Asians. The facts do not seem to support that and more than that there is an underlying principle at work which I want us all to address ourselves to very soberly. I refer to our position concerning the totality of Asian migration to this country. The bar chart shows, for instance, on an annualised basis, that if the trend continues something like 17,000 people will come from the United Kingdom and Ireland in 1983-84. In 1978-79 only 13,000 people came from the United Kingdom and Ireland. The figures on the bar chart move up and down year by year, and they move up and down within a total that moves up and down. As the total moves up and down there is often compression in one area, proportionately, as there is, proportionately, expansion in another area. So the argument is a nonsense argument because this Government has been in office for only 12 months and has not had a chance to establish a pattern which could be used as a legitimate basis of argument; argument that has been genuinely presented. That is the first point I want to make. The second point I make is that the proportions, which are thrown around with gay abandon by honourable members opposite, lead one to believe that some devastating things have been done in terms of Asian migration. But I find in 1982-83, for instance, that more than 26 per cent of the total migrant intake were Asians. In 1978-79, I find that the proportion was nearly 30 per cent. But that is a meaningless argument because the proportions take place within different totals. In fact, there was a lower aggregate figure in 1978-79 than in 1982-83. It is more meaningful to look at the bar chart, as it cannot be reproduced in Hansard, which shows that the proportion of Asian migration to this country has been fairly steady, moving from somewhere around the 20 per cent figure to a percentage in the high twenties. It varied under the conservative Government and I have no doubt it will vary under us. Before I come to my next point about Asian migration, I restate that when we look at the figures for British migration we discover that there has been a fairly substantial intake in the last couple of years. For instance, the figure was in excess of 27,000 in 1982-83. It was only 16,000 in 1979-80 and 13,000 in 1978-79. But in the intervening years the numbers were higher. What does that prove? It proves only one thing-that some people are misusing statistics. There are statistics, statistics and other people, and the other people are the ones who are quite dishonestly manufacturing the immigration debate. One does not expect a statistician's punctiliousness in the application of statistics in this place in the normal course of debate but in the context in which we have now been cast, where the issue of racial tolerance is coming to centre stage, I suggest that the way in which those figures are presented ought to be more carefully addressed; otherwise something that I believe none of us want will take place. I have been here for 23 years and have had many disappointments in that 23 years, as well as many joys. It has mostly been interesting. As I have said, one learns the mood of this place when one has had many experiences. I sat here today very silently because for a few moments I was absolutely apprehensive. Something ugly flared for a few moments. This place is a microcosm of the community; we represent a broad spectrum of the people living in Australia who make this great country tick. If we explode like that, imagine how the rest of the community can explode if it is misled as a result of some sort of misunderstanding. I repeat that I prefer to believe it was all a misunderstanding. But let us understand certain facts that are burdening themselves upon us. We live in a part of the world in which, in the literal sense, we are an anomaly. We are an anomaly because ethnically we are caucasian. People all around us are Asian; lots of things have been happening in our region and will continue to happen, which will determine their own outcome. It is to the credit of Malcolm Fraser and the conservative Government he administered that when the so-called boat people started arriving on our shores he repudiated the blandishment to shove them off, to indulge in some sort of racist reaction sought by a limited number in the community. If I can say so, I suppose at the risk of sounding a little vain, I believe I also displayed that quality as Leader of the Opposition . I was subjected to a great deal of pressure, outside the Parliament, from narrowly based groups in the community, to take up a racist position. It was said that it would be good for votes. Maybe it was but I doubt it. I have a higher regard, however, for my fellow Australians than to believe that and moreover, the last thing I want to do is to divide the country. It has been divided unnecessarily too often in the past. Australians accepted these people because we are humane and compassionate and understand that we are the product of migration flows. Our forefathers built from this very unpromising country one of the greatest countries in the world. There is a sense of fair play, of egalitarianism, among us. If I can parenthetically observe the quote from the base of the Statue of Liberty in the United States of America, which has always impressed me, it states: Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free . . . I believe that in Australia, without any flamboyance or ornamental style, we have done that in a very practical way. Let me address a central factor. The official statistics show that in 1982-83, in round figures, 24,500 Asian migrants came to Australia. Of that number, 12,758-13,000 in round figures-were refugees. Does anyone in this Parliament, does any fair-minded citizen of this great country, stand and declare that we should not have accepted them? I wear as a badge of pride the way in which Australians have been prepared to accept the down-trodden, the excluded and the jettisoned from the rest of the world and help make them great citizens of this country. That was more than half the total number. If we accept that we do not have a discriminatory immigration policy, we must accept that the principles applying in one place apply elsewhere. So inevitably we have the momentum of family reunion. Nearly 7,000 Asian people are involved in that; about 25 per cent of the total. So we have just on 20,000 out of a total of a bit over 24,000 who are either refugees or family reunionists- that is, more than 80 per cent in the two categories. Do honourable members opposite propose that those two categories be cut back? As I said a little earlier, when I listened to the debate and became a little uneasy about the direction it was taking, I thought that perhaps my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs had made drastic repositionings of the content of our immigration policy; that perhaps these nasty things were true. When I look at the bar chart the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs produced and from it glean the pattern over time, I find that there is no truth in this at all. I find that the pattern is a variable thing. But what is clearly implanted in that pattern is the fact that, because of events in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, because of the change of government there and because of the intolerance of that government, people fled. They fled because they found the system unacceptable. A lot of them are still fleeing. A lot have been left adrift in the South East Asian area looking for places to live. They are creating pressures on the countries of that region which, in turn, are applying pressure to this country. Are we proposing to ignore that? If we ignore it, have we thought of the consequences? (Extension of time granted) We would no longer have the regulated flow of these people. It stands to the eternal credit of Malcolm Fraser and his Government, including the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) among other immigration Ministers, that these people were accepted by us. That practice has been continued by the present Minister for Immigration. What happens then? I will tell the House. Many of the people who are coming here under the regulated system will make their way in other ways. The people who are in those forlorn refugee camps in South East Asia, a burden on the countries of that region-we make our contribution, but it is still a burden-will seek to come here in other ways. They will start arriving as they started arriving in the initial movement that took place. Dr Klugman —Boat people. Mr HAYDEN —Yes, boat people. What happens then? Will we erect a fortress around our shores to try to repel them? That is nonsense. Would we be so intolerant? We would then have an immigration policy over which we had no control at all; we would have no selection procedures at all. We should make no mistake about it! Some of the largest, most powerful countries in the world are re-assessing their attitudes towards Vietnamese, Laotians, Kampucheans, migrant flows. What sort of pressure would that place on us if such countries decided to jettison policies under which some sharing takes place? I do not propose to explore it any further than that. All I am saying is that we live in an extraordinarily complex part of the world loaded with difficulties that had not been seen in earlier generations . The world has changed; our region has changed. We can no longer go on the way that perhaps was accepted a couple of decades back. The situation is totally different. I do not believe that there are any racists in this Parliament. I have seen no evidence of racism. I believe that what happened this afternoon was an unfortunate explosion of temperament through misunderstanding all round. I hope that we do not see it again. I hope that the debate in the community continues, because it helps to focus the Government's attention in a more positive way on how the community feels about these things. But I hope that the debate will not take place according to the views of a minority of extremists who jump in and exploit this situation. Indeed, I have seen it in my electorate, where I have seen signs wanting me impeached for treachery because of my views about the rights of all people in particular Asian-Australians. I am inspired by the New Testament, even though I am an atheist. The principles are highly relevant today . I believe that most people are inspired by those sorts of qualities and principles, wherever they come from; principles of tolerance and respect for the uniqueness and importance of each and every human life. The final thing I want to say is that the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) was kind enough to challenge me, not in a nasty way but in a helpful way, to explain views I have expressed in respect of immigration and the future of this country. I have elsewhere said that it is my view that this country would be best served with a population of 50 million people. I have never stipulated what sort of population when I have explicitly addressed myself to that point. It is a view which is contended by many people, including many here in my own organisation. It is a personal view which I have expressed over the years. It is based solely on certain economic assumptions that I work according to. I believe we need 50 million people so that we have a basic market available in this country which will allow our manufacturing industry to manufacture with more confidence. If it has a large domestic market, the overrun for exports is a much lower proportion of its total output. Therefore, what it is producing is not exposed to so much risk on world markets through erratic pricing policies on such markets. That is a simple proposition. There are of course other considerations which are ancillary to it. It is true that I have also expressed my view elsewhere about changes which I think could take place. Those changes would to some extent change the colour of people's skin in this community. I stressed that it is a personal view and that it comes from changes which are under way. It is the sort of thing that would take 100 or 200 years. That is what I have said and I accept responsibility for that exclusively. It is wrong to attribute that view to anyone else in this Party. I am not aware of anyone else in the Party saying it. It is unfortunate that that sort of comment may inflame this community. If that is so, it is not the sort of comment I will make again. But I will not retreat from my belief that all men and women are created equal and should not be discriminated against on artificial grounds or on grounds over which they have absolutely no control. Too many Jews, Catholics, Protestants, too many ordinary people in the history of mankind, have died excruciating deaths because of the bigotry and intolerance of a few who have wrongly managed to get control of a situation. That will not happen in this country. The basic qualities of Australians are too decent to allow that to happen. But let us not allow this country to be divided unnecessarily on an artificial or spurious issue. Let us attend to this debate in a constructive and dignified way. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.35) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his speech this afternoon made the essential point that we do not want to divide the country. I think that everyone in this House would agree with that sentiment . We do not want to divide the country. We would all acknowledge the right of anyone, regardless of race, creed or colour, to be equally treated. I happened to be the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs in this Parliament during that time to which the Minister for Foreign Affairs referred. I acknowledge and remember very well the situation when Australia was faced with a challenge and a dilemma as to how to react to the enormous human problem that was posed, not only for Australia but also for the whole world, by the exodus of people as a result of the policies of the Government of Vietnam. Australia responded to that challenge in a way which, I believe, provided an example for the rest of the world. In fact, we initiated discussions at the United Nations which expanded the world's appreciation of the problem and expanded the number of countries which were prepared to receive and accept refugees. Thus I reject absolutely any criticism of this side of the Parliament, of my Party or of the National Party, or any suggestion that the Opposition has a racist approach to the problems that this country faces or to the requirements of immigration. When considering this entire question, we really should go back to basics. We have to ask ourselves whether we need immigration or want it. If we do need and want it how do we organise it? We have to accept the proposition that there are some within the community who would suggest that immigration should be cut off entirely straight away. I personally reject that situation out of hand, because I share with the Minister for Foreign Affairs a belief that the population of this country should be expanded. I do not share with the Minister for Foreign Affairs his formula for achieving that expansion. Whilst he has just said that it is his own personal view, in the remarks attributed to him and reported earlier this year there does seem to be a suggestion that the immigration program should be a response by Australia to overcrowded situations in other countries. I reject that proposition entirely. Immigration to Australia can never be the answer to overpopulation problems in other countries; nor should it be seen in that way. I do not know of any immigration Minister in the past who has supported that proposition. Unfortunately, it seems to be the basis of the remarks made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs when he talked about a multiracial 50 million population in Australia. The fact of the matter is that those people who become overexcited about the multiracial characteristics of Australian society forget that we have always been a multiracial society. We are, though, predominantly British and European in our population composition. That is a factor which should not be forgotten and which must be taken into account by any government of any political persuasion and by any immigration Minister. If as a result of immigration policies rapid changes in the population composition of Australia occur, inevitably the person introducing those policies and the government supporting those policies are causing trouble within the total community in Australia, because too rapid changes will excite comment, will excite opposition and will delay the effects of integration. They will make it more difficult for people coming to this country effectively to settle in this country. We have to consider the composition of the migrant intake to have a real appreciation of what it means, because too many people see the migrant intake as just one amorphous blob. It is not. It comprises various sectors which the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) referred to earlier this afternoon. Let me reiterate those main characteristics of the migration intake. There is the family reunion section of the intake, to which the Minister has referred, and that is a most important section of the intake. It is one which needs to be looked at extremely carefully because an apparent small change in the criteria for entry in family reunion has a very major effect and shift in the composition of the migrant intake. That is exactly what has happened as a result of the change in policies introduced by this Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It is quite proper and appropriate for this side of the Parliament and for people in the community to raise and debate that issue, to look at the effects of that change and to comment upon the effects of that change. Mr West —What is the problem? Tell me: What is the problem? Mr MacKELLAR —I will deal with the problem in just a moment. The other aspects of the immigration intake are the skilled migrant intake and the other area which has been referred to quite extensively today, that is, the humanitarian aspect or the refugee sector. There are other minor sectors but those are the three main ones. There are two aspects relating to migration which need to be taken into account. People want to come to Australia, and they are very important. We can at no one time welcome all the people who wish to come to Australia because every year there are simply too many who apply to come to this country. We cannot accept all those people who wish to come. If we cannot accept all those who wish to come, we must make choices. There must be selectivity. Whether one likes it or not, decisions must be made as to those who shall come to Australia-who will be accepted and who will be rejected. To talk about a totally non-discriminatory policy is really a nonsense in the absolute because while we may have a non-discriminatory policy in terms of the people applying we have a selective policy in terms of the people who are admitted for entry. That is quite proper. Mr Young —But that is eligibility. Mr MacKELLAR —It is eligibility, but we have to be selective regarding those who apply. That is the point I make. The second point I make-this is a most important aspect of the entire migration program which is often neglected and forgotten, particularly by Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-is that there are people already in Australia who have very strong views about migration to this country, and there are various views. There are some who would totally reject any future entry. There are some who would restrict the entry to certain groups. There are some who would put a stress on family reunion. There are some who would put a stress on the skilled migrant intake. There are some who would say: 'We really do not need those people. The people in greatest need are the refugees and we should concentrate almost entirely on them'. If we are to have an acceptable migration program we must have acceptance by the people who are already in Australia. If we build up a situation within this country in which the resident population stands against the policies being implemented by the Government, then we will get trouble. We can rail against it, we can say that it is wrong, racist and all the dreadful things that characterise it, but the fact remains that, human nature being what it is, if a migrant intake policy is not acceptable to the people of Australia then we are building trouble within the community. That has to be recognised. We can be as pure and as idealistic as we like, but we have to be practical. I suggest that that is the area in which this Government and this Minister are causing a great deal of problem and are exciting a great deal of concern within the Australian community. We are, in fact, a basically British and European based society. We should remember that. The great institutions of this country have been handed to us because of our predominantly British tradition. This Parliament in which we stand, and in which we are proud to stand, is a British tradition. The British concepts of law apply in this country. If the Government intends to attack those traditional institutions which characterise our society, traditions which have developed in this country and have been accepted by all who have come here and live here, there will be problems. In 1979, as Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, I made a speech which I think covered a great deal of what this debate is all about. I said: We delude ourselves if we do not accept that there will be increasing pressures on Australia to take increasing numbers of persons, refugees and otherwise, from countries which have not been traditional sources of migration to Australia. If we do wish to maintain a population composition not greatly different from the present, we shall have to pay much more attention to migration from our traditional source countries than we have during this decade. It is not the most propitious time from the employment angle to be suggesting and acting on this approach but the longer term consequences of not taking action are momentous and must be faced. In fact, I suggest it may be in our economic interests in the longer term to embark on a new immigration program much as we did immediately after the Second World War. That is another argument. Let me go back to the essential points of that statement: . . . will be increasing pressures on Australia to take increasing numbers of persons, refugees and otherwise, from countries which have not been traditional sources of migration to Australia. If we do wish to maintain a population composition not greatly different from the present, we shall have to pay much more attention to migration from our traditional source countries than we have during this decade. It is up to the Government and this Minister to say clearly and directly to the people of this nation whether they wish to depart from the traditional population composition of this country. If the Minister does wish to do so, let him say. If he does not, he will have to alter his present migration programs and policies because, quite simply, the implementation of the present policies will ensure quite a marked change in the longer term from the present population composition of this country. That is the question he must answer. That is the question the Government must answer. If they do wish to change the population composition, let them be honest enough to come out forthrightly and say so. They should not do it through the back door. They should state it clearly and honestly. They should tell the people that they want to change essentially the population composition of this country. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs asked me where his migration policies have brought about this situation. I will tell him quite directly. By expanding the family reunion criteria, as he has, he has inevitably brought about, because of the population characteristics in migrant source countries, a change in the composition of the intake. If he widens the family reunion criteria he will get an increased number of people from countries where the families are larger and where the tradition of family relationships is much stronger than in the sort of nuclear-type family which is mainly characteristic of British and European situations. If the Minister widens the family reunion criteria that is the effect it will have. What will be the other effect? He will increase the number of semi-skilled and unskilled migrants who come to Australia as a proportion of the total migrant intake. We all know that the semi-skilled and the unskilled sections of the working population are the hardest sections for which to find jobs. Those sections have the greatest unemployment in Australia at present. By doing what the Government has done it is not only changing the composition of the intake but also it is raising the number as a proportion of the semi-skilled and unskilled people who are coming into this country in direct competition with the semi-skilled and unskilled people already here who are seeking to find jobs. In both those areas the Government is causing a disturbance. It is causing a degree of concern within the population. That concern is reflected in the criticism which has been directed, quite rightly, to this Minister and this Government about its migration policy. It is not a racist comment. It is a concern about a change in the population composition of Australia but not immediately, because it takes time. But, if continued, that will be the effect. That is the argument to which the Government has to respond. If it wants to change the population composition it should say so openly and properly and argue it out. We are quite prepared to do that. To suggest that anybody who questions the policy is a racist is simply to cheapen the entire debate, and it demonstrates very clearly an intellectual barrenness on the part of the Minister . Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.50) —I am very pleased to be able to take part in this debate. For three years as shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs opposite the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee) I enjoyed meeting with many of the migrant organisations and ethnic community councils around Australia and getting an insight into the problems that Australia may have in relation to migration. Since Federation, by and large this Parliament has had a bipartisan attitude to migration. This generation of parliamentarians would not be very proud of some of our record because for the vast majority of time since Federation there was a bipartisan attitude in favour of a white Australia policy. That white Australia policy, as the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said, gave us our British base, our British traditions, our British courts of justice and so forth . No one is arguing about that, but it was a bipartisan attitude back in the 1960s that eradicated the white Australia policy. It was a racist policy and both parties rejected any continuation of it. The honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) said over and over again in his speech that he is not a racist. We believe him, but the difficulty is that none of us can give ourselves titles. We will be judged on our conduct. There may well be-I say this as a word of warning, or wisdom, to the honourable member for Denison-racists outside who think he is a racist and who may be taking his campaign as some encouragement to carry out what they consider to be their rightful role in the community. I give honourable members opposite a look at the sorts of posters that are appearing around Melbourne and Sydney in the campaign that is being waged by some people outside this Parliament in relation to Asian migration. In relation to our role in this Parliament, I always felt it enormously important-especially during those years from 1976 to 1982, because there were such important questions-that there should be very close liaison between the Minister and the shadow Minister, and there was. There were debates over the question of resources being handed over to ethnic communities but there was no bringing down to the Government a debate about our immigration policy. If ever the Australian Labor Party wanted to get down in the gutter and kick heads about immigration policy, the period from 1975 to 1982 was a golden opportunity for us to do it. Mr Peacock —Because you were marvellous and sensitive! Mr YOUNG —No, no, let me complete this point. Between 1975 and 1980-81 there was a 1,500 per cent increase in Indo-Chinese refugees. That increase, from 1,000 to 15,000 refugees, was brought in under the Fraser Government. We supported it from the other side of the House. That was a major wrench to the Australian people. That was to bring about probably more discussion about where our immigration policies were headed than took place at any previous time in this Parliament. No one had seen such a major development or switch in our policies as occurred under the Fraser Government in agreeing to bring so many refugees into this country. We did it at the behest of the United Nations refugee program , in recognising where we lived and knowing that if we did not have some sort of orderly acceptance of refugees out of the camps around South East Asia they would be forced down here in their boats as they were in the latter part of the 1970s. It was because the Fraser Government set about accepting its quota of refugees under the United Nations program that the boat people stopped coming. If we had not done it we would still be inundated with boat people from South East Asia. It was not a very pleasant ride for the boat people out of Vietnam or wherever their camps may have been-in Thailand or Malaysia-to this part of the world. Our former ambassador to India, in his book entitled the Boat People, said that figures showed that up to half of the people who took to the boats out of Vietnam and out of the camps of South East Asia lost their lives. In 1982 the honourable member for Balaclava, then Minister, made a very important speech to this Parliament. He outlined to us who was recognised as and the definition of a refugee as follows: A person who owing to a well founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country. The only criticism that I as shadow Minister had of the former Minister was not that he was not giving recognition to that United Nations definition in accepting people from South East Asia but rather that he was being too restrictive. I felt that the Fraser Government should have recognised that there were refugees not just in South East Asia. The United Nations recognises that there are something like 15 million refugees in the world. There are refugees in Africa and Central America. I directed to the attention of the then Minister, who accepted it, that under our humanitarian program we ought to accept some of the refugees from other places in the world so that our refugee program did not look as if it was based entirely on South East Asia. Such a program is now well under way. Let me again give the House the figures provided by the former Minister to give honourable members some idea of the impact the refugee program has had on our community. In 1974-75, at the end of the war, there were 1,000 Indo-Chinese refugees in Australia. In 1975-76 the intake figure was 1,000; in 1976-77, 1,300 ; in 1977-78, 7,000; in 1978-79, 12,000; in 1979-80, 15,200; in 1980-81, 15,700; in 1981-82, 14,000; and in 1982-83, 12,700. This year, 1983-84, the target is 10 ,000. Of course, the refugee number will continue to go down as the people who have come here as refugees, like the other half million refugees who have come to Australia from all over the world, become eligible to bring their families here. We know that the refugees who came here during the period from 1975 to 1982 were not able, because of the manner in which they reached this country, to come here in family units. They did not know where the rest of their family members were. I invite members of the Parliament to read the local Indo-Chinese newspaper, the Saigon Bell, which prints the names of families around the world. One of the reasons members of the Indo-Chinese community read their newspapers so assiduously is that they are trying to find out where the other members of their families finished up. They may have finished up dead. As the author of the book the Boat People said, 50 per cent of those who left in their boats died. But those refugees are entitled now, as they come here and take up their citizenship as soon as they are eligible, to bring their families here. We are saying that the refugee number will go down and the family reunion number will go up. It is true that there has been in some instances in Europe, mainly because of the social security package which is available in so many European countries, a downturn in people wanting to come to live in Australia. Even after the Italian earthquake, we invited people out here, offering free fares and so forth to enable them to do so. But many of them came here, spent a few months and could not get back to Italy quick enough. So we are not putting up the same sort of proposition in terms of the Asian people as may have been the case in some instances in Europe. We now have, as a result of the former Government's policies, 90,000 people here from South East Asia. The Labor Party supported that. I think it was a correct decision of the Australian Parliament, of both parties, to support a program that brought 90,000 Asian people here. We find when we talk to members of any ethnic community in Australia, whether from the Greek community, the Italian community or the Lebanese community, that they all say that the policy that they want adopted by this Parliament is one primarily in favour of family reunion. Above everything else, they want the right to bring immediate members of their family to live in this country. If there is one thing that stands out about the success of our immigration program in this country it is the success of the family reunion program which has been so much a part of our total immigration package. Are we to say that there can be family reunion for Europeans but no family reunion for Asians? We cannot adopt a policy like that. We have to adopt a policy which does not discriminate against anybody. The fact that the 90,000 from South East Asia have come here so rapidly means that their demands for family reunion in most cases are going to be more acute than the family reunion demands of many other communities. The former Minister and I, in our discussions in those years, agreed that it would not be good that the large community from Vietnam built up like that and the Laotians and the Cambodians be left in very small units. The only way these communities would be able to succeed and survive in the Australian atmosphere would be if they had rather substantial communities of their own so that they could assist each other, like former communities have done in building up their residences in Australia and in being able to settle. So we looked to supporting a policy of seeing that those communities were built up. No one should be surprised about what has occurred because the former Minister warned us what would occur in the years ahead. It is very difficult to understand why the honourable member for Denison put forward his amendment. All we are saying is that this House should continue to support the Government's adherence to a policy that does not discriminate. I would have thought that everybody in the Parliament would have voted for that motion because-it is not our fault-the Liberal Party has yet to tell the world what its policy on immigration is. So we cannot vote for the amendment which might be aimed at getting a unanimous vote in the Parliament because we are not sure what the honourable member for Denison refers to in his amendment when he talks about proper immigration policies. Until he unfolds and tells the world what the Liberal Party's policies are going to be, we cannot support him. I do not know when he is going to do it but I would be interested to know the way in which he is going to alter the intake. I can tell him that from my dealings with the ethnic communities they would be more than anxious to find out what is going to happen. From the chart that the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) read out it is pretty clear to everybody what is happening in family reunion. Nothing disastrous is happening in this country so far as the intake is concerned. This Parliament, more than any other forum in Australia, has to be very careful not to set alight the desire of some of the minority outside who want to inflame the feelings of Australia, that all the economic ills we have lived through are at the behest of our policy of allowing the refugees to live in Australia. In addition to being the shadow Minister for three years I also represent a district in Adelaide which has the only Commonwealth hostel. Most of the refugees who come to live in Adelaide-we have a very high proportion-live in Port Adelaide. At a couple of the primary schools, 25 to 30 per cent of the kids come from Indo-China. Mr Scott —The same applies in Hindmarsh. Mr YOUNG —And in the neighbouring electorate of Hindmarsh. