Monday, 10 September 1984 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, in the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern that the NZ Labour Party is placing the future of ANZUS under great pressure; and (2) calls on the Australian Government- (a) to enter into immediate discussions with the US Government to protect our most significant treaty, and (b) to advise the NZ and US Governments that Australia will not hesitate to negotiate for bi-lateral arrangements with the US if there is acceptance of any of the NZ Labour Party proposals to alter the NZ commitment to ANZUS. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its strong support for the British National Union of Mineworkers and their leader, Arthur Scargill, in their valiant efforts to prevent the loss of jobs by their members, and (b) condemns the UK Conservative Government for using fascist tactics of intimidation and violence against the striking miners. Mr Peacock-Mr Speaker, I advise the Leader of the House that the Opposition will clearly make way for this matter to be brought on for debate, if he wishes. I know that he would not wish to gag one of his own members, so the Opposition will be happy to take it. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes that the average weekly wage earner was $4600 below the 46c-in-the- dollar tax threshold in 1979 and is now $300 over that threshold, and (2) condemns the Government for not having kept the Prime Minister's 1983 election promise that 99% of taxpayers would pay less tax under a Labor Government. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. I refer to his Press statement of 4 September attacking me for raising in parliament his choice of a doctor in a public hospital for a member of his family without private insurance. Did he make it clear in an interview with Ita Buttrose on Sydney Radio 2UE on 5 January this year that to have doctor of choice in hospital under Medicare one had to take out additional private insurance? Is this the rule that applies in all State capitals of Australia? Will he explain to the House why the hospital system in Canberra, for which he is ministerially responsible, extends this privilege without meeting the Medicare rule that he has set for all other capital cities? Dr BLEWETT —First of all, I indicated to Miss Ita Buttrose in that discussion that I would be perfectly confident were I or any member of my family to be operated on by a public doctor, that is, a doctor whose salary was fully paid by the public hospital system. Insofar as I exercised any choice at all in my daughter's case-as I said, the decisions were made mainly by my general practitioner-I indicated to him that I would prefer my daughter to be operated on by a public hospital doctor, that is, a doctor fully committed to our public hospital system. Of course, the reason the Canberra situation is different from that in most other capital cities is directly the responsibility of the previous Liberal Government which deliberately went out of its way to privatise the public hospital system in this city and as far as possible to remove public salaried doctors and replace them by private doctors. This means that in this city and, of course, in a large number of small country towns the arrangements for Medicare have had to be somewhat different from those in the capital cities. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —Can the Prime Minister inform the House whether the Australian Federal Police made a public complaint in 1982 about the level of resources available to fight organised crime? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. The House will recall that I indicated last Friday that the previous Government starved the Australian Federal Police of resources at a very critical period in the development of organised crime in this country, over which, of course, that Government had presided. The definitive statement of the condition of the Australian Federal Police under the previous Government was made in paragraph 19 of the submission by the Australian Federal Police of September 1982 to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts. I ask the House to note what the Australian Federal Police said in its submission in September 1982 when the previous Government was coming to its not lamented close. The Australian Federal Police said: At present, however, the unavailability of skilled resources in AFP divisions is a significant factor when determining the effectiveness of any concerted action taken to suppress medical fraud, or for that matter, any form of criminal activity. As I said, that was stated by the Australian Federal Police at a time when the previous Government was starving the Federal Police of resources. As I pointed out to the staff, in the last two years of that Government one of which covered that period, there were increases in staff of 1.1 per cent and 1.6 per cent. I remind the House that in our two years in government there has been an increase of 13.7 per cent. This shows that the present Government support for the Australian Federal Police has been very much stronger than that afforded by the previous Government. I also remind the House that the previous Government's refusal properly to give resources was at a time when it was giving aid and comfort to the tax avoidance industry. It did not learn because the country will recall the recent action of the now Opposition in giving further assistance to the tax avoidance industry in blocking essential tax legislation which is again costing the Australian taxpayer more than half a billion dollars in lost revenue. Having reminded the House of the refusal of the Opposition when in government to provide resources to the Federal Police, and of its presiding over the massive growth of the tax avoidance industry I suppose it is not surprising for honourable members to read today's Age. I remind the House that for those opposite what is said in the Age on these matters is very important; they rely on the Age. According to today's Age the Liberal Party was the beneficiary of one Mr Christo Moll. According to the Age the Liberal Party-Liberal Party members would not knock an Age report, would they-was the financial beneficiary of Christo Moll who left Australia some years ago following the commencement of a tax avoidance investigation of various Western Australian companies. What do we find in the Age about this connection between Mr Christo Moll, who was involved in this tax avoidance industry, and the Liberal Party of Australia? According to the Age, this is what we find: According to Mr Moll's version of the $10,200 cheque, a copy of which is held by 'The Age', it was made to 'cash' and the money was to have been passed on to the Liberal Party by a group executive, Mr Murray Quartermaine. The last part of the article states: 'The Age' also holds a copy of a second cheque for $5000 made out to cash, which Mr Moll claimed was another donation to the Liberal Party. As I said in this place last week, this Opposition wants to talk about crime and the Government. I merely want to say that the betrayal of this country by the Opposition when in government to the tax avoidance industry is matched only now by its monumental hypocrisy in this matter. I hope honourable members opposite want to keep on this tack of governments, organised crime and tax. Mr SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon a parliamentary delegation from the Japanese Diet led by Mr Hanashi. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members of the delegation. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr PEACOCK —Has the Minister representing the Attorney-General, or any other Federal Minister, read the first draft of the report of Special Prosecutor R. V. Gyles, QC? Is it not a fact that the report makes a nonsense of the Government's claim to be seriously pursuing tax evasion? Is it not a fact that the report is severely critical of the Australian Taxation Office? Finally, will the Minister table the Gyles report without any further delay and certainly before we go to any unnecessary premature election? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Leader of the Opposition always seems to have the advantage of getting these reports before I do. I certainly undertake to talk to the Attorney-General immediately about the Gyles report, which has not been brought to my notice. But the Redlich report, to which he was able to address questions last week, also had an interesting analysis, which I note he did not address his mind to, about how effective Redlich and his prosecutions were in respect of tax evasion and avoidance. It must certainly be a salutary lesson to members of the Opposition as to what could have been done in their term of office. One of the great tragedies of the past was the failure of the former Government to prosecute when it had a chance to do so. If we look at the history of Costigan and the whole of those reports we see that the former Government, of which the honourable member was a Minister, failed to prosecute at any stage over a period of years. The problem that this Government now faces is in trying to catch these crooks, many of whom have evaded their responsibilities and obviously have left