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) have had direct experience with what is happening. These people are being integrated into the community so that they can take their places and be able to play a role in the future of this country. We supported what was a very brave decision by the Fraser Government, and there has been no radical departure from that. What we are feeling now-I ask the Opposition to recognise this-are the pressures of those 90,000 who came in under the former Government's policies to be able to bring their families here because some of them were split up, as honourable members would know, under rather horrendous circumstances. Some who wanted to come died trying to get here. Some are living in other parts of the world unable to get here. Those who are here deserve and are entitled to the same benefits that the immigration policy extends to every other person who lives in this country. We are big enough to do it. We have taken half a million refugees into this country and they have become excellent citizens. Three million of the people in this country were born overseas. We have six million people in this country who have one parent born overseas. So we are not strangers to the intricacies of dealing with the relationships of people who come to live here. This Parliament and any individual in this Parliament cannot afford to set alight the flames that might still live in the hearts of a very small number of people who do want a racist debate on this subject. Mr MACPHEE(Balaclava)(5.05) —I believe that every member of this House would agree with the closing remarks of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) that no one wants to kindle the small but nonetheless quite active group who are indeed racist. I accept all that has been said by honourable members in this debate; there is no racist in this Parliament of whom I am aware. Indeed it is unfortunate that the debate did get to a certain degree of intolerance and that some suggestions of racism were made. I agree with what the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said at Question Time: One of the outstanding characteristics of this country has been that the immigration program went through a phase when it was racist, and bipartisanly so; then it got to the stage during Harold Holt's term onwards where it gradually became not only overtly non-racist, but in very practical terms, non-racist, and we are the richer for that, domestically and internationally. I do not believe there is anyone-I hope there is not-in this Parliament who would want it to be otherwise. I do not agree with the first sentence of an article in the Australian Financial Review on Monday but the rest of the article is true. I will quote what it says and then explain later. It states: There has been a kind of conspiracy of silence on the subject of the discontent aroused by recent immigration, especially from Asia and most especially from Indo-China. This has not been a sinister conspiracy; on the contrary, it has been a tacit agreement between people of goodwill and the two sides of politics not to do anything to exacerbate potential racial tensions in Australia. At the same time, there has grown up a very unsavoury anti-immigrant and racist movement in some areas of Australia and in educational institutions. Perhaps it would have been better if the problems of immigration had been more openly discussed in the early days, instead of the running being left to those few who wanted to fish in the troubled waters of prejudice. I disagree with the first sentence which said: 'There has been a kind of conspiracy of silence . . .', because as the statement goes on to imply, there has not been a conspiracy of silence; there was a bipartisan agreement which led to the change of policy and to what the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) rightly said is a non-discriminatory but highly selective policy. That was a matter of agreement. When the Special Minister of State-who preceded me in this debate and who was the shadow Minister at the time-went around this country with me and held public meetings everywhere-- Mr Young —We got abused a few times too. Mr MACPHEE —We got abused a few times, but remarkably few. One of the saving graces of this country was that its politicians had proceeded at the same pace, as it were, as the bulk of the population. What was significant at the public meetings, which was well advertised, was that the racists who had the courage to express their opinions-I give them that much, and they were listened to in silence-were nonetheless such a small minority that we knew that the policy which we then drew up was acceptable to the people of this country. It was not, therefore, a conspiracy of silence. As I understand it, that is also the position of the Australian Democrats. So there is not a political party in this country which is racist or which will tolerate racism, if I may deliberately use that term. The present Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) has made some changes to that policy. As the former Minister said, there was a natural tendency in the policy which he and I devised for there to be an increase in the number of persons from Asia, but it would not have increased the proportion of the intake had this present Government not reduced several categories. I remind the House of a speech that I, as Minister, gave here on 29 October 1981. It is to be found at page 2704 of Hansard. I reported back on the review which the shadow Minister and I had made. I listed all the people with whom we consulted. I had consulted with the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs, on which the present Prime Minister served most constructively and on which the then shadow Minister, the present Special Minister of State who has just taken his seat, was also an active participant. That was the nature of things then. At the request of the then shadow Minister, I addressed a Caucus committee and explained our policies and heard the views of the entire parliamentary Labor Party. That was the extent of co-operation. The present Minister has not called together the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs. He has not replaced it with anything else. He has taken no advice from all of the elements in the community which, in various forms, advised me and my predecessors. At least from the time of Mr Holt, there were advisory bodies representing the trade union movement, the employers and a variety of interested groups in the community. The present Minister has not reconstituted the Australian Council on Population and Ethnic Affairs and has never called it together. That is a major problem. In presenting a bipartisan policy, I listed the various categories relating to immigration. The first category was family migration. We are all agreed, even in this debate, that that category remains intact and should remain intact. I think it is sad, if the present Government has felt that it has to respond to some of anti-Asian feeling of a minority, that it has cut back the entitlement of people from Indo-China who are Australian citizens and permanent residents to have full use of the family migration policies which we adopted. I think it is very sad. In the administration of the Minister's policy I think I see him reacting a little to this criticism. Arguably the best tandoori chef in Melbourne has been told that he has to go back from where he came, whereas under my administration I would have approved his staying. So it worries me that the Minister, as opposed to the Government and as opposed to anyone from the community who has advised him, has made some administrative changes and is continuing to do so. That does depart from the bipartisan spirit, and that is what is implied in the amendment moved by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I repeat that he, amongst all of us, has denounced racism. He is not a racist. He was one of the great supporters of the Timorese special humanitarian program, amongst others. As I recall, that was hardly a vote winner in his electorate. The second category was labour shortage and business migration. This is one of the categories which has suffered the greatest cuts. The Minister said that he thought the intake under this category in the last year of the Fraser Government was in the order of 40,000 people. I doubt that the figure was that high, but I am working from memory. In any event, my recollection is that even when the figure was in the mid-30,000s, no more than 11,000 or 12,000 people were actually seeking to enter the work force as skilled tradesmen; the rest were their dependants. If we take out of the migration program the Minister's figure of 40,000, and almost all of these people came from Europe, including Britain, we get a tremendous imbalance in the total proportion of Asians. This is because , quite properly, the Government had not reduced the Asian intake. Quite properly, the number of migrants under the refugee program is going down and the number under the orderly departure program is going up. That was the consequence of the policy which the Special Minister of State and I devised. If there were a cut in the skilled migration and business migration intake, which involved 40, 000 people who were predominantly European, of course, the presentation would be distorted. The third category was independent migration. Again, this was an area where we wanted a variety of talents. Our policy was more stringent than our previous policy. Nonetheless, initially, the people most likely to satisfy this category numerically were of Caucasian origin. That category was cut also, not only without consultation with the Opposition but also without consultation with the community through the orthodox advisory channels. In the fifth category of special eligibility there was a sub-category relating to self-supporting retirees. Their numbers may not have been unusually large, but their intake has been cut. Changes have been made also to the change of status policy which is also set out in my speech. The fourth category related to refugees and special humanitarian programs, and that remains intact. I think it is worth reminding the House of two paragraphs in my speech on 29 October 1981. I said: At any one time the numbers of people wanting to migrate to Australia far exceed our capacity to receive migrants. In the year just past, 1980-81, for an intake of just over 110,000 new settlers our overseas posts had to process more than one million inquiries and applications. That is true. That is why we had a highly selective policy. The speech continued : Selection is therefore essential. Before the present selection system was announced in June 1978 a great deal of time and effort was put into examining the philosophy which should lie behind our immigration program. Honourable members will recall that the Government published a Green Paper as part of that examination. The present review and the changes I will be announcing today should be seen as building upon that work. The nine principles of our immigration policy-including the important global non-discriminatory nature of our programs-remain unaltered. The changes that will be made to the actual selection process have been made in the light of ongoing experience. In line with its terms of reference the Committee of Review reported a wide range of community views on ways in which the present program might be altered. In responding to these, the Government was mindful that whatever the balance of its composition, the immigration program has an economic and cultural impact on the total community. In considering what changes needed to be made the Government did not see its task as one of reconciling minority views but rather as serving the totality of the national interest. There are a number of important issues which can be distilled from the Committee of Review's report. The report highlighted the fact that family and friends are important to settlement success and noted a strong demand for an acceptable family reunion system. It also highlighted concern that migrant entry criteria should be sensitive to current and foreseeable demands for labour. It underlined evidence that ability to get a job is vital to settlement success. In developing its proposals the Government was particularly mindful of these considerations. The importance of that quotation is to remind the House of the extent to which I , as Minister, and the honourable member for Warringah, as my predecessor, consulted and the way in which the Green Paper was produced. As I said, the present Prime Minister was a member of the advisory committee which advised both of us in that work. When the Prime Minister was shadow Minister to me in the employment and industrial relations portfolio, he made a special plea in this House, which I supported, that we should not make immigration the scapegoat for the unemployment situation which had arisen. We all feel very strongly about that. Nonetheless, in gearing our family reunion policy, we insisted that those who were sponsored had a job to come to, and for the most part they did. Generally they came to a job that was not available to a person already here. It tended to be a job in a family business, where the work and the profits were shared, and it was not a job that would be available through the Commonwealth Employment Service or otherwise. Therefore, no Australian was being put out of a job; on the contrary, the increased demand for goods and services created by those persons helped to create more jobs. One of the moves made by the present Minister was to do away with the job requirement. It seems to me that the main change he has made is to make it a little easier for people to qualify by increasing some of the points for skills, by dropping the English language requirement and by dropping the occupational demand for the family reunion program. I think that not only is that change going against the spirit of the carefully worked out bipartisan policy but also it is not fair either to the people coming without a job guarantee or to others who may believe that they should get a job first if one is going. In respect of the Asian component of the migration, there is certainly not a dramatic increase under this Government. Indeed, it has gone exactly as I foreshadowed it would. Where the drop has come has been, of course, in respect of the Caucasian element of the intake. In 1980-81 the intake under family migration was 22,000 in round terms. (Extension of time granted) In 1982-83 it increased by 5,000. This was not a dramatic increase but, if in fact a large proportion of it is coming from Asia, it looks as though there is some higher intake than is otherwise the case. It is proportional. Equally in the skilled labour and business area under what was then called the general eligibility category, which was slightly broader than the present one but nonetheless for present comparisons it is near enough the same, the intake in 1980-81 was 58,000. That number dropped to 32,000 in 1982-83. As that intake is primarily from Caucasian sources, of course that is what has thrown the balance out. So the purpose of the amendment to the Government's motion is simply to say that there ought to be a return to the bipartisan policy of 1981 in its total implementation. We are totally at one on refugees, totally at one on special humanitarian programs and totally at one on family migration. We differ only in the areas to which I have referred. I think it is important that we recognise that this debate has, therefore, fuelled some anti-Asian sentiment and that is tragic for this country. It really is tragic domestically and internationally. I remember when I was Minister coming across examples of racism but always seeing many more examples of the compassion of which the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has spoken. I agree with him. I recall that when anti-Asian slogans were being painted on bus shelters in Perth people of British origin and very conservative outlooks on life went out at midnight in their pyjamas and dressing gowns and painted out those slogans. They would not write letters to the paper but they just did not want racism. I remember that when a Vietnamese barber was sacked because a customer would not have his hair cut by him my Department and the Courier-Mail were inundated with people wanting to employ him. That led to the employment of a lot of other Vietnamese. Mr Cohen —Who helped to keep the lid on? It was this Party. Mr MACPHEE —Absolutely. Let me say in response to the Minister that not only do we not deny it but also, prior to the Minister coming to the chamber, I praised the previous Opposition, the honourable member for Port Adelaide who was the previous shadow Minister, and the Prime Minister in his absence. I do so unstintingly because we have been at one on this. There has not been a conspiracy of silence. We have had maturity and statesmanship. We just are disturbed that by clamping down to a greater degree than the market demanded on the occupational categories-- Mr West —That is not what they have been saying. Mr MACPHEE —I ask the Minister to listen to me. There is one more thing I must say. The Australian Bureau of Statistics's category of Asians includes people from Lebanon and the Middle East. Let us remember that too. Again there is a distortion even in the figures that are used and I hope that the Statistician might give thought to using the figures more accurately in terms of country of origin. I made it quite clear that we remain committed to the policies which we were committed to before. We just wish that in the administration of the program the Government would in fact return to that. I share the views of the Foreign Minister and, I believe, those of the Prime Minister, and the honourable member for Warringah, in saying that we really do need a higher migrant intake in this country. I know that this becomes an act of faith because one cannot really demonstrate it to everyone's satisfaction. I commissioned an inquiry on the economics of migration which I think is going to report soon to the Government. I believe that part of the special relationship which the Government has with the trade union movement could be used to allay the understandable but nonetheless misplaced fears of those who are looking for employment that they will not be employed if there is an increase in migration. On the contrary, all the evidence is that migration creates a demand for goods and services which will actually create more jobs. Certainly, bringing in retirees with income and capital to invest, who will not be drains on our social security system, as well as business migration in particular are amongst those things which will create new jobs. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) have spoken several times about their approach to training and to the intake of skilled migrants. I see no evidence of any progress being made in respect of adult apprenticeship and other training programs. So the result will be that when the economy begins to grow again we will have to import more skilled migrants again. It is sad that we have not gone into the upgrading of the skills of many of our own people. As a result this situation will happen again. It is a cyclical factor so there are other things that need looking at. I believe that, if there has been a drop in the number of applications from the United Kingdom and Europe, the Minister has an obligation to put the figures on the table. He has not done so. I have not seen the figures. The Minister, in his contribution today-though I congratulate him on his measured tone and great control after the emotion which preceded his speech-still did not put down the figures on the drop in applications and in successful people. Until he does that there will be the suspicion that the Government is in fact being discriminatory in its approach. I do not believe it is. I do not believe that the Government has been discriminatory. I accept the Minister's words. I know the Prime Minister too well to believe that he would preside over a government which was racist and which discriminated against Caucasians or anyone else. I know that is true. But until the Minister explains himself and satisfies those who are expressing this concern, the concern will linger and, for as long as it lingers, it is fodder for the racists. I believe, as the honourable member for Warringah said, we are not only a nation of immigrants but also we have always been multicultural and we are predominantly tolerant. I think it is a good thing that this debate has come out into the open. However, it will be much better if the Minister can put on the table the facts that support his position. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(5.28) —I quite deliberately have not listened, apart from the last few minutes of the speech made by my friend, the honourable member for Balaclava (Mr Macphee), to the previous contributions to this debate, nor have I come into the chamber with a prepared speech because, as Prime Minister, I wish to make a statement in this House which I hope will go to fundamental issues in regard to which we can achieve bipartisanship in this House and a very large measure of agreement in the Australian community. Perhaps by way of introduction to the things I would like to say I could quote very briefly from a speech that I was able to make a few days ago on 26 April when the Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia invited me to be the guest speaker at its function. I said there by way of opening, and I would like to repeat it here: I do not bring to your areas of interest some concern recently acquired as Prime Minister of Australia. For from my earliest time of contemplation about our great country I have perceived much of that greatness, and potential for greatness to be associated with our readiness to open up our land to those who would join us from other countries. In joining the Australian Labor Party in my first year at the University of W.A . in 1947, and in establishing the first branch of the Party there in 1948, one of the reasons was a sense of excitement and identification with the vast immigration program then being initiated by the great Labor Governments of the war and immediate post-war periods. In my way, then, I attempted to play some part in this opening up process by establishing also the Australian-Overseas Students Club at the University to bring closer together those from diverse national backgrounds. And as President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions in the decade of the 1970s, I participated fully with the Governments of both political persuasions in their work dealing with immigration policies and programs. And so I stand before you tonight-- I was able to say to them-- proudly, as one with almost forty years of commitment to, and action in support of those concepts and issues which are so important to all of you. What I said on 26 April at the Federation of Ethnic Communities Council was a direct and truthful statement of the long-standing involvement, concern and commitment that I have in this area. Indeed, it was a matter of great excitement to me, as a young Australian in that immediate post-war period, to be associated , as a member of the Labor Party, with the vastly imaginative program that was initiated at that time. I saw it as a mark of the vision of the members of my Party that while they had the responsibility of saving this country in the time of war they were, in those very darkest hours, addressing their minds to gathering around them some of the best minds and intellects in this country to think about what sort of Australia we would have in the post-war period. We all know the great success of that program. We started immediately at the conclusion of the war the greatest recorded migration program in history. That has meant that as of this night almost 40 per cent of the people living in this country today were either born in another country or are the children of a parent born in another country. Indeed, the 1981 census shows that the people of this country are made up of people who have come from over 92 countries of origin. We have moved from being a country of seven million people at the end of the last war to a country now of over 15 million people. We are truly a global country. I also recall quite clearly that when that program was being initiated there was unfortunately, but perhaps understandably, prejudice against many of those immigrants to Australia. All honourable members who are old enough to remember will recall some of the nastiness, unpleasantness and disasters in many areas of human relations that were associated in those early days with the undertaking of the program which so changed this country. No one will be able to measure how much a greater and better country Australia is because that program has meant that, as of tonight, almost 40 per cent of people living in this country were either born in another country or are children of a parent born in another country. We are a greater, richer and better country because of what has happened. I recall that in those early days, as people were being gradually confronted by the processes of change, there were many incidents that were unpleasant and tragic in many ways. I had hoped that we had learned from that experience. I pay great credit to the Liberal Party and the Country Party of that period, which were in opposition, that they associated themselves with the great immigration program that was initiated by the Labor governments of that period because they could see what it meant for this country. From the time of the change of government in 1949 there was a bipartisanship, essentially, about this great program which saw our great material resources and our great opportunities and capacities develop more effectively because we were enriched and enlarged by this greatly diverse flow of people from so many different countries of origin. It is a matter of record now, acknowledged not only in this country but also around the world, just what a magnificent contribution Australia made then. Let us be quite clear that there were two elements to it. We made the decisions at that time, as a country, to enlarge our population by this immigration program because we could see that it would be good for Australia, as indeed it has been. However, we sell ourselves short if we do not also acknowledge at a time like this that there was a great humanitarian element in that program because we were witnessing a world which had been devastated in war and we knew that we had the opportunity of offering to so many of those tragically devastated people the chance to make a new and better life with us. So those two considerations operated together-considerations of the interests of this country and also a commitment to doing what we could to help those less fortunate than ourselves who sought a new life with us. I believe that it is very unfortunate that we have recently witnessed again-I am not saying this in a partisan sense; it has happened within the community and I am not referring to events of recent days or of today-some greater manifestation of prejudice in this country against immigrants, perhaps in general but more particularly against those who have come to us from Asian countries. I want to say as Prime Minister and as leader of the Government and of my Party that we unequivocally set our face against those elements in our community. While I lead this Party we will never seek to gain any political advantage from paying any sort of notice to, or in any way encouraging, those elements within our community which operate in that way. It is important that we understand just what has happened in our country over recent years in respect of the major source of Asian immigration. Following the end of war in Vietnam the then Government, with the full support of the Labor Opposition, moved to increase the flow of Asian refugees to this country. I have figures which I believe are relevant. There was a significant increase in 1977- 78. In round figures, in 1977-78, 7,000 refugees came from Asian countries, which was an increase from the 1,000 refugees which had come to Australia the year before. The intake figures for the following years are as follows: In 1978- 79, there were 12,000 refugees; 1979-80, 15,000; 1980-81, 16,000; and in 1981-82 , 15,000. The figure went down to 13,000 in 1982-83 and in 1983-84 there will be an intake estimated at 10,000 refugees. Governments of that period, the previous conservative coalition and this Government, recognised that this country has a responsibility to provide a home for those refugees from the tragic conflicts of Indo-China. That has been, and I hope will remain, a bipartisan approach. The Government, having made a decision in regard to the overall level of immigration on economic grounds, which this Government did by reducing the gross intake in 1983-84 to 70,000 from the 93,000 of the previous year, remains committed to the rights of those who are already here to partake in that element of the program of family reunion. Inevitably and statistically that has meant there must be a change in the composition, in terms of ethnic origin, of those who come into this country. That is precisely what has happened because those tens of thousands of refugees have come in here in the last few years, the numbers of which I have given. They have exercised their rights of family reunion under our program and so there has been some upward movement in the proportion of people of Asian origin. I simply say, in respect of the attitude of this Government to refugees and immigration, that when we come to make the decision for the next year on the level of immigration we will make the decision in regard to that absolute level on the criteria that we believe will be in the economic interests of this country. In making that decision, we will not then artificially say that we have to boost some particular area so that we counterbalance some element that has come in from the Asian region. That is not the way with decency and responsibility that one goes about undertaking an immigration program. This Government will not do that. What we will do is determine what we believe the interests of this country require in economic terms as an absolute level. Having done that, we will not deny to any person or group living in Australia the right to family reunion. There are not first and second class citizens in this country in respect of rights to family reunion, and there will never be under this Government. We will not directly or indirectly adopt any course of action which explicitly or implicitly suggests that there are second class citizens. Directing myself quite specifically to that element of prejudice which does exist within our community against people who have come into our country from Asia, I ask, indeed plead with, my fellow Australians to look at this issue objectively. It just occurred to me before I came into the chamber that perhaps one way we could best look at this is to remember a matter which has been very much before Australian eyes in recent times. I refer to what is happening in one of the major hospitals in Sydney, the greatest city in this country. In that city of Sydney at the moment a magnificent fight is being waged. (Extension of time granted). I refer to the fact that at this time in Sydney a magnificent fight is being waged to save the life of a young Australian, Fiona. I ask Australians to remember who is leading that fight to save her life. It is a Dr Chang. I do not know the antecedents of Dr Chang but I am sure it was not Gundagai or Tallarook; it was somewhere in Asia. Dr Chang has already saved the lives of some Australians. He has saved the life of an Australian shearer. I do not think that that shearer or anyone associated with him, or any of our fellow Australians who share the joy of what has been happening, suggest that we are not enriched as a country and improved because we have Dr Chang there doing what he is doing, leading the fight at the moment to save the life of Fiona. Once Australians understand that these are human beings whom we are talking about, people who share the same sorts of aspirations and hopes for themselves and their families as we do, I do not believe that we should begin to allow to creep into our society any element of anti-Asianism. I find it repugnant to the way in which this country developed. We have developed as a great country because we have seen that, by taking people from other countries and by eliminating from our program any concept of prejudice, we can be a strong and better country and we can do those things for others less fortunate than ourselves that we should do. I also make the point that I have made in other more obviously economic contexts. There are very few things that one can be certain of in life when we are talking in the field of economics. But there is one thing that we can be certain of when we are talking about the economic future of this country; that is, that the future wellbeing, the future development, the future capacity for growth, the future capacity for improving living standards in this country, is to be seen in terms of the fact that we must become and we will inevitably become more enmeshed in the region of which we are a part. We are a country of just over 15 million people in a world of seven and a half billion, but in a region of billions of people. We have to understand as Australians that that is where our future lies. It is where our capacity to provide a better life for our children and their children lies. Therefore, anything that this country does which is in fact or which is seen to be in terms of prejudice against that region would be not only immoral but also manifestly against the present and future best interests of the people of this country. I think it can be seen from the contribution that I have made that I am not seeking to score political points on this. I am not trying to advance the interests of this Government against the Opposition. What I am trying to say to this House and to all people on whatever side of the chamber is that they please ensure that what we do as members of this Parliament involves the recognition of the truth of which I have been speaking. We should try together to set an example to the people of this country, recognising that tendencies exist in some areas for prejudice against immigrants, perhaps generally and Asians in particular; we should try to accept our responsibilities to ensure that, as far as we can, we eliminate those prejudices and together act in a way to ensure within this country a more cohesive community and, in terms of our relations with our Asian neighbours, a more acceptable face and image. If the Opposition wants to have discussion or debate about the absolute levels of immigration and what on economic grounds those levels should be, of course that is a totally appropriate debate and we welcome it. But we do not welcome, either in this place or outside it, anything which goes to the question of prejudice or intolerance towards any ethnic group. I conclude by saying that, while there have been some unfortunate events very recently, I take some hope and comfort from this debate and I hope that it will point the way not only to this House but also to the country and ensure that from this day on we as a Parliament will be seen to be doing all that we can in accepting our responsibility to eliminate prejudice in this country and to see that positively we do all that we can to ensure that we are a more cohesive and stronger community. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(5.48) —I naturally agree with the sentiments that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) expressed a moment ago throughout his speech. They are sentiments that would be endorsed by members on this side of the House. I make the point, however, and not as a political point to be played up but as a point that I feel impelled to make, about the response that was given to the Prime Minister's speech by all members of the Australian Labor Party. I have here from the Library pulls of statements by members opposite accusing members on this side of the House of being racist. I leave the matter there. I do not think it should even be debated in the spirit and the way in which this discussion has occurred. But I will not allow a situation to go by without some complaint when members of my Party or the National Party of Australia have questions to raise on immigration; it ought not be allowed that they be accused in that way. I leave it there. I speak with very great feeling on this matter, as did the Prime Minister and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I have previously spoken volumes in support of the Special Minister of State. I know what he went through. I, as Foreign Minister, with successive immigration Ministers, was trying to get the Australian community to accept the significant increase in Indo-Chinese refugees . It was an extraordinarily sensitive time for any of us who were actively involved in this area. It was not just Ministers; shadow Ministers and leaders of the Party as well had to contend not only with the broader community but also with pressures and concerns that expressed themselves in both major political parties. Heavens above, it is only 22-odd years ago that both major parties were being pushed, properly so, to abandon the White Australia policy. It is as recent as that. As a student, I participated in those campaigns. It was not until Harold Holt became Prime Minister that we effectively put it behind us. The Australian Labor Party got rid of it from its platform some years before. So there is an enormous amount of bipartisan spirit in this House on this matter. Mr Cohen —Except for your shadow Minister. Mr PEACOCK —I will not accept that. I accept what the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said. In my view, our record in regard to immigration in this nation, other than the element I referred to in regard to the White Australia policy, has been unassailable. I reiterate that I know how difficult it was for honourable members opposite when they were on our side of the House to give support to that policy. In my view there are two essential elements to be addressed in a migration policy such as this if we are truly to carry the community with us. We have to recognise the fragility of the concept of community acceptance. Those elements are the people who come here, and the great contributions they make, and the people who were already here. The main charge we have made against the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) is that an imbalance has occurred over the last 12 months. He denies it; we affirm it. And I affirm the right of my members to say they want a bipartisan approach. If there is a change, as we believe there has been-and the figures from the Minister's Department support that-then we have every right to ask him why. He has every right to give those reasons. If the reason is that he wants the Indo-Chinese who came here in the last seven or eight years to be able to live with their families, he should say so. But he should add to it the Prime Minister's view that there are no first and second class citizens; that if in fact they have that right, so too do other , perhaps European, migrants. That is why we moved the amendment calling for a return to a proper, balanced and rational immigration policy for Australia. The magnitude of the disaster for our community if the Government gets too far out in front of this issue cannot be understated. I know, as honourable members opposite know, that leadership on social issues involves getting out and selling it to people. But this is such a fragile concept that if the Government rushes the matter too much or does not explain the change it risks losing that degree of community support that has developed over the last seven or eight years or the last decade. The Australia we want is a united Australia. I know members of the Government want that and I know we want that, but the Government will place that in jeopardy if it does not indicate to people why it is making these changes. These changes are truly evident when we look at the applications. The Minister says that there has been a diminution, a drop, in applications from Europe for migration to Australia under the family reunion program. The figures of his Department do not support that. They show that in all countries in Europe bar the Netherlands there has been an increase in the number wishing to come to this country. It is simply not true that there has been a drop in interest or desire by Europeans to come to this country. Therefore we say to the House that if there has been this change, as evinced by the figures, we want the Minister to explain why. Mr West —But explain what you say we have done wrong and what you would do. Mr PEACOCK —I will say what the Government has done wrong. It went into an election campaign with its shadow Minister endorsing our program. Mr Punch —But we won. Mr PEACOCK —Certainly, but I was asked to tell the Government what it did wrong and I will do it. The Minister indicated-- Mr Punch —Get to the specifics. Mr PEACOCK —I did not interrupt the Prime Minister when he was not giving any specifics on this issue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Child) —Order! Honourable members on my right will cease interjecting. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister has to explain why the imbalance has occurred and what he is prepared to do to correct it. What he has to do is not reduce the Asian element that is there but redress the imbalance by increasing the European element that has been allowed to slip as has been evinced by the figures. That is what the Minister has to do. I repeat that one of the hallmarks and the outstanding successes of the Fraser Government under successive Ministers for immigration was our immigration policy. It was totally supported by the Labor Opposition. Mr Cohen —You want a quota, do you? Mr PEACOCK —I do not want a quota. The Government should fix a figure and work with it. The honourable member for Robertson should not give me that specious talk about racism on this side and interject on me. I regard this matter as one of great sensitivity. Clearly some government members do not. I said that I would not pursue what is in these pulls of Hansard and the remarks that some Government members have made. They should not accuse any member of my Party of fuelling this matter when week after week in this Parliament they have made accusations that do not sit with anyone on this side. The most important element is that fragile community standard. If the Government loses sight of it it will create a disaster that will not be desired by any member on this side of the House. The elements of our successful policy should be understood by the Government. They were a balanced migrant intake, an emphasis on family reunion and refugee settlement and on an increasing recognition that in future more and more immigrants would come from non-European sources. We have said it time and again. But the nub of the matter in seeking bipartisanship is that that community support must not be lost as it has been in record time, a little over 12 months, by this Minister. On several occasions the Minister has justified the intake balance on the ground that there is diminished interest, or words to that effect , in migration to Australia from Europe and the United Kingdom. The figures show that to be false. (Extension of time granted) It is this Minister who, by a very authoritarian mishandling of his responsibilities, by a lack of sensitivity and a lack of frankness to those members in the House who would question him on this matter, has brought about the change in policy. There is a change. I repeat that I will not allow my members to be described as racist when they ask the Minister why this change and this imbalance has occurred. If the Prime Minister is really serious and not coming in on some emotional issue to talk with the frankness that he did, he will talk with his Minister. He will probably go beyond that in my view and replace him with someone with the necessary sensitivity and understanding that immigration policy and administration require. We must have in mind both the people who want to come to Australia to share in the benefits of living here and the concerns of those who already live here. The key point that the Minister must bear in mind is that departure in certain respects from the bipartisan policy has occurred. It has not occurred as a result of any change in attitude or administration on this side of the House but because of a change in ministerial administration. As a result, the Caucasian component has dropped and the proportion of Asian intake has risen. It has not remained the same; it has risen in relative terms. The Minister should not run away from explaining why that has occurred and he should not indicate with falsity that there has been a lack of interest in the European intake. The Minister is providing fodder for the active minority of racists in this community. If there has been a downturn in applications from Europe, the Government has to prove it. I believe that the figures show that there has been no downturn. Unless the Minister approaches this matter in the responsible manner adopted by the Special Minister of State and by the Prime Minister-I regret though that he did not address the particular issue, although he spoke movingly-we will have to go on questioning the Government as to why this change has occurred. I conclude on the following note: We are all united in wanting to see a strong migration program continue in this country. We want to see that those from the Asian-Pacific region with whom we trade, mix and travel, have access to this country. But we also want to see that the European nature of this nation continues in the sense that there is a balance in the migration intake. I know that I speak for the vast majority of Australians when I affirm that. When the Minister says that he is not pro-Asianisation he is saying it not because we have raised it but because, firstly, some of his own people have said that has to be his policy and, secondly, his current figures give weight to that being a trend. If that is the case, I will not allow on behalf of the Opposition parties a call for bipartisanship to override the right of any honourable member on this side of the House to call into question justifiably the administration of this portfolio. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Hodgman's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Madam Deputy Speaker-Mrs J. Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 44 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 26 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Brown, John Keogh, L. J.Brown, Robert Kerin, J. C.Brumby, J. M. Klugman, R. E.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Mayer, H.Cross, M. D. Mildren, J. B.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Morrison, W. L.Edwards, Ronald Mountford, J. G.Everingham, D. N. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Reeves, J. E.Fry, K. L. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Steedman, A. P.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Burr, M. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Newman, K. E.Coleman, W. P. O'Keefe, F. L.Connolly, D. M. Peacock, A. S.Cowan, D. B. Porter, J. R.Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanFife, W. C. Rocher, A. C.Goodluck, B. J. Ruddock, P. M.Groom, R. J. Shipton, R. F.Hall, Steele Sinclair, I. McC.Hawker, D. P. M. Spender, J. M.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. In division- Mr RUDDOCK-I raise a point of order. Are honourable members able to use a listening device in the House during a division? The honourable member has taken it from his ear. I can assure the honourable member that it was not a hearing aid. It clearly was a transistor radio, a listening device. Is a member entitled to listen to a radio broadcast during a division? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Child)-I do not know about listening to radio broadcasts, but certainly honourable members who are hard of hearing are entitled to use their listening device. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question resolved in the affirmative. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I suggest to the House that transistors are not allowed within the chamber, so honourable members might be more careful in the future. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —Pursuant to section 6 of the Australian Science and Technology Act 1978, I present a report by the Australian Science and Technology Council on technology and handicapped people. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Finance) —For the information of the House, I hereby table the determination required in relation to division 312 of Appropriation Act (No. 1) 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —Pursuant to section 72 of the Health Commission Ordinance 1975, I present the Capital Territory Health Commission annual report for 1982-83. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology) —For the information of honourable members, I present the national technology strategy discussion draft paper. I seek leave to make a statement in relation to the document. Leave granted. Mr BARRY JONES —The national technology strategy discussion draft evolved from the first National Technology Conference held in Canberra from 26 to 28 September 1983, opened by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and attended by 140 representatives of Commonwealth, State and territorial governments, the research and academic communities, industry, finance, service providers and the trade unions. At that conference an undertaking was given that a draft technology strategy would be circulated to participants and made available for public discussion before being submitted to government for adoption and action. This discussion draft fulfils that undertaking. Technology is to be understood in this document as it was defined by the National Academy of Science in the United States: Technology is a perishable resource comprising knowledge, skills and the means of using and controlling factors of production for the purpose of producing, delivering to users, and maintaining goods and services for which there is an economic and/or social demand. In summary on page 1, the following five national priorities are set out as matters for debate. The strong language used is intended to make sure that the sleepers do actually wake. Many will argue about some of the specific figures in the text. These are by way of illustration only. Some will feel, for example, that the figures about the number of students who should complete secondary education and go on to tertiary education by 1995 are too high, others that they are too low. The use of target dates and figures in the document should not be seen as a pre-empting of a final decision by Government and the community -they are merely a starting point for what should be a lively public debate, and it was thought preferable to use specific, quantified examples rather than retreating into vague verbal formulas. These are the five points: 1. Raising Australia's skill base. Our future development depends on knowledge- intensive industries. Our numbers completing secondary education and entering tertiary education are low compared with many Organisation for Economic Co- operation and Development countries, and have fallen far behind Japan and Korea in our region. This should lead to a commitment to: 50 per cent of students completing secondary school by 1995; 20 per cent of school-leavers entering tertiary education by 1995; retraining at least one per cent of the work force each year. 2. Bridging the gap between research and industry through, for example: 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product to be spent on research and development by 1990, 2 per cent by 1995; major increase in private sector research and development, reversing the brain drain; improved overseas and local science and technology information gathering and dissemination; encouraging personal interaction; portable superannuation. 3. Moving the Australian economy away from high bulk low value added exports towards high value added goods and services, with high unit value and low volume , making use of: application of key technologies-for example, biotechnology, microelectronics; research, invention and design skills. 4. Creating stronger and more appropriate economic structures capable of identifying market niches, providing goods which can be placed on a world market . This will involve: a more sophisticated approach to marketing; raising adequate capital; attracting talent; exploring point ventures with overseas outlets. 5. Overcoming the problems of overspecialised regional economies such as in coal, steel and heavy manufacturing areas: diversification and economic recovery in areas where the traditional employment bases are changing rapidly. A national technology strategy has to answer this question for Australia: Can a nation with only 15 million people, a mere 4 per cent of the English speaking world, with a federal system of government and with a long tradition of ' truncated development' in industry, assert its technological sovereignty, make a contribution to world technological development and achieve higher national growth rates? I believe the answer is 'Yes', but I do not underestimate the difficulties. Australia is starting far behind. I have adopted from Canada the useful term 'truncated development' to describe a superficial form of industrialisation where subsidiaries do not carry out all the functions, from original research to marketing, necessary for developing, producing and selling goods and where foreign factors of production-capital, technology and management -largely substitute for local ones. This has been a major disincentive for large corporations domiciled in Australia to seek to be internationally competitive. They are not programmed to do it, with very rare exceptions such as General Motors' Camira. Tables for trade in technology-based product groups by the 24 nations of the OECD in 1980 illustrate Australia's poor position very clearly. I seek leave to have the two tables incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- RANKING BY TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-BASED EXPORTS Country US$m % Rank German (Fed Rep) 73,597 19.6 1 United States 70,851 18.8 2 Japan 48,788 13.0 3 United Kingdom 36,854 9.8 4 France 32,381 8.6 5 Italy 21,402 5.7 6 Netherlands 19,485 5.2 7 Switzerland 16,468 4.4 8 Belgium-Luxembourg 13,819 3 .7 9 Sweden 9,039 2.4 10 Canada 8,138 2.2 11 Austria 5,404 1.4 12 Denmark 4, 519 1.2 13 Spain 3,693 1.0 14 Yugoslavia 2,485 0.7 15 Finland 2,431 0.6 16 Norway 2,074 0.6 17 Ireland 2,019 0.5 18 Australia 1,179 0.3 19 Portugal 616 0.2 20 Greece 463 0.1 21 New Zealand 344 0.1 22 Turkey 86 0.0 23 Iceland 4 0 .0 24 OECD (total) 376,139 100.0 RANK BY TOTAL TECHNOLOGY-BASED EXPORTS PER CAPITA US$/ Country person Rank Switzerland 2,584 1 Netherlands 1,378 2 Belgium-Luxembourg 1,352 3 Germany ( Fed Rep) 1,195 4 Sweden 1,087 5 Denmark 882 6 Austria 720 7 United Kingdom 658 8 France 603 9 Ireland 589 11 Norway 507 12 Japan 418 13 Italy 375 14 Canada 340 15 United States 311 16 Yugoslavia 111 17 New Zealand 110 18 Spain 99 19 Australia 81 20 Portugal 62 21 Greece 48 22 Iceland 18 23 Turkey 2 24 OECD (average) 468 Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the House. Honourable members will note that the Federal Republic of Germany ranked first in 1980 in dollar value of technology-based exports with $73.6 billion or 19.6 per cent of the total, the United States of America was second with 18.8 per cent and Japan was third with 13 per cent. Australia ranked nineteenth with 0.3 per cent. It should also be noted that many of the countries with the largest per capita exports in high technology have smaller populations than Australia. In 1980 our figure was $81 per head. Switzerland's was $2,584, 32 times higher; the Netherlands' was $1,378, 17 times higher; Sweden's, $1,087, 13 times higher; and Canada's $340, 4 times higher. Australia ranked twentieth of 24 nations per capita. That was the bad news. The good news is that we are still ahead of Portugal, Greece, Iceland and Turkey. It is essential that we recognise, and counteract, the cultural limitations of our technology base. The Dutch and the Swedes make an important contribution partly because each generation is under a strong cultural imperative to leave its mark on the world. Here we see ourselves as a mere branch office of the English speaking world. We live in a technological culture which is essentially derivative. We buy ideas and products off the shelf and pay for them in raw materials. To many Australians the idea that we should not try to reinvent the wheel is regarded as a profound observation. In fact it begs the whole question of what inventiveness, product and process innovation involve. Australia's poor performance in applied technology is particularly deplorable because of our high performance in pure research. With only 0.3 per cent of the world's population we produce about 2.0 per cent of the world's scientific papers each year, placing us in the top 10 nations-eighth in the OECD-behind Canada, but well ahead of Switzerland, the Netherlands and Sweden. The survey published last week by PA Technology Australia drew attention to our ranking as No. 20 in an innovative technology index by the European Management Forum at Davos, Switzerland. Oddly, our poor performance is linked with an unusually high degree of managerial complacency. Seventy-one per cent of senior executives interviewed for the survey thought that new technology had either a 'great deal' or a 'fair amount' of impact on their companies' products over the last four to five years. As the recent OECD Science and Technology Indicators pointed out, there is a disturbing imbalance in Australian spending on research and development. Only 19 .7 per cent comes from the private sector and 77.6 per cent from government sources, a ratio of 1 : 4. In Switzerland the private sector contributes 73.8 per cent, government 17.4 per cent-4 : 1, an exact reversal of our situation. In aiming for an overall doubling of expenditure in research and development by 1995 we should require the private sector to increase its share rapidly, to at least 33 per cent by 1990-91 and 50 per cent by 1995-96. We have talked a great deal on the past about R and D-research and development- which has meant in practice big 'R' Research and little 'd' development. If we are to recognise and take advantage of dramatic changes in world trade, as recent research papers by the Department of Trade point out, rather than retreating from it and suffering the consequences, we shall have to talk not just of R and D, but R, D, Q and M-research, development, quality control and marketing. In many ways points 3 and 4 of the proposed national priorities raise the most serious challenge for us. We have concentrated almost exclusively on the export of high bulk low value added commodities. We measure the value of our exports in tonnes-our contemporaries measure theirs in grams. There are stong resemblances between the Canadian and Australian economies: Both of us are immensely resource rich, but with the commanding heights of the economy in foreign hands, manufacturing in long term decline, a reduced share of world markets and a sense of frustration about failure to match rates of growth in newly developing countries. However, in the past few years the Canadians have put a heavy emphasis on focusing their efforts in comparatively few areas, applying the niche approach with success. They have gained world markets with telecommunications equipment, specialised computer applications, the Telidon on- line data bank, instrumentation and process controls and some space technology. Bell Canada, Mitel, Northern Telecom, Infomat, Glenayre, Western Research and Bytec-Conterm have internationally recognised brand names. In a recent Fortune survey of the 500 largest industrial corporations outside the United States, Canada had 32, Sweden 20, Switzerland 13, the Netherlands 11, South Korea 9 and Australia 7. At the Conference strong support was expressed for the development of a national competence in key technologies such as microelectronics and biotechnology 'through education (manpower), financing (venture capital), management advice and marketing information; and support for new firms in, for example, the sunrise industries'. This ran contrary to the strongly expressed view in parts of the bureaucracy and the financial Press that 'you cannot pick winners', an assertion which has the status of a religious dogma. It is not clear who said it first, and with what authority, but the phrase is often invoked in Canberra as if it were self-evident and required no supporting evidence. The phrase can mean many things. Few would disagree if it is used to mean that the actual performance in the market of particular companies is highly unpredictable and subject to chance factors. At the other extreme it becomes an expression of economic agnosticism-that it is not possible to use knowledge to make judgments based on general trends as if nobody could say with confidence that microelectronics or biotechnology will have greater growth prospects than sausage casings or raincoats. The Conference rejected the latter view and so do I. We lack an inventory of finished products suitable for overseas marketing and have few overseas outlets which could back up a successful marketing strategy which could place goods and back up services close to consumers throughout the world. It is in this area that Sweden, with only 8.3 million people, has been outstandingly successful. The Yellow Pages indicate that Volvo and Saab-Scania have 23 authorised outlets for sales and services in Sydney, 15 in Melbourne, 10 in Brisbane, 6 in Adelaide and 5 in Perth. It would be fair to say that an aspiring purchaser of an Australian designed and manufactured car would have his work cut out if he was looking for one in Stockholm or Uppsala. There are many Australian outlets for Electrolux, SKF, ASEA, L.M. Ericsson, Bofors, Hasselblad, Husqvarna and Atlas Copco. There is no equivalent penetration of Swedish markets or consciousness by Australian brand name goods. It is not that we have a poor reputation-we simply have no reputation at all except in some areas of componentry. We must overcome the essential fragility of our industrial infrastructure. The Conference must be taken as the starting point of an important process. Many conclusions are tentative because the participants barely knew each other. It is essential that the debate be continued and widened and it is on this basis that I commend the paper to the House and the public. Sitting suspended from 6.33 to 8 p.m. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —by leave-I am responding to the statement made by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) on the national technology strategy. In so replying, I am speaking in place of the shadow Minister for Science and Technology, the honourable member for Berowra (Dr Harry Edwards), who is overseas on business connected with his shadow portfolio. The Minister's response to the national technology strategy is unsatisfactory, for it provides no answers and announces no decisions. It is very disappointing for the application of new technologies in industries in Australia. It is very disappointing for business in Australia. The Minister keeps talking about the application of new technology but he has achieved very little or nothing at all. The Minister is constantly getting publicity about science and technology. He talks about new technologies, but we have no practical policies put in place by this Government. This statement on the national technology strategy, made by the Minister to the House today, announces no new policies and no decisions. Mr Barry Jones —It is a discussion draft. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister admits it is a discussion draft. Mr Barry Jones —I do not admit it; I assert that it is a discussion draft. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister asserts it. I am saying that the Minister's assertion that it is a discussion draft is no answer from a Minister of the Crown in this country who has been a Minister for over a year. He should have more than a discussion draft on the subject of the national technology strategy. That is the very point I make. The Government has made no decisions. The Minister's statement is just a repetition of very similar and familiar rhetoric that we have heard from the Minister. Let me look particularly at the Minister's statement. He repeats the five national priorities in the national technology strategy. I suppose it is useful to have them repeated in Hansard. The Minister said: The strong language used is intended to make sure that the sleepers do actually wake. I note that the Minister is the author of a book on this subject, called Sleepers, Wake! which is worth reading. I certainly acknowledge that. Mr Young —A best seller. Mr SHIPTON —I hope the Leader of the House has at least bought a copy and not read the Parliamentary Library copy. The book is called Sleepers, Wake! I want to know what we will do when we wake up because the Minister has not told us what we are to do when the sleepers awake. Mr Barry Jones —We will re-elect the Hawke Government for a start. Mr SHIPTON —I say to my dear friend, the Minister, judging by the way he is going about this subject, if he does not wake up he will not have any policies in place. His party will be thrown out at the next election. That is the point I am making. The people will wake up to the Government, and that is what will happen when the sleepers awake. Mr SHIPTON —I will look at the contract, but the Minister should not preach it in such terms. Maybe it is the fault of the CSIRO that it has not worked well enough with industry, but I will come to that in a minute. I will look once again at the Minister's statement. He said that we must recognise the cultural limitations of our technology base. That is almost a statement of cultural cringe, because he says: We live in a technological culture which is essentially derivative . . . I think that is a very defensive statement, because we have great industries in Australia. We have great primary industry, great rural industry, great mining industry and there is inventiveness and processes of innovation in this country. There is agreement between the Government and the Opposition that there is not enough. I agree that Australia's poor performance in applied technology to which the Minister referred is deplorable, because we have had a high performance in pure research. I agree with him in that case. I think this is one of the matters that need closer examination because if we look at the technology gap between our high performance in pure research and our failure to apply that research in Australian companies involved in the market-place in the development of our science and technology and if we look at the efforts of our scientists in relation to that gap and in analysing reasons for that gap, we will find the answer to the question of what is wrong with the transfer of technology and know -how from scientists in Australia to businesses in Australia. That is a serious question which I exhort the Minister to examine. The Minister said that there is a disturbing imbalance in Australia's spending on research and development-19.7 per cent comes from the private sector and 77.6 per cent from government sources. What we have to do is look at the reasons for that gap and do something about those reasons. Just at a first blush, if one says that 77.6 per cent comes from government sources and 19.7 per cent comes from the private sector, a general argument can be that in fact the private sector is being crowded out by the public sector. But that is a simplistic argument and I do not necessarily rest on it. I will talk about that gap shortly . The Minister in his statement on the national technology strategy said that we have concentrated almost exclusively on the export of high bulk low value added commodities. I say: What is wrong with that, what is wrong with the great rural industries, what is wrong with using new technologies such as plant variety rights for the great crops of Australia such as wheat and the great animal husbandry industries such as sheep and meat? The Minister says: We measure the value of our exports in tonnes-our contemporaries measure theirs in grammes. That is too simplistic. I would like to see both, and I hope that the Minister would agree. Mr Barry Jones —Sure. Mr SHIPTON —I am glad that he agrees. But there has been added value to, as he says, our low value, high bulk commodity industries. There has been development. Look at gold processing; look at the aluminium industry. Value is being added. We have an integrated- Mr Barry Jones —Pity there is a glut of aluminium. Mr SHIPTON —Yes, it is a pity that there is a glut of aluminium. But look at commodity prices. If one looks at the recovery that is occurring in the United States of America I predict one will see some growth in market forces. But that is another argument which is not relevant to the fact that in fact added value has been added to processing in Australia. At the moment the market may be down; tomorrow it may be up. That is for the market place. The Minister in his statement talks about picking winners. I ask him what he means by picking winners for new technology in Australia? What are his policies in relation to what he states is his preference for picking winners? I think he owes the House an answer in relation to this. The Minister says: The Conference must be taken as the starting point of an important process. Many conclusions are tentative because the participants barely knew each other. It is essential that the debate be continued an widened . . . I agree that the debate is valuable and I hope it is continued and widened, as the Minister says. But I would like some answers in relation to the questions that relate to the national technology strategy. I think, as I said earlier in the debate-in the time remaining to me I will examine this matter-that an analysis has to be made and an examination undertaken of the reasons for the poor transfer of technology in Australia. I said that part of the reason for this related perhaps to the fact that far too much of the research was done in the public sector and far too little in the private sector. I said that was simplistic. Let us look at some of the reasons, or the potential reasons, for this poor technology transfer. I said yesterday in the debate on the Patents Amendment Bill 1984 that Australian scientists tend to measure their careers by the number of papers published in international journals. In fact, there is a rush to publish. The scientists of Australia may in fact be doing a disservice not only to themselves but also to Australia generally and to industry in particular because in publishing the results of their initial research, which should have been protected in some way by either being kept secret or by being patented, results are given away to the world via publication and then some other country or some other corporation somewhere in the world sees this great Australian invention and grabs it for itself. I think Australian scientists perhaps ought to examine the role that they play in this poor transfer of technology from the laboratories, the universities and the research institutions to the businesses, the companies, the firms and the corporations of Australia where the profits are made. That is one point I would like to look at in relation to the poor transfer of technology. The second reason may relate to the whole history of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation itself as well as to other institutions. For example, researchers at the Australian National University, the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research and the CSIRO have recently announced with some pride that United States companies have brought certain development rights. I referred to one of those earlier in the debate and the Minister and I had some discussion about that. The CSIRO made another statement that it had entered into an Agreement with an overseas corporation in relation to jumping genes in the area of biotechnology for the development of maize. That is something which I think bears looking into. We need to establish why these great institutions in Australia announce with pride that some of their discoveries will be developed overseas. I think one cannot underestimate the fact that science and industry people in industries do not seem to mix well in Australia and this is shown by a number of indicators. Most doctors of philosophy in this country tend to stay in the university or CSIRO environment rather than being found in industry. Perhaps scientists, like some of their British counterparts, traditionally have a very reserved attitude at the least towards the so-called merchant class people of commerce. I think that is a tragedy. I think there needs to be more co-operation between the universities, CSIRO, other institutions and the business sector. If that does not happen we are going to miss out altogether. I think, as I said earlier, the history of the CSIRO has to be looked at. Perhaps the organisation is far too idealistic and non-commercial. I recognise that the CSIRO in recent years has tried to respond adequately to social and political pressures-not bad political pressures but political pressures all the same-to make it take more account of the market place. I hope it is not a matter of too little too late. For instance, recent efforts have been made to get the CSIRO interested in manufacturing. Under the former Government a new division of the CSIRO was created. I think that another reason for the poor technology transfer is that public libraries have been poorly funded and do not have a strong technological emphasis. I think that much more has to be done in this age of the computer to transfer technology from the laboratory to the business. I think, in looking at the Minister's statement on the national technology strategy, there needs to be a greater dialogue between industry and scientists. Ways need to be developed for the transfer of technology to the private sector so that technology, ideas and developments can commercially be exploited by businesses small and large in Australia. I conclude by saying that I think the Minister's response is disappointing and unsatisfactory and does nothing to solve the problems of technology transfer from science and the scientific institutions of Australia to the companies, businesses, firms and corporations in Australia. The Minister provides no answers to the difficulties. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —The Speaker has required me to make the following announcement about the Hughes Bible. I wish to inform the House that recently the Parliamentary Library acquired a most interesting historical item on auction from the library of the late Reverend Dr Sir Irving Benson of Melbourne. The item is a Bible given to the then honourable member for West Sydney, William Morris Hughes, at the opening of the Commonwealth Parliament on 9 May 1901. It is signed on the title page by Hughes himself and on the pre- title page by the Duke of York. On the end papers are the signatures of the Speaker and 58 of the Members of the First Parliament, including the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet. It is fortunate that this item has come into the possession of the Parliamentary Library rather than of a private collector. The President and Mr Speaker have arranged for the Bible to be on display in the reading room of the Library until the end of the Autumn sittings, and any interested member is welcome to view it there. The pages will be rotated daily and a typed list of the relevant names will be provided. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: Sex Discrimination Legislation 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 conducive 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 John Brown,Mr Dobie,Ms McHugh and Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to stop the commercial exploitation of the kangaroo. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House re-apply the ban on the export of kangaroo products. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown,Mrs Child and Mr Coleman. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition for the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That Regulations and an Ordinance now before the parliament amend the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the Customs ( Cinematographic 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/discos 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 Goodluck and Mr Newman. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows - That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Cadman,Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/ or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God the Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words ''Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God'', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to reaffirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr John Brown and Mr Cadman. 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 or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman and Mr Dobie. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That an airport in the north-western region (commonly called Scheyville) imposes disastrous economic, environmental and social costs on our community. 2. An airport would destroy 2,000 households and impose upheaval, noise and pollution on one million people presently unaffected. 3. The cost of an airport in the north-western region is greater than the alternatives, whilst fog and close proximity to R.A.A.F. Base Richmond would make operations impractical. 4. It would destroy the historic village of Pitt Town, environmentally important wetlands, and their unique adherent wildlife. 5. Your petitioners reject these proposals and call for endorsement of the MANS Committee findings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection , storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving ' property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Campbell. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That because television and radio (a) affect our social and moral environment, (b) are family media watched and heard by many children at all times, and (c) present too much explicit violence and sex, they therefore need stronger control than other media and the existing standards need stricter enforcement in both national A.B.C., and commercial sectors. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Australian Government will amend the Broadcasting and Television Act, in relation to both national and commercial broadcasters, to legislate (a) for adequate and comprehensive programs in the best interests of the general public, (b) for a ''Dual System of Regulation'' enforced by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal by internal regulation and external control. (c) for an independent consumer body to represent the best interests of the general public, and (d) for immediate and effective penalties to be imposed for breaches of program and advertising standards. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: May it please you to accept the humble petitions of the undersigned citizens of Australia. The petitions of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas the Government of Australia has signed the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which in Article 23 (1) states that: ''the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of Society and is entitled to the protection by society and the state''. And whereas the terms of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women would violate the above article 23 (1) . We humbly pray the Government to refrain from ratifying the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women; believing that its implication would result in: (1) Undue cost to the nation at this time. (2) ''The elimination of any stereotyped concept of roles of men and women at all levels'' as described in Part 3 Article 10 (c) being of disruption of traditional parental roles, is likely to result in emotional disturbances of childhood. (3) The strong encouragements to Mothers to join the workforce, with the provision of networks of creches and child care centres as outlined in Article 11 of the Convention is likely to result in Maternal deprivation and psychological disturbances among children with an increase in childhood psychiatric illnesses. (4) The sexual role changing as recommended in Part 3 Article 10 (c) is likely to contribute to further Marriage insecurity and breakdown. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- We, as members of a school Parents' Club, object to legislation that calls for the payment of the Bank Debit Tax by a voluntary organisation working for the benefit of children in government schools. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that- Exemption from the payment of Bank Debit Tax will be granted to School Parents' Clubs in government schools And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr O'Neil. To the honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirements, and; 2. the Government's proposed assets test legislation, presently under re- examination, is iniquitous and if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled urge the Government to: 1. totally abandon its proposed assets test legislation; 2. either institute a broad enquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter, and; 3. following the report of such wide enquiry, institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non- discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the introduction of Medicare has not resulted in a cheaper, fairer system of health care as promised by the Federal Government. Rather, it is an expensive, bureaucratic scheme, depersonalising medical services and conducive to medical mediocrity. While recognising the responsibility which exists to assist those in need, we humbly request the Government to review this system which moves towards the nationalisation of Australian medicine. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows their concern for the present unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental and technical problems associated with the mining of uranium, the development of nuclear power and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will 1. prohibit the establishment in Australia of nuclear power plants and all other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle. 2. declare a moratorium on all mining and treatment of Uranium in Australia. 3. prohibit the export of Australian uranium. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Patersons Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Patersons Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. 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 Queensland, 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. by Mr Moore. Petitions received. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable Member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion today, namely: The rapidly rising community concern about the Hawke Government's divisive handling of Australia's immigration policies. 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- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That Government Business be called on. Debate resumed from 7 May, on motion by Mr Barry Jones: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(8.24) —The Patents Amendment Bill is but one tool in the Government's strategy to achieve a higher standard of living for all Australians . When the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) was speaking on the ministerial statement by the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones ) headed 'National Technology Strategy-Discussion Draft' he said that there were no answers being given and no decisions being made by the Minister. This Bill is just one practical decision made by the Government. He accused the Minister of not waking up. I realise that this Bill is far from the Minister's greatest achievement, but it is proof that the Minister is alive, active and well and truly working. The honourable member for Higgins, who is the small business spokesperson for the Opposition, was a great pontificator. His Government presided over the greatest increase in small business bankruptcies since the Depression. Australia's future is tied up with our need to recognise where our resources are and how to get the most from those resources. The Patents Amendment Bill 1984 specifically deals with an important way of getting the most from our resources by ensuring that our country and our people are given the credit as well as the financial reward for their work. What are these resources which we want to use to gain due reward for Australia and Australians? First of all, our people; they are our greatest resource. Until we recognise that we will not get very far. It was good to hear the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) today, in his speech on immigration, speak about the great resources in our people which have been changed by immigration. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he spoke of the great resources of the people who are working in research. He said that we have biotechnology researchers who are world leaders in agriculture, plant and animal genetics, microbiology, biochemistry and medical research. He said that we must take advantage of the leads we have. It is true that we have some great resources in Australia. Of course our people are our main resource. We also have mining and agricultural resources. The wool industry currently earns over $1.5 billion in exports yearly. While we may not be on the sheep's back, if there were any threat to our economy we would be frantically holding on to the sheep's tail. The beef industry is another example . One incidental product of the beef industry, cured hides, alone supplies $8.7m in export earnings. Horticulture, timber, dairying and fishing are all efficient primary industries compared with industries in other countries. Of course, we are proven world leaders in agricultural research associated with those industries. Our agricultural industries are efficient. However, we know that primary production fluctuates. For example, the drought had a devastating effect on primary production. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics has estimated that a quarter of the economic recovery will be attributable to recovery from the drought. Overall, we have done quite well over the years out of our non-human resources. However, we need to recognise that we have to get the most out of our people and give the most to our people in return. We need to give our people recognition as our most precious resource. There is a tendency, when we are thinking of secondary industries and our labour forces, to say that we are too far from our markets, labour costs are too high and we have no technological base. It is true that these things have prevented Australia from competing overseas in secondary industries. Dr D. Harrison of Biotechnology Ltd held a useful science and industry forum at Thredbo recently. He said that high technology provides opportunities to revolutionise secondary industry and provides new opportunities for Australia to compete, especially where manufacturing is based on raw materials. This point is very valid. I mentioned before that our export earnings from the wool crop totalled $1.5 billion. If we converted that wool our income from exports as a result of that conversion would be far higher. Goulburn Wool Processors Pty Ltd is converting wool by using high technology through a computer which has been devised locally by a person employed by Goulburn Wool Processors. This will contribute substantially to the Goulburn economy. If we converted our $1.5 billion wool crop to yarn we could export not $1.5 billion worth of product but $10 billion worth. If we converted that yarn to finished cloth our export earnings could total $200 billion. That would mean we would have over $150 billion more for Australian jobs, for Australian technology and for the Australian people. I mentioned that cured hides to the value of $8.2m are being exported yearly. If we converted those hides to leather we would receive over $1 billion in export earnings for that processed leather. That is about 200 times the earnings we are receiving now for the cured hides. We have the ability; let us get in and develop our high technology. We can cater for distance with our modern transport and communications systems and by tailoring our products for distant markets. Australia has to develop high technology industries to do that. Australia ought to give more attention to those technologies which relate best to our natural resources. This Bill looks at one necessary component of that challenge, the need for people to feel free to handle the results of their own research and to exploit them. It is important , along with the need for co-operation among academic institutions, individuals and governments, that we consider the need for people who are involved in the development of high technology, including biotechnology, to be protected. There are three ways of protecting people so that they can feel free to handle the results of their own research and to exploit them. Two of them, copyright law and the trade secret legislation, do provide real difficulties when we are looking at biotechnology. As Professor Whalan of the Australian National University points out, the product of genetic engineering needs to be looked at differently from the trade secrets of Drambuie, Coca-Cola or Kentucky Fried Chicken with its 11 spices and herbs. Patent protection is a better basis than either copyright law or trade secret legislation. After some initial difficulties, in the United States of America in particular, patent protection for the results of biotechnological research does not create real difficulties and the quick advances made in biotechnology, which often means early discarding of ideas, can be catered for in legislation. This Bill improves the ability of researchers to take advantage of opportunities. It improves the ability of industry to compete and thus export. The Bill increases the likelihood of biotechnological developments which will lead to Australia's making better use of at least two resources which are already here, our people and our natural resources such as wool. We support the Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(8.32) —in reply-I want to respond to a few of the points made last night by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton). The honourable member for Higgins asserted last night that the Fraser Government had been a trendsetter in support of biotechnology and that I and the Australian Labor Party had simply tagged along. An examination of Hansard will reveal the absurdity of that proposition. The honourable member must realise its absurdity and I do not really understand why he raised it. I have been reading about and discussing biotechnology for years. In February 1981 I had the benefit of a long discussion about it with Francis Crick, the father of recombinant DNA research. In 1981 alone I raised the issue of biotechnology in this House by way of speeches, questions or notices of motion on the following dates-25 February, 31 March, 9 April, 29 April, 6 May, 12 May, 14 May, 9 September, 21 October and 29 October-while my predecessor, the Hon. David Thomson, spoke on it only twice, on 9 April and 29 April, in both cases in response to what I had said. As an illustration of the previous Government's passionate commitment to and deep knowledge of biotechnology, I draw the attention of the House to a question I asked here on 31 March 1981 which is in Volume 121 of Hansard at page 1091. It read as follows: Mr BARRY JONES —I ask the Prime Minister whether the Government recognises the enormous economic significance of biotechnology which appears likely to be the greatest area of industrial growth in the 1980s. If so, what specific steps is the Government taking to promote biotechnology in Australia and to study the major associated ethical problems, including cloning and aging? Is this another example of a high technology industry where once again Australia has missed the bus? Is the Government aware of the Spinks report in Great Britain and the Pelissolo report in France which raise the subject of biotechnology and the importance of it to modern governments.? Malcom Fraser flashed his famous smile, so reminiscent of the silver fittings on a coffin, indicated that he did not know what it meant and invited Doug Anthony, as Minister for Trade and Resources, to answer. He then shrugged that he did not know anything about it either so it was passed on to Sir Phillip Lynch, as Minister for Industry and Commerce, to reply. Hansard records the reply as follows: Sir PHILLIP LYNCH—I am afraid that the honourable gentleman has the advantage of me. I will certainly seek the latest report which is available from officers of the Department of Science and Technology as to the advantage of the particular discipline to which the honourable gentleman refers. I will provide him with that information as soon as possible. This exercise raised much hilarity in the House and comment in the media, much of it, I fear, aimed against me because the view was taken by some politicians and journalists that the question was incomprehensible: Who on earth could be expected to know what biotechnology was all about? But events moved so rapidly in 1981 that by November the Government had been forced to call a national conference on biotechnology at the Hyatt Kingsgate Hotel in Sydney-or shamed into it, I should say. By November 1981 nobody was laughing about biotechnology, or professing ignorance. I take up the specific points that the honourable member for Higgins asked me to respond to. He referred to the 'publish or perish' mentality in the scientific community. There is an element of truth in that. However, I think it is fair to say that in the United States of America and here in Australia there is an evolving commercial or business orientation in the biological sciences. A patent or perish mentality may be going too far but there is room for research scientists to re-assess their attitudes in the national interest as well as in the pure and rarefied interests of academia. The honourable member made the comment that in Australia there has been almost no public debate on the question of patentability of micro-organisms, as there has been in countries such as the United States. That is not quite true. The point in the United States was that the Supreme Court, when it made the judgment in the Chakrabarty case, changed the law in the United States. There never was a need for such a change in the law here because the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office was always prepared to recognise the patentability of biological processes. But there has been a debate here. It was covered in a paper at the November 1981 symposium to which the honourable member referred. There were a number of discussions including quite an important one in which Mr Justice Kirby and I participated on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Science Show. The honourable member said that patent law is being questioned, and I think that is correct. It is being questioned in Australia. The International Property Advisory Council review on this very subject is due to be completed in two months. But the review, unlike the illustration that the honourable member for Higgins gave, is not based on the filing of useful patent applications by eccentrics. The review is to be based on economic criteria with a view to furthering the national interest. He inquired what had happened to the venture capital taxation legislation which is needed and which is supplementary to the matters of investment company legislation already passed by the house. The assistant Treasurer, the honourable member for Adelaide, Mr Hurford, has advised that it is expected that this will be introduced within a few days. The Management and Investment Companies Licensing Board has requested some minor variations to the proposed legislation. I think there are quite cogent reasons for the delay. As engineers say, we are all on the learning curve in this area and the original draft legislation that was proposed for the taxation relief would now, we think, not be adequate. I can assure honourable members and prospective investors that we anticipate that the legislation will be right on course and, as we always said, provided it is carried before 30 June, it will not change the outcome. There is no question that it will be carried in this session. Of course, the honourable member for Higgins and his associates can do a great deal to expedite its passage and I would like to think that it will go through the House with great celerity. The honourable member made the comment that a considerable number of legal problems were involved. That is absolutely true. Legal problems will always arise in multi-million dollar businesses. The honourable member said: 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? . . . 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? The answer is yes, assuming that it is a patentable difference. The differences between micro-organisms will be viewed in the same way that we look at differences in other areas of technology. They will be judged in the light of practical reality in the area of technology concerned. If biotechnology scientists can tell the difference, then so will the patent law. More importantly, patent law recognises differences which matter in the market place. Small incremental developments may be more important than large advances, particularly for a small country like Australia. The ability to patent small but important developments is fundamental to the whole idea of patents and to the stimulation of a healthy and competitive industry. But the difference in patents must be a real, practical difference. Colourable imitations will not evade a patent infringement or qualify for a new patent. If a development is patented, that does not affect the original patent right unless of course the development is so significant that the original patent then becomes commercially useless. Patents are intended to stimulate further incremental developments. We should not forget that it may be an Australian innovator who can take advantage of a micro-organism deposit made by an applicant from overseas. I want to refer to one other matter. The honourable member said: 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. This comment is seriously misleading on two grounds. First of all, the experimentation is not at the vaccine stage yet; the people involved are still carrying out fundamental research. What we have is a library of cloned proteins which look as though they will be susceptible to further development and it is likely that they will turn into a vaccine, but it is not at that stage. The joint venturers are the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission and Biotechnology Australia. The joint venturers-subsequent events may disprove this-assert that these four entities between them will have the capacity to carry out the commercial development here, and we certainly hope that that will be the case. The honourable member ought to be aware of that. In the case of some other collaborative ventures involving biotechnology, it has often been the situation that there has needed to be further development or there has needed to be interaction with somebody else. I do not want to put it crudely but it has been a matter of saying 'you show me yours and I will show you mine'. This could be the case with an Australian participant who has not had the entire range of knowledge in an area but has needed collaboration with somebody else who has a complementary skill. That is a factor. We do not have the luxury of getting these developments, hiding them away in the Fuhrer-bunker and saying: 'Well, in five years time the world will come to us and we will be able to sell on our terms'. It really is very difficult. The final point I make is that the honourable member for Higgins said rather cynically that if he had a child headed into a new career now he would want him to be a patent lawyer, preferably a biotechnology patent lawyer. I am not sure that that is necessarily the case. One of the great ironies of patent law, which even a committed patent official like the Acting Commissioner of Patents would concede, is that the great Chakrabarty case, which was regarded as a turning point in American legal history-which theoretically it was-in fact did not lead to any commercial exploitation at all. I spoke to some of the proponents of the bug-eating biotechnological development which was to chew up oil slicks and they said they did not go ahead with the original patent because they developed a way of doing it which was superior. I asked whether they patented it and they said: 'No, it was not really worth all the hassle. We decided that the thing that keeps you ahead is simply the fact that you have the highest group of skilled people in a particular area, and you are off and running'. It is a race. It is useless simply to wave a piece of paper saying that you have a legal right to do something if you do not have the skilled personnel. I thank the honourable member for Higgins and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) for their contributions. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(8.46) —by leave-I move: (1) After clause 6, page 4, insert the following new clause: Application for review ''6A. Section 151 of the Principal Act is amended by inserting in paragraph (1) (a) '131,' before '154'.''. (2) Clause 7, page 5, at the end of proposed section 154A add the following sub -section: '' '(6) An appeal lies to a prescribed court from a decision of the Commissioner under sub-section (1).'.''. These amendments do not make an awful lot of sense unless the people listening on their crystal sets have a copy of the parent Act in front of them, the Patents Act of 1952. These two small amendments arise from the eternal vigilance of the Senate Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Bills. They do not specifically relate to the subject of the Bill. The gist of both provisions is this: New clause 6A amends section 151 of the Patents Act to enable a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision of the Commissioner of Patents under section 131 of the Act. Section 131 relates to the prohibition of publication of information in respect of inventions where, say, the Commissioner may be of the view that information is critical to the defence of the Commonwealth, and from that point of view there should be no publication of it. This proposed section provides for an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if this decision of the Commissioner is thought to be arbitrary or ill- founded. Proposed sub-section 154A (6) provides for an appeal to a prescribed court against a decision of the Commissioner under proposed sub-section 154A (1). The decision concerned is a declaration that the deposits requirements of sub- section 40 (5) must be complied with in a case where a micro-organism was available at the time of lodgment of the patent specification but subsequently became unavailable. I commend the amendments to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(8.49) —On the basis on which the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has moved these two amendments, the Opposition does not oppose them. The amendments to section 154A are most worth while in my view, on my reading of them, because they may give the Patent, Trade Marks and Designs Office the incentive to define what constitutes a different micro-organism if a ruling by the Commissioner of Patents under that section is subject to appeal. I would think that that was most worth while and a valuable contribution that the Senate has made to the debate. I repeat for those in the gallery and, as the Minister said, those with their crystal sets that in talking about biotechnology and microbiology we are really talking about industries that are common and well known to all of us in our everyday life. Biotechnology is practised in the ancient businesses of wine-making, cheese-making, bread-baking and beer-making, so it does have a practical application every day in the lives of every Australian even if only in relation to bread and cheese. One of the difficulties I referred to in the previous debate was that the Patent Office must spell out and define what constitutes a different micro- organism. As the Minister said a few moments ago, some of the greatest advances may in fact be made in minimal changes. It may well be that the minimal changes do not amount to an addition to the state of the art which, as I understand, was the test as to whether a new invention was patentable or not. In fact, the lawyers will have a field day in this area. In speaking to the amendments at the Committee stage I thank the Minister for informing the House, the Parliament and the people of Australia that the taxation legislation that accompanies the management investment company legislation which was passed by this House last session but which has not yet been introduced by the Government into the House will be introduced before the end of this session. The Opposition welcomes the opportunity to have a look at it because we supported that management investment company legislation. I say to the Minister and to the Committee that it is a double. We need both Acts-- Mr Barry Jones —Sure. Mr SHIPTON —The Minister acknowledges that. We need the Acts before investors can really invest with certainty. As honourable members know in tax law, one needs to have the section of the Act in front of one and it has to be passed by the House. With less than two months to go before the end of the financial year the facts may prove me to be correct that in fact, fewer people than the Minister would have hoped would have the opportunity to take advantage of that legislation in the current financial year. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Bill reported with amendments; report-by leave-adopted. Bill (on motion by Mr Barry Jones)-by leave-read a third time. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(8.54) —I am responding to the second reading speech of the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr Hurford) in relation to the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1984. This Bill has two purposes. The first is to amend this Act which was passed in 1981 and determines the amount which is to go to the States for certain purposes as part of their tax sharing grants. The first aspect of this is that there was an agreement between the Commonwealth and the States that certain pathology laboratories run by the Commonwealth would be handed over to State administrations. There was an adjustment to Federal-State finances to take that into account. What has happened since then is that in only one State, that of Western Australia, was the transfer of the relevant pathology laboratory effected. It was actually done during the period of my administration as Minister for Health. But in the other States, because of bureaucratic difficulties and the unwillingness of States to accept the responsibility of running these laboratories, they were not passed over. Thus there is a need to make an adjustment in the opposite direction to make sure that the balance between Federal and State finances is maintained. This is not a matter of major importance, but I think I ought to say that I took some interest in this matter when I was Minister. It was a bit of a Sir Humphrey operation, I am afraid, in that there was a great deal of bureaucratic resistance to the transfer of these pathology laboratories. As far as I am concerned, the Federal Government should not be involved in the running of services of this kind. The actual delivery of such services, the running of pathology laboratories, should be in the hands of State administrations, fundamentally, because they link in with the State health systems. It is a sensible thing in management terms to do that. I took that view. It was not a matter of major importance, so I did not go to great lengths to implement it. I pursued it as well as I could during that period, but it was resisted on local grounds and by the States and the bureaucracy. In only one case, that in Western Australia, was there a satisfactory agreement to transfer the control of that laboratory. I think it is a pity, but it has been acknowledged, presumably, that it is politically difficult to make a sensible managerial decision and so there has been a financial adjustment. That is a relatively minor purpose of this Bill . Of course, the Opposition is not opposing that. The second purpose of the Bill is to recognise that the general State-Federal financial arrangements are to go to a certain date. The payments under this Act cease on 30 June 1985 and it is provided in the Act that the Commonwealth shall consult with the States to review the provisions of the Act. The States have already been involved in the preparation of the terms of reference under which the Commonwealth Grants Commission can have a look at this situation and at the distribution of tax sharing grants amongst the States. This will be an important input into the negotiation of the new arrangements, but the Commission is not due to report on this matter until 30 March 1985. Since the arrangements cease on 30 June 1985 it is considered sensible by the Government to extend these payments for another six months from 1 July 1985 so that the results of the Grants Commission recommendations can be considered and the Parliament can then decide sensibly on what is to be done. Thus payments may be made during the six months from 1 July 1985, with the amount payable being limited to half the amount being paid to each State in the previous year. If adjustments are to be made as a result of the Grants Commission recommendations they can be so decided . That seems to be a reasonable provision and the Opposition does not offer any objection to that. Within this relatively technical Bill there are some quite important principles of negotiation between the Commonwealth and States. As might be expected, I have a particular interest in the health grants aspect of that division. I want therefore to make some remarks on the basis of the arrangements betweem the Commonwealth Government and the States with regard to health grants, in particular, to the Medicare arrangements which are part of this legislation. The basis of the agreement between the Commonwealth and the States when Medicare was introduced and as a result of a certain amount of haggling between the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) and the State Ministers, most of whom were Labor Ministers but that did not stop the degree of haggling because there are substantial differences between Labor Federal Ministers and State Ministers in this area, was that the Commonwealth would pay a substantial sum, in the order of an additional several hundred million dollars of taxpayers' funds, to the States if the States would agree to provide 'free'-I put free in inverted commas because somebody always pays in the end-out-patient services regardless of people's means and also 'free' hospital beds for Medicare patients regardless of the means of those patients. The bed day charges which were to be made to privately insured patients-anybody who was prudent enough to take out private insurance for hospitalisation-were to be reduced from an average of $120 a day for a bed in a public hospital in each of the States down to $80 a day. That was a fairly artificial move, of course, because the average cost of a bed in a public hospital is probably well over $200 a day. The previous actual charge subsidised by the taxpayer was $120 a day. That was reduced to $80 a day for anybody who was privately insured. There is a tremendous unfairness under the Medicare arrangements to privately insured patients. If somebody who is quite well off has decided not to take out any private hospital insurance, but is subject to the Medicare levy of one per cent of taxable income, and goes along to a public hospital uninsured, that person gets a bed totally free of charge, apart from the Medicare levy paid through taxation. If a person has decided, because he would like the choice of his own doctor, to take out private insurance with a private health insurance fund-that is something that a whole lot of people want to do; people who have been through severe medical problems want the capacity to sack a doctor if he does not do his job properly or to choose the doctor that they want-he will be charged $80 a day for the same public hospital bed which is given free to somebody of possibly equal means who has taken out no private insurance. We have been told that Medicare is the fairest health insurance scheme that we have ever had in Australia. This provision of Medicare is absolutely and totally unfair. Two people who have exactly the same salaries and expenses can be side by side in the same public hospital and one of them who has done nothing to take out private insurance can get a totally free bed at the taxpayers' expense and the person in the next bed, having prudently taken out private hospital insurance to ensure a choice of doctor, is charged $80 a day for that bed. That is the fairness of Medicare. Another aspect involving Medicare is that in New South Wales-this is a matter of which I have particular knowledge, since I was defeated in an action before the High Court of Australia on this matter when I was Minister-a levy was imposed by the New South Wales Government for ambulance services. This levy was placed on privately insured patients. Anybody who had insured with a private fund for his medical and hospital care under the previous arrangements had attached to them compulsorily by the New South Wales Government an ambulance levy. That levy was to replace the voluntary insurance program through the ambulance service which previously applied in New South Wales. The then State Minister for Health. Mr Brereton, after this levy had been applied and after I had challenged it in the High Court and lost my case, graciously wrote to all the people in New South Wales who had subscribed to the ambulance service and the fund-I was one of those to whom he wrote-and gave them a cheque for the balance of the year for which they had paid and said that in future they did not have to pay any ambulance levy. The Federal Minister for Health, under the new Medicare proposals, abolished private health insurance altogether and made it illegal. There was no fund on which to place this parasitic levy by the State Government. The then State Minister for Health, Mr Brereton, had to write, somewhat shamefacedly, to all those people to whom he had written previously and given a cheque to tell them that in future they would have to take out private ambulance insurance. That was one of the outcomes of Medicare. People who were told that they did not have to pay anything found, after Medicare, that they had to take out private ambulance insurance, otherwise they had to pay or $60 or $80 for a trip to a local hospital and considerably more if they were caught with a broken leg up in the snow or whatever and had to be taken to hospital by air ambulance. There is another major unfairness in the Medicare situation regarding Queensland. Queensland has had a free hospital service for 40 or 50 years. A taxpayer in Queensland has the right to go to a public hospital and have a bed free of charge, regardless of means. Under Medicare he is charged a one per cent levy in order to enjoy the same benefit. The taxpayers of Queensland rightly objected to the fact that they were going to have to pay extra tax to pay for something which they had enjoyed for over 40 years. The Queensland Government objected to this. It received some additional money from the Federal Government but nowhere near enough to compensate for this difference. Eventually it had to bow down to the blackmail of the Federal Government. The Federal Government said : 'If you don't toe the line we will cut off all your money'. Eventually the Queensland Government had no option but to agree, very reluctantly, to the Medicare scheme, which still to this moment robs Quenslanders of a large amount of their tax to pay for things in other States and to pay for a service which they already enjoyed free under the previous situation. Mr Braithwaite —Shame! How much is that a head? Mr CARLTON —It is worth, I think, about $75m a year to Queenslanders which, spread out among Queenslanders, is a lot of money. Mr Braithwaite —About $30 a head. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honourable member for Dawson has said, they will be paying $30 a head additional to everybody else in the Commonwealth for a service which they already received free of charge. Mr Braithwaite —Yes, and we pay the same as everybody else. Mr CARLTON —Yes, they pay the same as everybody else, whereas previously they got the service free. They are paying for something which they already had. I think that the Queensland Premier and the Queensland Minister for Health were totally justified in taking the issue to the point where eventually they had to give in because the Federal Government blackmailed them that they would lose all the money if they did not cave in to the dictatorial demands of the Federal Minister for Health. Let us not only talk about the National Party Premier of Queensland. I refer also to the fact that at the Health Ministers conference, which was assembled to discuss the Medicare arrangements, there was a battle royal between the State Ministers and the Federal Minister for Health about the distribution of funds under Medicare. The Federal Minister said: 'We will give you an extra $700m so that you can provide free out-patient treatment and free beds in public hospitals to people, regardless of their means. That is Australian Labor Party policy. We will pay you an extra $700m worth of taxpayers' funds to do this'. One would have thought that, being State Labor Ministers for Health, they would have been delighted at this, but they looked the gift horse in the mouth. The Commonwealth estimated that there would be an increse of about 4 per cent in out-patient services. The Commonwealth officials, supported by the Federal Minister, said that if out-patient services previously cost something and they were now going to be free this would result in an increase of about 4 per cent in extra out-patient services. Similarly, if, under the free in-patient bed arrangements one could have a free hospital bed, regardless of means, and did not have to insure privately, the Federal officials said that there would be a drop of about 4 per cent in the number of privately insured patients in public hospitals. A privately insured patient in a public hospital is very important to the hospital because the hospital can get money from a private insurance fund to add to its running expenses. In addition to the money the hospital can get through the State and Commonwealth treasuries it can get extra money from the private health fund of a privately insured patient. Therefore if the number of privately insured patients in a hospital drops it has a significant effect on hospital revenue. The Federal Minister came along to this conference and said: 'We think, on the basis of our knowledge and experience-and with Sir Humphrey advising us and so on-that there will be a 4 per cent drop in the revenues from privately insured patients'. The State Health Ministers, led by the Australian Labor Party Ministers, said: 'We think you are talking nonsense. We think that the drop will be 14 per cent or 15 per cent, on the basis of our experience and our feeling about what people will do if they are offered something which is allegedly free' . But the basis of the reimbursements, the basis of the Federal-State agreement on finances for health, was that there would be a drop of about 4 per cent in revenues as a result of extra numbers of free out-patients and uninsured private patients in the hospital beds. Who was correct-the Federal Minister or the State Ministers? I have been doing a certain amount of scouting around in the public hospitals and I understand, on pretty reliable evidence, that the out-patient numbers in the public hospitals are up by about 15 per cent, as forecast by the State Labor Ministers-then Messrs Brereton, Roper, Cornwall and others. Their estimate proves to be correct for out-patients. With regard to how many additional uninsured patients have been taking the in-patient beds, the number of insured in-patients has gone down by about 10 per cent. In that case the State Ministers have been about two- thirds right and the Federal Minister about one-third right. But still there is a very substantial difference between the 4 per cent estimated by the Federal Minister and the 10 per cent in reality being experienced by the hospitals around Australia. This is of major concern. These are the figures for the major teaching hospitals. There has been another difficulty in this Federal-State arrangement; that is, that the Medicare arrangements require, in relation to a patient who is in some considerable difficulty in a public hospital but is privately insured, a certificate at the end of 35 days-previously it was 60 days-declaring that the patient requires acute care. A doctor, at the risk of incurring a fine of $10, 000 or five years in gaol, has to sign a certificate saying that that patient requires continuing acute care. Understandably, there has been a reluctance on the part of many doctors to sign such certificates. They do not want to risk the fine or the five years in gaol. As a result, many patients who would previously have stayed in public hospitals for more than 35 days at the full reimbursement rate from the private funds have now had their rates of reimbursement reduced, further reducing the revenues of the public hospitals. What are the end results? Public hospitals have many more out-patients than they expected? They have a bigger proportion of non-paying patients in their beds. Many more patients are being thrown out after 35 days who previously would have been there a bit longer and paid through private funds. The end result is that the States are still incurring the costs of treating these patients but are losing revenues at a vastly greater rate than was estimated by the Federal Government in its Medicare plans. When we talk about a general amount of $700m or $800m and about these sorts of shortfalls it is clear that the States will lose over the course of the year at least $100m in revenues that they expected to receive and, indeed, had budgeted for. I inform the House that I have reports from State Ministers, most of them Labor , that they are preparing a case for vastly increased revenue grants from the Commonwealth over the ensuing year. The Supply that is to be granted under this Bill is not sufficient to meet the States' needs, and this, of course, has important budgetary implications for the Federal Government and the Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating). Medicare has been undercosted yet again, I would think by at least $100m, on the hospital component alone. Mr Cadman —What does that make it up to? Mr CARLTON —If I may respond to the honourable member for Mitchell, who has a concern about these matters, in my view it makes it up to considerably more than the amount raised by the levy of one per cent of income that has been put down on the people. If the Government were honest it would have to be considering an increase in the Medicare levy. We already know that the Medicare levy accounts for only one-eighth of total health expenditure. Australia spends about $8 billion a year on health costs at Federal and State levels. The levy of one per cent raises only $1 billion. Mr Braithwaite —It should be 8c then. Mr CARLTON —As my friend the honourable member for Dawson said, the levy should be 8c in the dollar. The trick about this, of course, is that people are told: ' Medicare is cheap; it costs only one per cent of your taxable income'. In fact, it costs eight times that amount. The people pay the rest through their ordinary tax. I suggest that, instead of being honest, the Government will not put up the levy to at least 1.5 or 2 per cent as it should to account for these hospital differences but will merely increase the general rate of taxation in the next Budget to cover these increased hospital charges. Fundamentally, taxpayers will pay more because many people who can afford to insure for their medical and hospital costs do not have to do so because they can enjoy free treatment, in-patient and out-patient, in the hospitals under Medicare. Two patients with equal incomes can be in beds side by side, one having failed to insure and paying nothing for the bed and the person in the next bed, having taken out private insurance to ensure a choice of doctor, paying $80 a day for the very same bed. I think that is outrageous and a disgrace. There is another aspect to this problem and that is the pressure on the private hospitals. This is related to the public hospital situation. Obviously, if there is pressure on the private hospitals and the private hospitals are not receiving as many patients as they should, more people have to go into the public hospitals. What happens in private hospitals directly affects what happens in the public hospitals. A central objective of Medicare was to put a squeeze on the private hospitals. This is done in three ways. The first is by telling people that regardless of their means under Medicare they can have a free bed in a public hospital if they do not want choice of doctor. In other words, the Minister for Health says: 'Do not bother to insure; merely pay the Medicare levy which is compulsory anyway and you can have a free bed in a public hospital even if you are a millionaire'. The Labor Party says that millionaires can have free beds in public hospitals. That is its policy. Secondly, it says that a concerned person who really wants to have the choice of his own doctor and the capacity to sack his doctor if he is not getting good service must insure privately, but if he insures privately he pays $80 a day for a bed in a public hospital. A person who does not insure pays nothing, therefore more people will not bother to insure. For the person who still takes out private hospital insurance there is a further problem in that the Government has categorised all the private hospitals to reduce the amount of money that a person can get back through insurance. The final thing to militate against private hospitals in Australia is the application to them of the 35-day rule. Again, a doctor, on pain of a $10,000 fine or five years in gaol, has to sign a certificate to say that the patient is sufficiently ill to remain in the private hospital, otherwise the patient will be chucked out. Whether there is somewhere for the patient to go is a problem because there has been a total freeze on nursing home beds under the Hawke Government. There has not been a single new nursing home bed approval since the Hawke Government took over. So if one is unfortunate enough to have no doctor to sign a certificate to say that one is still sick enough to stay in a private hospital or as a private patient in a public hospital, and if there is no nursing home bed to go to, one is in a lot of trouble. Many families in Australia are currently in that trouble. This is another factor which adds to the squeeze on the private hospitals. As a result, in the first few months of Medicare there has been a sharp decline in the occupancy of beds in private hospitals. Again, in my going around the traps and talking to people in the private hospitals, I understand there has been a 30 per cent drop in occupancy in most cases in private hospitals since the introduction of Medicare. In other words, the intention of this Government is actually being achieved-a squeeze on private hospitals to try to force people into public hospitals. But where are the patients going? They can hardly go into the major teaching hospitals as they were already stretched to the limit under the previous squeeze policy. Therefore the queues are lengthening. It is impossible for me, despite all my inquiries, to find out what the exact period of waiting is in the public hospitals. Mr Cadman —Oh, up to two years they tell me. Mr CARLTON —The honourable member for Mitchell says it is up to two years. I know that there are grave problems in the western suburbs of Sydney. These lists are closely guarded. I cannot get hold of them. It is well known that the cardiac surgery waiting list in Sydney is at least three months. For hip replacements and other orthopaedic work of various kinds it is much worse. A report in the Age of 1 May headed 'Chief surgeon quits over long delays for patients', states: The chief of orthopaedic surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital, Mr Kingsley Mills, has resigned because he says he can no longer take the frustration and worry of watching patient waiting lists grow. Mr Mills said yesterday that about 900 patients, most with painful conditions, faced indefinite delays for orthopaedic surgery at the Royal Melbourne Hospital. The list was increasing and many of the patients, needing knee and hip replacements, could not afford private hospitals. 'There is a constant anxiety at the back of your mind about it. Our registrars are getting six or more calls a day from people on the waiting list hoping something can be done for them,' Mr Mills said. 'I feel I have done everything in my power to improve the situation . . . I have reached a point where I really feel I can't go any further.' Mr Mills said that because of the hospital budget cuts, orthopaedic surgeons were now largely concerned with emergency work while patients with painful non- fatal conditions waited indefinitely. This is a disgraceful situation. Mr Braithwaite —That is the British experience all over again. Mr CARLTON —As my friend, the honourable member for Dawson says, this is the British national health system all over again. All I can say is that if this Government continues with its determination to nationalise every health dollar, to take total control through Federal and State governments of every element of health care delivery, if it wants to squeeze out private hospitals, private insurance, private health dollars and private choice giving people some capacity to provide for themselves, it will have no option but to continue to turn the screw on individual patients whose needs are of absolutely no concern to cold hearted administrators. Our views on health are that there must be choice, there must be the capacity for private insurance and there must be the capacity for more dollars to come into this situation through private sources to relieve these difficulties in our country's hospitals. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired . Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(9.25) —One of the problems in being on this side of the House is that unfortunately those opposite seem to have great trouble in recognising that there has been a change of government and that in some sense the electorate has made some decisions and we, in this place, have made some decisions, and Medicare is one of them. It is as though we have to back and go over that battle again. I will do so very briefly in a moment, because of the attitude of the Opposition. However, I think that when we look at the Opposition 's record it does not have a lot to argue for. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has indicated, the States ( Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 is concerned with two areas of amendment. One relates to the question of laboratories-to give effect to an agreement with the States, made in the context of the negotiation of the Medicare agreements, that general purpose payments to the States after 30 June 1984 would be reduced by amounts in respect of the operation of Commonwealth pathology laboratories not taken over by the States. That is the intent of the first amendment. As the honourable member for Mackellar has said, and as the Minister representing the Minister for Health, the Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) said in his second reading speech, in effect this measure is to bring back money to the Federal Government that the States had not used because they had not taken over the operation of those laboratories. I understand that the Opposition is not opposing that. I will not labour that point except to say that those who are listening might think that the Commonwealth is being a little tough with the States and that we are taking back from them money that a previous government had agreed to give to the States with the one exception of Western Australia, which State took up that option. As the honourable member for Mackellar has said , it is not appropriate to be paying the States twice in that sense, so we are bringing the money back. I remind the House and the community that at the June-July 1983 Premiers Conference the Commonwealth agreed to provide an extra temporary additional revenue assistance grant of $155.5m. This was in recognition of the unusually severe budgetary conditions that the States were facing. The intention, in effect, was to try to alleviate some of the budgetary difficulties that we, as a Federal Government, saw the States facing. One could dwell for some time on the difficulties and the shortcomings of the previous Government in its dealings with the States, but obviously that is not the spirit of this debate. The intention is to try to look ahead somewhat. But certainly if we were to try to make any point about this first item, clearly we are taking some money back because in a sense if we did not we would be paying the States twice. But I balance the account by saying that in the last Premiers Conference this additional $155.5m, that the Federal Government has granted the States was intended to try to alleviate some of their budgetary difficulties. Obviously there were some severe budgetary difficulties experienced by the States. They were as a result, generally speaking, of the economic recession that they were experiencing and as a consequence of a reduction in the general revenue position of the States. In addition to that, we felt that the States could play a significant part in economic recovery. We felt that by putting further funds into the State arena that recovery would be assisted. Clearly that has been successful. The recovery is beginning. I might add for the record-I think this is important-that the historical experience of Premiers conferences has, if anything been a hysterical experience; that usually there have been a series of public announcements by various Premiers saying how unhappy they are about the arrangements being agreed to between the Federal and State governments . Last year the Premiers Conference was the first one in which a degree of consensus was established between the Federal Government and the State Premiers. That is a very important achievement. It followed on the successful National Economic Summit Conference. We found we were able to get agreement between ourselves at the Federal level and the States to get some recognition about both the direction of grants to States and the Australian Loan Council arrangements. Obviously the $155.5m was given to try to show the good faith of the Federal Government in this respect. So I point out, on this first item we are dealing with, that the Federal Government is cognisant of its responsibilities towards the States, and its work with respect to the Premiers Conference is an example of that. The honourable member for Mackellar wanted to talk about the second item, which deals with enabling legislation to allow payments to continue to the States until 30 June 1985. He then began to devote some specific attention to some of those provisions with respect to Medicare and the health funding arrangements with the States. As I said at the outset, quite clearly it is as if we will have to fight this battle over and over again. In fact, the Medicare decisions, which were made in this chamber and which to some extent have been made by the community, are being reworked by the Opposition. I guess that is fair enough because it is part of the role of this place. It is also part of the role of this place for honourable members opposite to bring out areas in which they believe we could make amendments to improve the overall picture. I wish to take up one or two items which I think deserve some comment. The Opposition spokesman on health matters talked to some extent about the role of choice of doctor in relation to patients. I think that is a spurious argument. It is spurious in the sense that it is one argument which has been heightened considerably by doctors and to some extent by some commentators in the political arena when they say that that is the be all and end all of the Medicare linkage. In fact, we do not want to remove the choice of doctor, and to some extent we have not done that. I think it is also necessary to say that it is a bit fictitious to say that everyone who is ill spends his or her time trying to figure out who is the best doctor to get treated by. The experience tends to be the opposite; there is a degree of linkage between the general practitioner whom one attends and the sort of specialist to whom the GP might refer one. To a considerable extent the community is quite dependent upon the skill, the knowledge, the expertise and the professionalism of doctors in making appropriate referrals. To that extent the choice is a mini-choice, if one likes. It is a choice which the doctors make within an established framework. Quite obviously, if we were to talk about choice in the widest possible sense we might indeed have a debate. I think it is a spurious argument to talk about choice as if somehow everyone who is ill gets hold of the yellow pages and sits down and says: 'Who will I consult today?' It does not happen, and the Opposition knows it does not happen. Clearly, the doctors know it does not happen. It is one of those mythical things which are given great prominence. Interestingly, circumstances in recent times have changed. The accounting profession is advertising in an attempt to develop some choice between accountants. Again one might say there is a need perhaps to have some choice in accounting practice. But I think we have to go back to this position: It is largely a mythical claim that somehow the choice involving people going through some sort of yellow pages exercise in seeking out a doctor is the high point of medicine. I wish to make another point. The Opposition spokesman on health has made an interesting claim about increases in costs. I think honourable members opposite have to share the responsibility in this place and in the wider community. When Medicare was introduced-honourable members opposite should bear in mind that Medicare was one of the issues on which we went to the electorate and it was a matter on which the electorate gave us a clear indication of its preference, and it was voted through the Parliament of Australia-the doctors were unwilling to accept the real implications of Medicare. Some honourable members in this place assisted the doctors in their refusal to co-operate with the effective arrangements of Medicare. So when the Opposition talks about cost problems relating to Medicare, it must have a clear look at itself. I think honourable members opposite have to make an assessment and say: 'Have we adopted the widest possible opinion and view about Medicare?'. I think the answer is no, the Opposition has not and that in fact its performance has left a little to be desired. When we begin to talk about the question of costs of Medicare in Australia, clearly we have had some difficulty, and the public is aware of it, in dealing with the medical profession. Honourable members in this place also have a responsibility to try to talk about fiscal responsibility. I do not believe that responsibility was shown in every case. I also take up another matter that the honourable member for Mackellar raised, that is, the issue of the 35-day rule compared with the 60-day rule. The essential reason for the change is that quite clearly if someone is still being treated on the thirty-fifth day the nature of the treatment required will be rather different from that which that person is currently undergoing. In our approach we are saying that it ought to be the responsibility of the medical profession to assess whether or not the treatment being offered to that person is the optimum sort of treatment. As a consequence, there is a difference in the level of payments by the Federal Government. We would argue that the decision we have made is a more responsible decision, because we are trying to tailor the sorts of payments and benefit levels more appropriately to the conditions being experienced in the medical field. We are saying that the decision made in regard to the 35-day rule compared with the 60-day rule was made because we believe it ties in most effectively with medical practice. I believe there is a need to put down on the record that if we look at the public acceptance of Medicare as distinct from the acceptance which some honourable members in this place may have given Medicare-a reluctant acceptance or perhaps a hope that it would go away-we see that in the gallup poll of 1984 the figures show that 57 per cent of the Australian community favoured the changes that we have made to health insurance and 39 per cent opposed the changes to Medicare. Four per cent were undecided. That trend has been an upward trend for us, because in August 1981 only 44 per cent favoured the changes in health insurance. That figure had risen to 54 per cent by July 1983 and by April of 1984 it had risen to 57 per cent. So we have had this upward trend in public approval of Medicare. I think it is very easy for honourable members to come into this place and say there are two-year waiting lists. How do they know? Medicare hs been operating only since 1 February 1984. Honourable members opposite are very quick to make judgments. If they have a responsibility, their responsibility is to make reasoned judgments. I think that the honourable member for Mackellar, in much of the delivery of his speech, showed a sensible approach to try to stimulate debate. But if honourable members opposite are going to make claims about a two-year waiting period, they should recognise that 1 February 1984 was the date of introduction of Medicare. They cannot say there is a two-year waiting list, because the scheme has been in only since February 1984. It is just not a reasonable claim to make. I have spoken in support of this Bill, to which there are two amendments. I have indicated the substance of those amendments. Some other matters were raised by the honourable member for Mackellar concerning the operation of Medicare. We are confident that it is proceeding well. We are confident that we can administer it effectively in terms of fiscal responsibility, and I am pleased to commend the Bill to the House. Mr IAN ROBINSON(Cowper)(9.37) —The States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill whilst by nature a machinery Bill is of very great significance. I need refer only to the speech of the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), who succinctly outlined the present problems confronting health care in this country. I was surprised when I saw the content of the second reading speech delivered by the Minister for Housing and Construction and Acting Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and I was even more surprised at the response just given by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), who really ought to have shown a constructive approach to this essential matter of the financing of health care in Australia. It is now many weeks since Medicare began to operate. The machinery provisions of the Bill deal with a historic matter related to the pathology services operated by the Commonwealth and to the reluctance of the States to take over this area. That is a minor matter, when one makes a cursory observation of the real intent of this legislation. The real extent is to be found in clause 4 of the Bill, which provides for a continuation of funding for what the Minister described as the identified health grants for the States in 1984-85, pending a report by the Commonwealth Grants Commission. Inherent in this provision, are all of the ramifications of the operations of Medicare. When we look at what is covered by the identified health care grants, they are really the significant content in the operation of Medicare. I refer to the arrangements under which compensation for revenue will be forgone for private patients switching to public patient status. There will be compensation in respect of patients who retain private status in shared accommodation wards. There will be compensation for other revenue forgone, mainly related to out-patient revenue professional fee costs. There will be payments in respect of in-patient revenue losses and additional medical costs. All of these show the inherent effects of the introduction and the early operation of Medicare. What concerns the Opposition and certainly what concerns the National Party of Australia is the trend that we already see in the financing of the health services and in particular the hospitals of this country. I refer to all hospitals, not just the major teaching hospitals or the specialist hospitals in the metropolitan areas. I am talking about all hospitals. In the far-flung areas of Australia there is nothing more important to a local community than its local hospital and the ability of that hospital to serve that community. Of course, a variety of approaches have been made in the States in regard to the provision of hospital services. There has been regionalisation, the closure of small hospitals in some instances and a fight to maintain at least basic services in many areas. There has been a great change away from personalised services to which the people of this country have been accustomed for generations past. Mr Milton —At a price. Mr IAN ROBINSON —Well, there we have it-we get it straight away. We get the socialist philosophy which says, 'At a price', despite the facts that have been put forward this evening by the honourable member for Mackellar who so succinctly explained that the cost of Medicare is already exceeding the estimate and that the total cost of Medicare ultimately will be much more expensive for the community than the system we have enjoyed in the past. The cost, of course, is really wrapped up in the socialist desire that people should be served under a system of rigid administrative control. If ever there was an admission about that, the honourable member for Stirling summed it up with his remarkable reference to the yellow pages. He said that people would look in the yellow pages to find a doctor before making a decision. He referred to this as the high point of the medical service as if to say that there was not competition, as if to say that people wanted something to which they should not be entitled. I just want to say that the honourable member for La Trobe (Mr Milton) who has interjected, who is so keen about socialisation in this country, should go and really see the appalling situation that is developing today particularly in the larger hospitals. If he saw the enormous waiting lists and the procedures for admission to those hospitals his conscience might prick him for once in his life . Mr Milton —Who is to blame for that? Mr IAN ROBINSON —Well, who is to blame for it? It is the system that the Government has introduced which gets away totally from an effective administration which provided for a doctor of choice and clear arrangements for patients to get treatment when they wanted it in a manner that was not over- expensive and that did not cost the taxpayer an unduly high amount. However, the new Medicare system is loaded against the patient who wants special care and will do nothing to advantage the public ward patient except to put him into high confusion. We have just heard from the honourable member for Stirling that a survey has been conducted by some public opinion polling process to determine how many people think one way or the other about the kind of treatment they are getting. How absurd. Why not carry out a precise survey in the area of health care? Why not go to where the problems are, where the waiting lists already exist for those who require treatment? Why not go to the major hospitals to which people have to travel from country areas for treatment which is delayed for weeks and months. They are kept on the hook, so to speak, in the hope that they might get a bed or that they might be able to get the services of a specialist for a particular operation or service that they require. The honourable member talks about 59 per cent or 41 per cent or whatever it is but he will find that it is a very different story indeed. It is all very well to conduct some kind of public opinion poll but one can get a spurious answer, and that is obviously what has happened. I do not want to go over the ground that the honourable member for Mackellar covered so ably this evening in respect of the actual costs of the estimates and the trends that we see. In conclusion, I want to say that I am greatly concerned not only about where State budgeting will go next year in respect of health care which comes under the heading 'identified health grants' but also about the financing of hospitals. There is no doubt at all that a crisis has already begun . Industrial trouble is beginning to occur in hospitals in every part of this country. We are finding that hospitals will run into severe budgetary difficulties in the next 12 months. This legislation does nothing to resolve that, nor does the statement contained in the Minister's second reading speech or the contributions made thus far by members of the Government in this debate. I just want to issue a warning to members of the public that they are in for a rough time in regard to health care in the public hospitals of this country. Certainly, an enormous problem is looming in the regional areas of Australia. I just hope that the conscience of the present Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is such that he will realise the folly of the mistakes he has made and that the Budget in August will contain some correction before it is too late. I hope that the Minister, instead of spending all his time vilifying the doctors of this country, will become realistic about the real story of hospital financing. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.46) —In supporting the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill 1984 I take the opportunity to express my concern at the lack of funding which has been provided over the years for health support services in the outer eastern region of Melbourne in particular. It is most surprising to me, having listened to the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson), that in fact we seem to live in different worlds. I am talking about seven years of neglect by a Federal conservative Liberal Government. I do not know what the honourable member is talking about. I am talking about 23 years of conservative neglect by the Liberal-National Party Government in Victoria. Again , I do not know what the honourable member is talking about. I have been involved in a particularly distressing case in my electorate where an elderly person suffering an acute stomach disorder failed to gain admittance to a bed in the Maroondah Hospital. Sadly, the patient concerned subsequently died and the hospital, at my request, mounted a full inquiry into the case. I am quite satisfied that the hospital was not responsible for the subsequent death of my constituent but I am concerned at the shortage of beds which involved the hospital staff in making difficult decisions when hospitalisation was sought for more patients than there were beds available. The circumstances of the death of my constituent should be related because they indicate the serious deficiencies in our health system which, as I said before, is a result of the irresponsible neglect of Liberal-National Party government at both State and Federal level. On 13 February my constituent was examined by a locum medical practitioner attached to a medical clinic near the aged persons hostel where she lived. The locum referred my constituent to the Maroondah Hospital in East Ringwood but made no request for her to be admitted to the hospital. However, after the referral had been made my constituent became more seriously ill. The locum general practioner was unable to visit my constituent at the hostel where she was residing but did arrange for an ambulance to convey her to the Maroondah Hospital's out-patients department. The administrator of the hostel also telephoned the hospital to advise that the patient would be travelling by ambulance. A medical examination was conducted of the patient by both an intern and the specialist surgeon. At the conclusion of the patient's appointment, a further appointment was made for one week's time and she was returned to the hostel by ambulance. The hostel, the medical clinic to which the locum was attached and the acting hospital welfare sister were all advised of the patient's condition. However, as the patient was not well on her return to the hostel a medical practitioner attended her and prescribed anaesthetics. The staff of the aged people's hostel, whilst not having any formal medical or nursing training, provided a good standard of patient care for the following seven days. However, despite the care of the hostel staff the patient's condition worsened and she was admitted to the hospital on 20 February and died later that day. As I have explained before, I am more than satisfied with the investigation conducted by the hospital and I am satisfied that no negligent circumstances occurred. However, it is a fact that the Maroondah Hospital is in the continual crisis state of not having sufficient beds for a hospital of its size. The aged people's hostel concerned had also requested hospitalisation for another resident two days prior to the case in question. That resident had to wait 24 hours before a bed was available. The hospital management has constantly drawn attention to the inadequate number of public nursing home beds in the area, and in many cases nursing home beds in the Croydon area were being occupied by people who had originally been residents of other suburbs of Melbourne. One of the main problems affecting the Maroondah Hospital is the extreme shortage of acute beds. There is also the general problem of a shortage of nursing beds in the Federal electorate of Casey, where the hospital is located, and in my electorate of La Trobe, from which many of the patients are also derived. What is of most concern to me is the fact that the lack of hospital facilities is hitting elderly people such as my constituent . I cannot emphasise enough that people in the latter years of their lives-this lady was in her eighties-should receive more help from governments. Having commented about the severe lack of some medical facilities in some public hospitals in the outer eastern region of Melbourne, I turn now to the inordinately high fees which are charged by many medical practitioners. Recently published statistics undertaken by Dr Richard Taylor in Community Health Studies , which is the journal of the Australian and New Zealand Society for Epidemiology and Research in Community Health and the Australian Public Health Association-I see that the honourable member for Mackellar has heard of that journal-show that private doctors are the highest paid community in Australia. Private doctors received three to four times the average income of salary and wage earners at the end of the 1970s. A copy of a letter sent to me by a constituent of mine, Dr Dorothy Oliver, is worth quoting in respect of these statistics. Dr Oliver states: Richard Taylor's study on doctor's incomes, on the front page of The Age today is a great contribution to the public debate about medicine. However I believe it requires some additions-it leaves out unemployed doctors and those making a marginal income in locum services (possibly not taxable). Even the Doctor's Reform Society on whose Victorian Committee Richard Taylor and I have both sat, tends to forget these people. On becoming unemployed (i.e. leaving a non tenured position in the salaried area of medicine three years ago), I set up a general practice only to find the changes in the medical system since I graduated thirty years ago made it difficult to set up a financially viable general practice in Melbourne. My particular skill in medicine is family counselling and in general practice I believe in a maximum emphasis on lifestyle, diet, exercise, etc. and a minimal emphasis on drugs. The archaic Medical Board Guidelines were and are still in force and I was unable to advertise these skills. The economics are simply these-The government scheduled fee for a consultation up to twenty-five minutes is $13, and allowing fifteen minutes a patient*-$13 x 15 minutes x 35 hours per week*$1820-of this $400 is needed for expenses. But new Doctors are not able to break the medical monopoly and a majority of our population has been introduced into drug based medicine and the profession has become subservient to a general public asking only for prescriptions. Obviously this has increased the wealth of some doctors. The important point I believe that The Age has missed here about Richard Taylor 's position (see his book 'Medicine out of Control') is that doctors will eventually sell themselves out as genuine advice givers in the community. It is not bulk-billing (with which I comply) but over emphasis on technology which is causing medicine's excessive cost to the community and negating medicine's original purpose to improve the Australian peoples health. Dr Oliver does a lot of worthwhile work in the community. It is important to note that not all medical practitioners are avaricious. Dr Oliver is an example of a medical practitioner who has suffered financially because she is willing to give up so much of her time to her patients and talk out their problems, which frequently do not require medication at all. The medical benefit schedule fees recently approved by the Deputy President of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission were more than generous in my opinion. The total increases granted this year range from 12.19 per cent for pathologists to 13.32 per cent for anaesthetists with general practitioners receiving a 12.79 per cent increase. As the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) commented, with these increases there is no justification for doctors charging above the medical benefit schedule fees. The increases operate from 15 June and if any of my constituents attend a doctor who does not bulk bill and find they are out of pocket after 15 June by more than the standard fee for consultation I recommend that they seriously consider finding some other medical practitioner who will offer consultations at a reasonable fee. Having drawn these important matters to the attention of honourable members, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(9.56) —The States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Amendment Bill is intended to remove an anomaly in the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 with respect to identified health grants. As the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has ably pointed out, that Act is due to run until 30 June 1985. This Bill is intended to allow the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to make regular payments to the States between 1 July 1985 and the commencement of operation of new legislation sometime later. I have particular interest in this scheme as a South Australian and as the representative of a rural electorate. Listeners will understand that my interest stems from the fact that, from the introduction of the 1981 Act, special provisions were made for South Australia and Tasmania, where previous hospital cost-sharing agreements were to continue until the end of the 1984-85 financial year. These changes follow the findings of the Jamison Commission of Inquiry into the Efficiency and Administration of Hospitals. With the introduction of Medicare from 1 February 1984, additional health grants were to be paid to South Australia equal to the amount that that State would have received under the hospital cost-sharing agreements during the period in the absence of Medicare. An amount of $61.7m was provided to South Australia for that purpose in the 1983 Budget. In other words the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) promised to maintain the status quo in the funding of hospitals in South Australia despite the introduction of Medicare. As a consequence, the South Australian Government was given money to do just that. To confirm this stated intention, 1983 Budget Paper No. 7 emphasised that the Territory or State governments are not financially disadvantaged by the introduction of Medicare into their public hospital systems. I take up the call by the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Ian Robinson), who expressed real concern over hospital financing. The Hawke Government might have ensured that governments would not be financially disadvantaged. The Hawke Government did not say who would be disadvantaged. In South Australia it is the people, particularly the country people, who have been misrepresented by the Federal Minister, who is, as the House will appreciate, a South Australian. This Bill is an opportunity to right that inequity. But the opportunity to right that inequity is being lost. I would not be surprised if the decision that was taken in South Australia and which so affected South Australia was taken in conjunction with the South Australian Minister for Health, Dr Cornwall. The House will know that Dr Cornwall is that notorious South Australian Minister who -- Mr Groom —Is he a real doctor? Mr ANDREW —He is not only not a real doctor but he is the Minister for Health in South Australia who has earned a reputation for being both unpredictable and fractious. Honourable members will know that it was Dr Cornwall who last week achieved something that few other politicians in Australia have achieved when he survived a no confidence motion in Parliament carried against him. The irony of that is that the Premier of South Australia, Mr Bannon, in defending his Health Minister said, as reported in the Australian of Saturday, 5 May, that the vote was not 'constitutionally binding' and therefore he would not ask Dr Cornwall to stand down. So we have, I suggest, a conspiracy by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) , the South Australian State Premier and Federal and South Australian Health Ministers against rural patients in South Australia. If it is not a conspiracy, one or more of those four Ministers is perfidious. The Bill before the House gives an opportunity to correct an inequity that will not be corrected unless the Bill is amended. The honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) said that we have lost sight of the fact that the Government has changed, that we in opposition have lost sight of the fact that things have changed and that Medicare is part of that change. I say to the honourable member for Stirling and to the House that the Opposition needs no reminder of that fact . Those in my electorate, particularly those in country hospitals, are all too painfully aware of some of the changes that have occurred as a result of Medicare funding. Mr Hawker —You are not on your own. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Wannon is quite right because the things that so direct affect the country hospitals in South Australia also affect the bush hospitals in the honourable member for Wannon's Victoria electorate. Tonight let me give the facts for South Australia. In non-metropolitan South Australia, there are three types of hospital-public hospitals, country recognised hospitals and private hospitals. Dealing first with private hospitals , there are five in country South Australia at Ardrossan, Kadina, Moonta, Keith and Mallalla. Each of these has been placed in the category C level of private hospitals. That means that a patient who has basic private hospital insurance attracts benefits of $100 per day. This comprises hospital insurance fund payments of $80 plus a Commonwealth subsidy. Four of these private hospitals are in my electorate; they are based at Ardrossan, Kadina, Moonta and Mallalla. As I have intimated earlier, there are also many bush hospitals in Victoria and New South Wales represented by members on this side of the House. All of these hospitals are serving local communities, giving local health care and are occupied by local taxpayers. But, if this Bill proceeds and this Government has its way, they will be unavailable to the people who currently support them. If a patient entering one of these private hospitals has not taken out basic private hospital insurance, he will become in debt to that local hospital. He will be not only ill but also in debt. He is the very patient who the Prime Minister tells us is adequately covered by Medicare. That patient has one of two alternatives. First, he can seek treatment as a Medicare patient in the nearest public hospital, but in rural South Australia, and in the seat of Wakefield, the nearest public hospital could well be up to hours away and there is no public transport in an emergency. Otherwise, he can pay the bill from his own pocket. The categorisation of these private hospitals as category C is in fact an attack on local communities. What in fact has been done is to say to these local communities, which are already paying the Medicare levy of one per cent and who are already paying taxation-the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has found it difficult to specify how much-in order to jack up the Medicare scheme, will now have their hospitals closed. We are not talking about hospitals that are run down or neglected. We are talking about hospitals of which local rural communities are proud. We are talking about hospitals that are up to date, that have modern equipment and are serviced by resident doctors. But these are to be closed. I speak with some passion at this point because I visited these hospitals in my electorate. I would like to draw particular attention to the Ardrossan hospital which is located on a main highway, provides a real service to the people of York Peninsula and is currently under threat of closure. The sad thing about this is that we are talking about local community based hospitals. We are talking about this in a community that is already directing its attention to health care that is more home oriented. But we are proposing to close these hospitals and take this health care further from the home base. In an age where we are talking about having babies at home, we are proposing to take the opportunity for local maternity care further away from the family situation. Everyone in this House is aware of the fact that much of the healing process occurs when people feel at ease and at home in a local community hospital. Those local community hospitals are under threat of closure from a scheme to be known as the universal health scheme and called Medicare. The Prime Minister has had the hide to say that consideration will be given to reclassifying those hospitals that are in need. I want to say to the House tonight that all of these community based hospitals are in need and this need is particularly acute in private hospitals in country areas. I hope the Minister will explain who is responsible for this shabby treatment of rural patients in South Australia and, as has been indicated, in rural Australia. More importantly , I hope the Minister will recognise the validity of the Opposition's argument and promptly make appropriate additional amendments to the legislation we are debating. Furthermore, I hope the Minister for Health will come clean and make it clear whether it is his intention to destroy these five remaining country private hospitals in South Australia. As I outlined, there is another category, that of country recognised hospitals. During 1975 when the original Medibank arrangements were coming into operation, the South Australian Government offered the small community owned country town hospitals the opportunity to accept country recognised hospital status. In such a situation the hospitals would be de facto public hospitals and at that time be part of the hospital cost sharing arrangements. Every country hospital, except those at Kadina, Moonta, Keith, Ardrossan and Mallalla, accepted the offer. To all intents and purposes these hospitals are now public hospitals; therefore, they offer all the same Medicare benefits as metropolitan public hospitals. However, as the honourable member for Mackellar has already so ably pointed out to the House, there is a tendency for hospitals in small country towns to accommodate many long term, often elderly patients. Therefore, the 35-day rule affects them. For example, if after 35 consecutive days a patient becomes a nursing home patient, he must contribute $10.95 per day from his pension. It is essential where country nursing homes are based that there also be a nearby, preferably not neighbouring but adjacent, country hospital to offer the sort of intensive care that is sometimes needed in the nursing home situation. The other way in which country recognised hospitals have been affected by Medicare is that now a very large proportion of their patients are public Medicare patients rather than privately insured patients. It has also become apparent that many patients entering public hospitals as free Medicare patients are actually insured for private hospitals or to be a private patient in a public hospital. These people are apparently not exercising their opportunity to claim from funds, firstly, because there is much less paper work than in claiming from funds when one is a public patient and, secondly, patients do not want to use up their 60 or 75 days in a private hospital unless they have to. Of course, such actions are also saving hospital insurance funds a great deal of money. The Bill before the House further contorts the Medicare muddle. In considering this Bill the Opposition has supported the Government in order to allow the allocation of necessary funds. My plea is for a reconsideration of the impact of the results of Medicare funding on rural Australians and particularly category C and bush nursing hospitals. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending approrpriation announced. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Duffy) read a third time. Mr CHYNOWETH(Flinders) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CHYNOWETH —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —He may proceed. Mr CHYNOWETH —The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) stated that all bush nursing hospitals were in National Party of Australia or country electorates. There are two in the Flinders electorate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders must explain how he personally has been misrepresented. Mr CHYNOWETH —I believe that I have been misrepresented in that the honourable member stated that I and the Australian Labor Party did not represent any bush nursing hospitals. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member has not been named; therefore he has not been personally misrepresented. Debate resumed from 2 May, on motion by Mr Uren: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.12) —The Opposition gives its full support to the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Amendment Bill 1984. The Opposition also welcomes the opportunity of participating in a fuller debate on local government as this is the first opportunity this Parliament has had available to it since Labor entered into government on 5 March 1983-over 14 months ago. Because this is a rare opportunity and because of the importance of local government's 838 authorities throughout Australia, the Opposition firstly condemns the Government for its original intention of introducing this Bill with another for cognate debate and, now that the Opposition has forced its separate debate, the severe limitation in the time allowed by the Government for that full debate. It was interesting that during the course of this afternoon the Government was shamed into a further and wider debate on migration. It is not prepared to have a wider debate on this very important subject of local government. One wonders what local government has to do to be the subject of a significant debate in Parliament. Does it have to call rape or murder, or does it have to say it has been plundered by its brother governments? This indicates to me that for too long the media has given very little preference to local government in regard to what it believes are newsworthy items. One wonders, again, how the Government can be shamed into holding a fuller debate on this very important sphere of government. The Opposition firmly believes in the principle of local government as an important and necessary part of government in Australia. Its 10,500 elected representatives throughout the Commonwealth perform almost in a volunteer and unpaid capacity in providing those services so close to the interests of the constituents. For those reasons alone this Bill deserves the fullest debate by this Parliament-an opportunity denied it for the past 14 months except for the matter of public importance introduced by the Opposition on 8 September last year. It has been the Opposition over the 14 months of the Labor Government that has consistently brought to the Parliament's attention the shortcomings of its performance in regard to local government in relation not only to its promise but also its own policy. In its first Budget of August 1983, the Government had the opportunity to honour its policy in respect of real term guarantees, and I wish to quote from its own policy document in this regard: Labor will allocate annually at least 2 per cent of the federal personal income tax as a general revenue grant to local government: The allocation in any year to be not less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. Mr Spender —Another broken promise. Mr BRAITHWAITE —It is another broken pre-election promise. Standing order No. 293 prevents all but 'the Minister' initiating an amendment to a taxation or money proposal. The Opposition will provide an in principle amendment to the second reading and invites the Government and the Minister to take the opportunity of further amending the principal Act to provide this measure of justice to local government throughout Australia as it itself promised and its policy provides. States of Australia have a minimum guarantee of a 1 per cent real term improvement yet local government, the third sphere of government, is not guaranteed even a retention of real values. The need for such an amendment serves as a notice to local authorities in Australia that in actual fact the Australian Labor Party has, firstly, no policy on local government; secondly, has a policy it does not intend to implement or, thirdly, has a policy it does not intend to publicise-that is, this Labor Government is leaning towards more centralist control over local government. The amendment to the principal Act is to ensure that payments of personal income tax made under the prescribed payment system of Division 3A of Part VI of the Income Tax Assessment Act of 1936 are included into the definition of gross personal income tax collections for the purposes of determining local government 's proportion of personal income tax sharing. It is expected to increase the grant to local government for the following 1984-85 by an additional $2m to $3m. Also, the amendment intends that while local govenment participates in the collection of additional taxes and penalty taxation, there will be deducted the amount of interest that the Commissioner of Taxation now is obliged to pay to taxpayers on tax refunds in certain circumstances when determining the net income tax collections. The principal Act was introduced into this Parliament in 1976 by the Fraser Government as evidence of its understanding of local government's need for an unconditional general grant to assist authorities in the financing of its many services at a time of high inflation when pressure was mounting against the rate payer, the traditional source of local government revenue. This government still has to learn the message that local government needs open, unconditional grants to provide the services that in many cases have been transferred from the Commonwealth-such as health, libraries, welfare, child care and aged care, just to mention a few. Tied grants, which the Minister will claim have now reached record levels, are not in themselves the answer, and certainly are not a substitute for the freedom of choice that councillors and aldermen are able to exercise in the spending of the general purpose grants. Local councillors see the needs at a local level more readily and clearly than does the Canberra politician or bureaucrat. It is for that reason that the legislation of 1976 was the biggest break-through for local government since its inception, because the Commonwealth recognised its liability to local government in the form of that personal income tax sharing grant. Prior to that, the Whitlam Government had provided untied grants to councils on a regional basis where there were disabilities which could be demonstrated and recognised. Through this avenue, local government became eligible for assistance to provide assistance to child care, arts, leisure and recreation, and were invited to participate in the Australian Assistance Plan and the regional employment development schemes. It is therefore regrettable that this present Labor Government has not sought to build on to these earlier successful initiatives of both Labor and Liberal-National Party governments by maintaining the real value of the grants from year to year. Yesterday the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) complained in the House that notices of motion had been given on many occasions, but they were not given the debate that some of them warranted. I have given many notices of motion in the House on local government matters that have not been given the benefit of any debate at all, so I wonder how interested the Special Minister of State is in getting this debate going. In one of those notices of motion I took the opportunity of pointing out to the Government that perhaps there should be a change in regard to the wording of the legislation itself to provide for its policy. It is to the shame of the Government that it has not sought to have that notice of motion debated or endeavoured to keep at least that part of the promise and policy of the Australian Labor Party to ensure that the allocation of general revenue grants to local government will not be less than the real value of the previous year's allocation. As a result of this Government's neglect, local government was denied $13m in the 1983-84 allocation as the Government allowed the real value of the grant to diminish by 3 per cent in that year to below the value of the 1982-83 grant. I believe it can be described as a win for the Treasurer (Mr Keating) over the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren) in what can only be described as a miserable, penny-pinching exercise. These differences resulted in a further delay before the grants were quantified and distributed and local government authorities lost not only the $13m but interest as well on the delayed payment of the grant. It will be very interesting to see just how much conscience this Government and its back bench members have and to see whether the Government is prepared to meet up to its obligations under its policies and promises. This particular promise certainly was not expected to be included in the handful of dollars sometimes snatched back after a successful election, something which Mr Hawke said in yet another discredited pre-election promise would not happen. I believe that promise was thoroughly understood by local government to mean that there should be a matching of real values. Even before preparing for this debate, I could predict the Government's hollow responses, particularly drawing on certain prepared statistics on tied grants from the 1982-83 Budget. The same programs that are used to bolster the Government's local government argument on funding are used over and over again by the Government in other quarters. The community employment programs in the Commonwealth Employment Service are also used, as are the jobs on local roads program in the transport area, the local airport ownership program in the aviation area and so on. This is probably the worst case of double standards and double accounting that this Government can be charged with. The unfortunate fact is that the Government is only fooling itself, certainly not local government. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table used by the Minister for Territories and Local Government in the presentation of the 1983-84 Budget. I have had its incorporation approved by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy). Leave granted. The table read as follows- SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COMMONWEALTH GOVERNMENT PAYMENTS TO OR FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES, 1979-80 TO 1983-84 ($ thousands) 1979-80 1980-81 1981-82 1982-83 1983-84 States Local government tax sharing grant (a) 221,739 300,786 350,865 424,486 459,336 Direct payments- Nursing homes 1,076 1,488 2,401 2,995 3,842 Home nursing 394 411 518 678 767 Aged/disabled persons' homes 1,979 3,210 3,956 7,799 9,627 Aged/disabled persons' hostels 282 1,412 469 220 150 Delivered meals subsidy 885 1,349 1, 668 1,848 1,976 Handicapped persons assistance 47 . . . . 236 133 Children's services 6,894 9,721 11,503 15,482 26,279 Community Youth Support Scheme 847 . . . . . . . . Homeless persons' assistance 8 15 . . 25 228 Subsidy for migrant aid . . . . 8 31 34 Arts 81 126 303 308 367 Aerodrome local ownership plan 3,439 3,952 6,364 29,564 44,700 Total direct payments 15,931 21,684 27,190 59,185 88,103 Other payments through States- Assistance for Exmouth Shire 352 . . . . . . . . Community health facilities 543 558 . . . . . . Home care services 4,226 4,331 4,098 5,892 5,939 Senior citizens' centres 4,097 4,881 4,720 7,742 7,895 Children's services 4,744 5, 658 5,029 4,898 n.a. Urban flood mitigation 762 126 . . . . 4,120 Urban water supply 250 250 . . . . . . National estate 402 393 298 413 (b) 420 Roads 131 ,420 141,866 167,307 177,983 (c) 291,100 Urban public transport 63 . . . . . . . . Wage pause special employement program . . . . . . 2,923 (d) 51,485 Total other payments 146,967 158,063 181,452 199,851 360,959 Northern Territory Local government tax sharing grant (a) 1,062 1,440 1,680 2,033 2,200 Direct payments Delivered meals subsidy . . . . 2 3 3 Children's services 298 246 295 443 491 Arts . . . . . . 14 n.a. Aerodrome local ownership plan . . . . . . . . 600 Total direct payments 298 246 297 460 1,094 Other payments through the Northern Territory Government- Children's services 2 10 3 11 n.a National estate . . . . . . 3 n.a. Roads 519 750 818 876 12,100 Wage pause-special employment program . . . . . . 476 768 Total other payments 521 760 821 1,366 12,868 Community employment program- general . . . . . . . . (e) 53,000 Country town water supply . . . . . . . . 16 ,100 Jobs on local roads (see above) Grand total 386,519 482,979 562,305 687,381 993,660 (a) The Local Government Tax Sharing Grants are paid, in the first instance, to the States/Northern Territory, but are shown in this table separately, because of their importance. (b) Estimate very approximate as calculated by applying the same ratio (21%) of the total State grant that was passed on by the States to local government in 1982-83. (c) Total moneys allocated to local roads from Roads Grants Act, Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program and Jobs on Local Roads (excludes 0.7 m JOLOR allocation to the A.C.T. but includes S.A.). (d) Includes some funds for community organisations which cannot be delineated from payments to local government. (e) Estimated at up to 2/3 of the $80m allocated nationally to local government and community groups. Sources: Derived from Budget Paper No. 7 1983-84 and Department estimates. Mr BRAITHWAITE —I shall now quote comments of Mrs Cutts, the Director of the Australian Council of Local Government Associations in Local Government Administration of December 1983 on local government doubts about tied grants. Mrs Cutts stated: Local Government won't say no to offers of specific purpose funding, but the dangling carrot must not be taken at the expense of the revenue sharing arrangements which provide for a share of taxpayers' funds to reach all councils according to an equitable distribution process. Why the reluctance to pin too much reliance on tied funding from Federal sources? Experience has shown that a Federal Government can perceive increased tied funding as a substitute to untied funds. Tied funding tends to distort local priorities. With program life being either short or unspecified, councils feel vulnerable. They fear that community expectations will be raised unrealistically as to the council's capacity (i.e. the local community's capacity) to continue to provide the service once Federal funding is restricted. Tied funding implies a centralised submission assessment process and Local Government is dubious of the capacity of Federal Bureaucrats to accurately assess relative claims for assistance by local communities across the continent. The community employment program is an average example of the effects of these tied grants where the guidelines are given to achieve the Federal Government's objective of seeking local government sponsors in high unemployment areas to employ a defined category of those unemployed. The necessity of having to choose that special category of men and women and the mix mean that this expenditure of funds is not as efficient, economic or productive as the means by which local government carries out its own programs in accordance with its own priorities. Mrs Cutts' response to the CEP initiatives was: Yes, we are very sensitive to the impact of unemployment on our local communities, and yes, we will endeavour to re-order either our revenue or expenditure priorities in order to find the resources to buy into the scheme but if you were to give us an equivalent additional untied grant through the revenue sharing arrangements, we could create new employment oportunities far more successfully than will be possible under the complex provisions of the CEP. I refer to the chart I had earlier incorporated in that the claim is made by the Government that the expenditure to local government increased from $687m to $994m or by 45 per cent against an inflation rate over the past 12 months of 11. 2 per cent. In 1982-83, the general purpose grant was 62 per cent of the total grant. In 1983-84, this grant reduced to 47 per cent of the total grant. This comparison shows the massive shift from the desired goal of local government to have a greater proportion of untied grants to the achievement of the preferred result of a central government of tying up grants so as to make local government more dependent on Canberra. Let us look at the result of expenditure on the aerodrome local ownership plan. This is not distributed to local government in all circumstances. Again, it is an example of the manner in which political licence is exercised by this Government in order to describe its program. In fact, a large proportion of the expenditure last year and this year would have been to the Cairns Port Authority which is not a local government authority in itself. The point is, however, that the Cairns Port Authority found after the opening of the international airport that the security police were to be withdrawn and the Authority now has to suffer the expenditure of employing and paying its own security force. That is just one of the many continuing items of expenditure made necessary through the receipt of a tied grant and obviously not disclosed during the negotiations. On examination of the graph, one looks at the direct payments and appreciates how far local government has moved from providing property-related services financed through rates on land to providing community or people-related services , such as health and welfare. Of this year's allocation health and welfare services are to receive $4.9m; aged persons homes and centres, $17.7m; home care , $8m; child care, $26.4m; arts and national estate, $0.79m; airports, $44.7m; and special employment programs, $104.4m. The Northern Territory receives additional amounts to the extent of direct grants of its own of $14m. Apart from roads and water programs which traditionally receive direct grants and are treated accordingly, these services, if examined carefully, are responsibilities of the Federal Government, constitutionally and financially. So why all the fuss about the great generosity of Government when it is paying that for which it is constitutionally responsible and is delivering these programs through the courtesy of local government participation. These tied grants or direct payments do not include the total cost of these programs, either capital or recurrent, in the hands of local government. More and more, local government has been called upon to bear a greater financial cost in these Commonwealth programs from its own rating revenue. Basically, it was partly in recognition of these extra and unascertained costs, that the Commonwealth entered into the personal income tax sharing arrangements, such funds being distributed through the States grants commissions on a formula that required a minimum distribution of 30 per cent on a population basis. Otherwise, it was entirely untied and free for local government authorities to use as they themselves found to be the most desirable manner in the interests of their constituents. It is interesting to note that at no time has there been an adequate inquiry into the proper share of Federal revenues to which local government is properly entitled for its discharge of Commonwealth programs. The PIT share, commenced at the rate of 1.52 per cent, increased in 1979 to 1. 75 per cent and in 1980 to the existing 2 per cent. Until the 1983-84 year, the formula allowed local government to participate in real growth of 36.6 per cent under the Fraser Government. Only in 1983-84 were real values decreased by 3 per cent for the first time, which was significantly the action of this Labor Government. Apparently at no time has there been any justification of the percentage, by an inquiry to determine the adequacy of the grant. In the Budget of August last year it was announced that the Government had decided to appoint an independent committee to review local govenment financing, with particular attention to the operation of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976. Now nine months later the terms of reference and the membership of this Committee have yet to be announced. This is just not good enough. The delay of nine months already may well be seen as justice denied after expectations had been raised by the Federal Government. What concerns me about this proposed inquiry is that while it might examine the use of PIT funds by local government it apparently will do nothing to determine local governments' proper allocation of Federal revenues as a right. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr GROOM(Braddon)(10.31) —During Question Time today we witnessed and extraordinary outburst from the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent). We all saw how the honourable member became enraged and climbed over the front bench in the chamber hurling abuse and making threatening gestures at the Opposition. Fortunately the honourable member was restrained by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and was escorted by some of his colleagues from the chamber. I raise the issue now because I am most concerned that the Australian Associated Press report and other news reports of what was said by the honourable member both inside and subsequently outside the House, did not accurately describe what actually happened. The AAP report gave a totally false impression that the honourable member was reacting emotionally to what he falsely believed to be a racist-type approach on the part of the Opposition. In fact, the incident started when the honourable member for Hotham made racist- type remarks causing me and other Opposition members to react. The honourable member for Hotham called out across the chamber-I have a pencilled note which I made at the time confirming the comments he made: 'You brought them in, you brought the Asians in'. They are the exact words the honourable member for Hotham used. I considered those remarks by the honourable member- Mr Chynoweth —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Is it correct for the honourable member to claim that he had pencilled notes? Anyone can write anything down. I do not believe the honourable member should be allowed to say that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Chynoweth —I could write anything on a bit of paper and say you said it. Mr GROOM —Good on the honourable member! I wrote the honourable member for Hotham's comments down at the time. I can understand why the honourable member is so concerned. I considered the remarks by the honourable member for Hotham to be racist in nature and I called across the chamber: 'You're the racist. Those remarks are racist'. I repeated those words two or three times. The honourable member for Hotham clearly heard my words and I believe he was reacting to my remarks when he jumped over the benches and tried to get to the Opposition side. Mr Cunningham —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. We have just had a clear admission from the honourable member that he called another member a racist across the chamber. I suggest that that is unparliamentary language and that if he says that he has done this he should be made to withdraw. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. I call the honourable member for Braddon. Mr GROOM —The honourable member for Hotham clearly heard my words and I believe he was reacting to my remarks when he jumped over the benches and tried to get to the Opposition side. Mr Duffy —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. On at least three occasions the honourable member for Braddon has raised the point that he, subjectively, believed that the honourable member for Hotham said or thought something. On what basis can he be putting forward that sort of subjective judgment? Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no question of procedure before the House that can stop a member from thinking. I call the honourable member for Braddon. Mr GROOM —The real cause of the incident was, therefore, the racist type language of the honourable member himself rather than the tactics or conduct of the Opposition as news reports have suggested. I regret that I provoked the honourable member for Hotham by describing his remarks as racist, but I am sure that honourable members will understand, if they read his words, how his words could be so interpreted. The honourable member for Hotham is certainly not as innocent as news reports have suggested. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.36) —I wish to endorse the remarks made in this place last night by the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) when he spoke on the offset arrangements for industry. The Opposition has a disastrous record in relation to offsets. Very little effort was made to impose the conditions that were implicit in the orders that were given, and to that extent in excess of $600m worth of work is now owed to Australian industry. Some claims have been put forward that Australian industry is not interested in the offset business. I am sure there is some truth in those claims. The captains of this free enterprise industry whom the Opposition is so apt to laud have not been particularly effective. However, this is not generally the case. A quite considerable number of people who went to great efforts to participate in offsets were, I believe, treated very badly by overseas suppliers. The honourable member for Newcastle alluded to a particular company. I could name some myself. I make the point that as welcome as offsets are to Australian industry they are no substitute for joint venture participation. Tonight I wish to put forward a scenario which I believe is worthwhile considering. However, I think I ought to mention that, because of Australia's very poor record in the participation of offsets, it might be advantageous to ask the unions of this country whether they can look at the offsets that are available and determine in which areas Australia is capable of participating. I think that the unions may well have a better idea than those captains of industry. I now return to the scenario. I suggest that if this country is to prosper it must look at its defence expenditure and at overall needs in a complete context and not in isolation. Currently the Royal Australian Navy is looking at the purchase of a replacement helicopter. The choice has been narrowed down to two- the light Wessex Lynx Mark 3 or the medium duty Sikorsky Seahawk helicopter. There is a substantial difference in the price of these helicopters, not surprisingly because they are different types of machines. I think we ought to consider that probably the best anti-submarine helicopter in the world today is the Sea King, of which we have eight and which we are not using. The frigates for which we are buying helicopters envisage these helicopters to be observation, gunnery control, reconnaisance, communications type utility helicopters and not primarily anti-submarine helicopters. That role could be filled adequately by either the Lynx or the Sea King. However, the Sea King, being a heavy helicopter, would require $65m worth of alterations to our frigates which would make it an extremely expensive purchase. I suggest that consideration be given to purchasing a redundant ship from the Australian National Line and, at the Vickers Cockatoo Dockyard Pty Ltd, making that ship into a flat top ship which would be capable of carrying helicopters. I suggest that we put our Sea Kings to sea again to give our fleet enhanced submarine protection. All this could be done out of the money we would save by making the Navy buy the Wessex rather than the more expensive Seahawk Sikorsky. When it comes to defence we are not in the business of buying toys for the boys ; we are in the business of getting the very best value for the Australian dollar. I suggest that the best value for Australia is not just in what might be a marginally better machine but in the overall integration of Australia's needs. After all, ultimately the defence of this country will be in the hearts and minds of the people. I suggest that employed people have far more to fight for than unemployed people. Having made considerable savings in the purchase of the Wessex rather than the Sea King, we should then look to integrate its manufacture into Australian industry. The United Kingdom probably has the gratest expertise in the world today in this area of technology. I suggest that by marrying this expertise with Australian private industry and government participation we could have in this country a helicopter manufacturing industry that would be not only efficient but also export-oriented. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.41) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to some of the communication problems of the deaf. I am particularly pleased that the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) is present in the House and is able to take note of the matter to which I am about to address myself. I say by way of introduction that my representations to the Minister for Communications on behalf of the deaf in my electorate have been dealt with very promptly and favourably by the Minister. I am grateful for the Minister's assistance and for his continuing interest in this matter of upgrading telecommunications for the deaf. I was also greatly assisted in coming to an understanding of the problems of the deaf by Mr Lex Busch, who resides near Bairnsdale, in my electorate and who has two adult sons who were born deaf. There appear to be three problems in communications for the deaf. The first is the cost of teletex equipment which is needed to pick up, so to speak, the captioning some programs send out. By that I mean that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and some commercial television stations send out a signal which, if decoded by the teletex equipment, will provide a printed word on the television screen. It goes without saying that that is of great assistance to the deaf in their enjoyment of a program. Regrettably, it is very expensive. The Minister has been able to assist by freeing teletex equipment from sales tax. Previously sales tax on teletex equipment was 32.5 per cent. That has been abolished, which is certainly a step in the right direction. The second major problem is the amount of captioning that the ABC and commercial stations provide. At this time, due to technical and expenditure problems, I suggest that the amount of captioning is nowhere near satisfactory. I understand from the Minister that, at the moment, it is available in ABC programs only to the extent of some seven hours in Sydney and Melbourne. Only a few commercial television stations have captioning, most notably Carson's Law, Sons and Daughters and 60 Minutes. I urge the Minister and the Government to provide as much financial assistance for the establishment of better translators so as to provide the facility for increased captioning. The third major problem in communications for the deaf, if honourable members will excuse the long definition, is a Porta-Printer telephone typewriter, better known as TTY. This is plugged in to the phone and it operates like a telex. It costs over $600, and it is required that both the speaker and the receiver of the telephone have this equipment. Of course, there is no voice, but again it goes without saying that it comes out by way of telex. The equipment is expensive, and I have made representations to the Minister on that. I should add that the $600 is on top of the normal telephone installation charges and rental costs. The Minister is aware of this problem. He tells me that a one-third discount is available on rental and installation fees. Telecom Australia is aware of its responsibilities to the disabled, particularly, the deaf, and is working on increasing the range and availability of products. However, with respect to the Minister and the Government, I do not believe that we are moving fast enough in this direction. It is obviously a matter of great importance. In this space age I believe that we ought to be assisting in providing the disadvantaged deaf in our community with as many telecommunications facilities as possible. Mr REEVES(Northern Territory)(10.44) — In recent weeks a number of people have entered the debate about the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Some of the comments have been well motivate but some have not. While I do not agree with many of the statements made by Mr Morgan, I have to say that I respect his willingness to enter constructive consultations with Aboriginal groups and the Government over the issue. I believe the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) deserves credit for proposing this consultative constructive process. A few hours of consultation will, I believe, achieve far more than weeks of political mud slinging. Senator Kilgariff deserves praise for his statement supporting Mr Morgan and Mr Holding in this process. I note that at this early stage it appears that there have been some results from it. The Northern Land Council announced today that it was going to cut red tape to speed up the processing of applications for exploration on Aboriginal land. In contrast to these constructive and well intentioned statements, the outburst by the Northern Territory's Chief Minister reported in today's Australian is neither constructive nor well intentioned. Indeed, it appears to be motivated by a desperate attempt to find a scapegoat, an obsession with Canberra bashing and cheap political point scoring. This outburst hurts the Territory, its mining industry, its people and its prospects of maintaining harmonious race relations. It normally would not deserve a reply, but I think some of the more extreme claims should not stand unchallenged. Let me deal with three of the major claims . I deal firstly with the question of the freeze. The article in today's Australian states: The Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, Mr Everingham, rekindled the land rights issue yesterday with an astonishing attack on three federal admin- istrations . . . Mr Everingham made it clear the Territory blamed the Federal Government and the previous Fraser and Whitlam administration for 'using Aboriginal land rights as the vehicle' to cause a 12-year freeze on mining exploration and development on Crown land. I think the Chief Minister needs a lesson in history. Firstly, the freeze was lifted by his Government in December 1981, well before this Government came to power. So I do not see how he can be blaming us. Secondly, while the freeze was introduced by the Whitlam Government and maintained by it for two and a half years, it was kept in place by the Fraser Government for six years. As Mr Justice Toohey points out in his report, it is the freeze and not so much the Act that is apparently the cause of many of the problems experienced by miners in the Northern Territory at present. The Northern Territory Government had an opportunity to remove the freeze when it obtained self-government in July 1978. Indeed, it could have done that at any time between July 1978 and December 1981, when it finally did so. It let it stay in place for three and a half years. On top of that, the Country Liberal Party has controlled the Legislative Council or Assembly in the Northern Territory since 1974. It has had ample opportunity over all that time to persuade the Whitlam Government and later its political colleagues in the Fraser Government that the freeze should be removed, and it did not do it. So the Northern Territory Government wears the responsibility, if there is any wearing to be done, for the freeze and its adverse effects as much if not more than anyone else. The second factor is the Toohey report. The Chief Minister is reported to have slammed Mr Justice Toohey's recent review of the Act for having further entrenched and perpetuated its problems. On the contrary, I think the Toohey report set out some very good and constructive suggestions on how the Act might be improved. I do not agree with the Chief Minister. At the same time, I do not agree with everything in the Toohey report. The Northern Territory Government takes a strange approach to this issue. We have this morning's report of what the Chief Minister said and we have the Northern Territory Government's response to the Toohey report. Of the 47 recommendations of the 120 in the Toohey report that the Northern Territory Government addresses in its response, it opposes 12 outright. So only 10 per cent of Mr Justice Toohey's recommendations are opposed by it. It supports 35 of the recommendations. That is three times the number of recommendations that it opposes. Yet it says that this report, which it in the main appears to support, further entrenches and perpetuates the problems. The third area is the question of the disastrous effects on the mining industry . Let me give the House three reasons why the mining industry is suffering from the actions of the Northern Territory Government. The first is the failure to lift the freeze, which I have already mentioned. The second is the Northern Territory Government's 16 per cent profit royalty, which disadvantages companies that wish to develop resources in the Territory. The third-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McVEIGH(Darling Downs)(10.49) —During recent times we have had our attention drawn to the cessation of work at Parliament House, Canberra. There are other matters of equal importance. I refer to the go slow tactics employed by the Waterside Workers Federation at Perth in the export of fresh vegetables to Singapore, similar tactics at various ports in Tasmania concerning apple and pear growers and the hold up and go slow tactics in the loading of meat from the port of Townsville in Queensland. All these issues have a detrimental effect on primary industry in the sense that costs have to be met. But equally as important is the fact that overseas purchasers believe that Australia is not a reliable supplier. The problem of the fresh vegetables from Western Australia was drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I am disappointed that even as late as this afternoon he had not seen fit to reply to the telex which was sent to him. I believe it is appropriate to remind the Parliament that a good Prime Minister looks after not only the big things of the nation but also the small things. The reason for the go slow tactic is that the Waterside Workers Federation has taken over mechanics and electricians from other unions on the waterfront. It wants to give them exactly the same conditions in relation to superannuation as existing members of the Federation enjoy. A deal on superannuation payments was made with employers but this deal did not apply to new members of the union. There has been a huge loss in fresh vegetables in Western Australia costing up to $750,000. The ship loading at Fremantle has had to dispose of a lot of its cargo. That is a very serious disadvantage to the vegetable growers of Western Australia. The Apple and Pear Corporation has arranged a series of shipping to fill the vacuum in the markets in South East Asia, the United States of America and Europe. It is necessary to fulfil the shipping program otherwise Australian apples and pears will be in conflict with the produce from other countries. Held up are 1.2 million boxes and they are worth $15m. That is of great inconvenience to the producers of apples and pears. Similarly, the Ariake loading at Townsville has 4,500 tonnes of chilled and frozen meat worth an estimated $12m at risk. These are matters of very great concern not only to Australian primary producers but also to government. I can understand the concern of primary producers, particularly beef producers, at the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) going to Japan to try to get an increase in quota. The Japanese will say: 'You can't even deliver the amount of beef within the present quota because of go slow tactics on the Australian waterfront in places like Townsville'. The current disputes are a very severe setback to the efforts that are being made to convince the Japanese and the other countries I have spoken about that Australia can be a reliable source of supply. Even at this late stage I make a very special appeal to the Prime Minister to show the courtesy to respond to those telexes but, above all, in a spirit of consensus to talk with the Waterside Workers Federation and indicate to its members that they are Australians and they have fellow Australians with the same sorts of worries and concerns about their wives and families. They are putting their livelihoods at risk. They are not only causing fresh produce to be destroyed but also, more importantly, they are threatening the likelihood of Australia being able to obtain markets which are, unfortunately, always under threat from severe competition from other countries. It is not too late in the day. I understand that the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission has had a discussion on the matter. A decision has been made. The parties will confer tomorrow. If there are problems I make an appeal to the Prime Minister to exercise his discretion in the matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Hunter)(10.55) —Recently there have been a number of very serious disclosures and claims concerning many of the circumstances surrounding the atomic tests that were carried out in South Australia and particularly at Maralinga during the 1950s and the 1960s. I want to take the opportunity this evening very briefly to place on record a personal experience which I had during the 1950s in connection with those tests. During the Estimates debates in the House of Representatives on 4 October 1956 Mr Eddie Ward-who was then the honourable member for East Sydney-attempted to draw attention to what he referred to as bungling, which appeared to have taken place in connection with at least one of those tests at least. The test to which he was referring was that which occurred on 27 September 1956. Its code name was One Tree. The place was Maralinga and the type was a 'tower', which means the atomic device was exploded from a tower. The yield was identified as kiloton range. When Mr Ward attempted to raise that matter in the Estimates debate he was ruled out of order by the Chairman and was not allowed to proceed. He said: If I am not permitted to tell the Australian people during this debate what happened, I shall take the earliest opportunity of doing it inside or outside the chamber . . . Shortly afterwards, on 17 October, Mr Ward directed a question to the then Minister for Supply, Mr Beale. He referred again to what he considered to have been a bungle and he said in part that it had led to: . . . a panic instruction declaring a prohibited area for all aviation. He also asked whether the Minister would explain the reason for the order to aircraft in the area to which he had referred. Mr Beale answered that there was no grounding of aircraft. Mr Ward said that there was. Mr Beale repeated that there was no grounding of aircraft and said: Not a single aircraft was grounded or diverted. I want to draw attention to the fact that there was a grounding of aircraft. I know that that occurred because there was a series of four Notices to Airmen- Notams-upon which Mr Eddie Ward based his concern on that occasion, which I personally as a young teacher in western New South Wales-in Broken Hill- forwarded to the then Leader of the Opposition, Dr Evatt. Undoubtedly Dr Evatt then referred those Notams to Mr Ward, who took the issue up. The Notams appear to indicate that the explosion was intended to take place on 9 September because all flights of civilian aircraft through the area were subject to approval by air traffic control. The explosion did not take place until the 27th, when further Notams were issued prohibiting flights at all altitudes wihtin the area defined by map references. I have taken advantage of the opportunity to plot those roughly on a map. The first Notam requires approval of flights in an area surrounding Maralinga and covering most of South Australia. When the actual explosion took place, it is quite clear, from the map reference, that that atomic cloud extended over a large part of South Australia. It intruded into south western Queensland and into north western New South Wales , including apparently the city where I was at the time, Broken Hill. It was a very significant area which was undoubtedly covered by an atomic cloud which resulted from that explosion at Maralinga on 27 September 1956. Finally, I draw attention to the fact that while Mr Eddie Ward's credibility was questioned by the nature of the answer that was given by the Minister, Mr Beale, on that occasion, his question was based on matters of substance. I know they were matters of substance because I provided the information. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Young to present a Bill for an Act relating to the submission to the electors of proposed laws for the alteration of the Constitution. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act relating to reform of the Australian Public Service, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the employment of consultants and staff by Ministers, certain office-holders, Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to provide for the establishment of a Merit Protection and Review Agency and to define its functions and powers, and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Schools Assistance) Act 1983 and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1981 and the States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1983 and for related purposes. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the States Grants (Education Assistance-Participation and Equity) Act 1983. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National University Act 1946. Mr Dawkins to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Canberra College of Advanced Education Act 1967. Mr West to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Aliens Act 1947 and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to repeal the Australian National Airlines Repeal Act 1981. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, and for related purposes. Mr Beazley to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act relating to social security, repatriation and related matters. Mr Holding to present a Bill for an Act to preserve and protect places, areas and objects of particular significance to Aboriginals, and for related purposes. Mr Uren to present a Bill for an Act to amend certain laws in connection with the Act of Self-Determination by certain residents of the Territory of Cocos ( Keeling) Islands. Mr Willis to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 and the Conciliation and Arbitration Amendment Act (No. 2) 1983. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 8 May 1984: Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for disclosure of list of names and addresses-1984-No. 1-List of Queensland non- government schools for Commonwealth Schools Commission. Health Insurance Act-Statement of particulars of Ministerial determination made pursuant to section 106AA relating to-Dr Anthony Joseph, dated 30 March 1984. National Capital Development Commission Act-National Capital Development Commission-26th Annual Report, for year 1982-83-Erratum slip to paper presented on 7 December 1983. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1024) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: Has the Aboriginal Development Commission approved finance for the purchase of a hotel in Walgett, New South Wales; if so, (a) what is the name of the incorporated body that purchased the hotel, (b) what was the purchase price, (c) what decision-making procedures were adopted by the Aboriginal Development Commission to enable them to consider the purchase of such a property in Walgett , (d) were any feasibility studies carried out regarding the purchase of the hotel, (e) who was responsible for initiating the idea of the purchase of the hotel and (f) was there any consultation with the local Aboriginal community before the purchase of the hotel; if so, when did that consultation take place. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Aboriginal Development Commission approved finance in 1983 for the purchase of the Oasis Hotel/Motel in Walgett, New South Wales; (a) the hotel/motel was purchased by the Commission under section 28 of the Aboriginal Development Commission Act 1980 on behalf of the Barwon Aboriginal Community Limited, the representative Aboriginal organisation in Walgett; (b) the purchase price was $419,000, comprising $329,000 for the freehold title and $90,000 for the tenancy vacancy and licence; (c) the following procedures were adopted by the Commission in considering the purchase of the hotel/motel: (i) receipt of a submission from the Aboriginal community at Walgett; (ii) engagement of a consultant to carry out a feasibility study; (iii) engagement of a registered valuer with expertise in hotels/motels; (iv) engagement of an architectual firm to provide a report on the structural soundness of the building; (v) engagement of a firm of solicitors to carry out a full range of searches; and (vi) investigations by staff from the Central, Regional and Area Offices of the Commission. (d) as mentioned in (c), a feasibility study was carried out by a firm of consultants; (e) the idea of purchasing the hotel/motel was initiated by the members and directors of the Barwon Aboriginal Community Limited and endorsed by public meetings of the Aboriginal community at Walgett on 21 March and 17 May 1983; and (f) consultation between the Aboriginal Development Commission and the Aboriginal community at Walgett concerning the purchase of the hotel/motel began in January 1983 and resulted in a formal submission being lodged with the Commission in March 1983. (Question No. 1025) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the violence that occurred in the town of Walgett, New South Wales, after the opening celebration of a hotel in Walgett purchased by the Aboriginal Development Commission. (2) Is he able to say whether free beer and alcohol was provided on the opening night; if so, (a) how much free beer and alcohol was provided and (b) what was the cost of the free beer and alcohol. (3) Was there any damage done to Walgett town property on the opening night; if so, can he (a) provide details of damage done, (b) indicate what is the cost of damage done to these properties and (c) indicate who will pay for the cost of repairs to the property. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) My attention has been drawn to an incident which occurred at Walgett on 27 October 1983. (2) I am informed that there has been no opening celebration at the hotel/motel in Walgett. The incident referred to occurred on 27 October 1983 whereas the purchase of the hotel/motel was settled on 3 November 1983. The hotel/motel is being operated as a business enterprise, with no free beer or alcohol being provided by the management and a definite policy of no credit arrangements. (3) The question relating to the damage done to Walgett town property is a matter for local authorities. Both the Aboriginal community at Walgett and I share your concern in regard to the incident. (Question No. 1084) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, 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 Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Community employment program (CEP) projects have been developed within the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA) and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies (AIAS) for the employment of 50 Aboriginal women. As at 30 March, 45 females have been recruited by DAA and 2 females by AIAS. No males have been employed in the Department or statutory authorities under CEP during this period. (Question No. 1155) Mr McVeigh asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 6 March 1984: (1) What quantity of cheese was imported into Australia from the European Economic Community before a duty of $1,000 per tonne on Danish blue vein, German rinded edam and Dutch rinded gouda was imposed. (2) Was this duty later reduced to $800 per tonne and a larger range of cheese types included; if so, what was the range of cheese types. (3) Did the level of cheese imports increase to 19,740 tonnes in 1982-83. (4) Was the imposition of the duties due to the fact that the wholesale price in Denmark was $3,700 per tonne of cheese and the landed priced in Australia for the same cheeses was $2,800; if so, did this have the effect on one Australian manufacturing company-the Downs Co-operative Dairy Association, Toowoomba, Queensland-being forced to cut production of cheese made on its premises because of unfair competition from highly subsidised imports from the EEC. (5) What is the present position in respect of the effect of subsidised imports on this company. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) The rate of tariff duty on imports of blue vein, edam and gouda cheeses has remained unchanged in recent years at $96 per tonne. However cash securities of $1,010 per tonne for blue vein and $1,050 for edam and gouda were imposed on imports of these cheeses from certain EEC countries from 24 June 1983 to 17 November 1983. The imposition of cash securities equal to the level of subsidy estimated to be received by these cheeses followed a preliminary determination of injury by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) in respect of a complaint brought by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference (ADIC) against imports of these cheeses varieties from specified EEC countries. In line with established procedures cash securities were imposed pending the completion of the ACS inquiries and a final determination. Following extensive discussions, the EEC provided a satisfactory price undertaking which, by removing the element of injury, provided the basis for not proceeding to a final countervailing duty determination. The key features of the arrangement concluded with the EEC are: the EEC has agreed to manage export refund payment levels on exports to Australia with the aim of ensuring the prices of cheeses covered by the undertaking will be at a level which does not disturb the Australian market in contrast to the cvd action initially brought by ADIC, a very wide range of cheeses is covered by the arrangement including blue vein, edam, gouda, cheddar, colby, monterey, cantal, cheshire, wensleydale, lancashire, blarney, double gloucester, havarti, danbo, fontal, fontina, fynbo, maribo, samso and tilsit. EEC export subsidies have been reduced, on all these cheeses, initially by $800 per tonne from the level previously applying of around $1,000 per tonne The AIDC was closely involved in all stages of the discussions with the EEC concerning the cheese arrangement and have welcomed the agreement. Cheese imports from the EEC increased from 8,074 tonnes in 1981-82 to 10,066 tonnes in 1982-83 and from all sources from 16,832 tonnes in 1981-82 to 19,741 tonnes in 1982-83. As the new arrangement with the EEC only came into force in November 1983 it is too early for its impact to be indicated by official import statistics, bearing in mind that some EEC fixations at the old restitution rate apply until April 1984. (5) In respect of the Downs Co-operative Dairy Association, Toowoomba, Queensland, I understand that the company ceased manufacture of blue vein cheese for some 10 months but production recommenced in November 1983. (Question No. 1202) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 27 March 1984 : (1) Further to his answer to question No. 982 (Hansard, 28 February 1984, pages 143-4) have any (a) dumping complaints against imported cheese been lodged or (b ) arrangements to overcome dumping been implemented since those listed in the answer. (2) Is the price of the varieties of imported cheese listed in the answer monitored to ensure that the arrangements are being honoured; if so, how is this done. (3) What tonnage of each variety of cheese was imported (a) in the last 12 month period for which figures are available and (b) since the new arrangements began. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) and (b) I am not aware of any recent dumping complaint being lodged against imported cheeses but I am advised that the Australian Dairy Industry Conference (ADIC) has lodged a countervailing complaint against imports of swiss -type cheeses from Norway, Sweden and Austria. This is presently being investigated by the Australian Customs Service (ACS) in line with established procedures. (2) Following the conclusion of the agreement with the European Economic Community, the EC Commission implemented modified administrative arrangements for applicable exports to Australia. The EC established a separate reduced level of export subsidy applying to exports of most cheeses to Australia. These arrangements are monitored by the EC, in conjunction with the ACS. This includes the provision of documentation by the EC to the ACS on each applicable cheese consignment which, upon checking by Australian Customs authorities, is returned to the EC Commission and forms part of the Commission's internal control procedures. It should be noted that it is in the interest of the EC Commission to ensure that the new arrangements are conformed to by EC traders. My own Department monitors on a monthly basis the value and volume of cheese imports and, I am advised, the Australian Dairy Corporation carries out a similar procedure. Presumably the industry will be doing likewise. (3) The latest import statistics available are set out below. It should be noted that, due to various factors including the EC pre-fixation period at the old rate, any effect of the arrangement on the volume of imports from the EC may not show up until towards the middle of this year. AUSTRALIAN IMPORTS OF CHEESE FROM THE EEC (TONNES) (July/Jan.) 1982-83 1983-84 Processed- Cheddar 162.9 103.6 Gruyere . . 34.2 Emmenthaler 505.6 243.2 Pastes Spreads etc (b) 190.0 Other 910.1 433.1 Natural- Blue Veined 689.7 264.0 Camembert 792.7 456.0 Esron (b) 37.5 Other surface ripened (b) 343.0 Cheddar 69.3 306.7 Colby . . . . Egmont (b) . . Other Cheddar & Cheddar type (b) 55.0 Edam 1,892.4 741.4 Gouda 678.6 255 .3 Other Edam/Gouda type (b) 5.1 Fetta 507.2 317.2 Other White Brine Pickled type (b) 1.6 Parmesan 220.2 120.9 Romano (b) . . Other hard rating (b) 84.3 Mozzarella . . 0.3 Provolone 384.2 221.8 Kasseri 243.8 136.0 Other Stretch Curd (b) 251.5 Emmenthaler 36.0 36.6 Other Swiss type (b) 22.7 Harvarti (b) 438.0 Other Granular Brine Salted type (b) 2.4 Soft White Unripened type (b) 4.8 Whey Cheese (b) 1.4 Other Cheese 2,972.7 861.6 Curd 1.1 . . Total All Cheese (a) 10,066.6 5,969.5 Source: ABS (a) Totals may differ from sum of individual items owing to rounding. (b) Not available separately. (Question No. 1317) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) What changes to existing equal opportunities programs have been made in the Minister's Department since the 1983 general election in regard to (a) aims, (b) assessment procedures, (c) methods of ensuring that the aims of the program have been met, (d) procedures for union involvement and/or consultation in the program, (e) the involvement of the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau and (f) the priority rating of the program within the Department. (2) What is the cost of the Department's programs. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) There has been a general expansion and upgrading of the equal employment opportunities programs within my Department since the 1983 general election. The following are responses to specific aspects of this question: (a) Nil. (b) Equal employment opportunities criteria have been incorporated in departmental instructions and procedures for staff selection and development. (c) A departmental equal employment opportunity management plan has been developed and adopted, and is being implemented. This plan details the Department's equal employment opportunities program and measures to ensure implementation of the program. (d) The Department's equal employment opportunities plan includes arrangements for staff and staff association involvement and consultation. (e) There has been increased consultation with the Public Service Board Equal Opportunities Bureau as a widening range of equal employment opportunities initiatives and programs have been implemented. (f) The Department has upgraded its efforts in the implementation of equal employment opportunities objectives through the introduction of the departmental equal employment opportunities plan and associated programs. The equal employment opportunities program is considered to be an important and integral part of departmental personnel management. (2) The costs of the Department's equal employment opportunities programs have not been separately identified as the programs are being staffed and funded from within existing resource allocations.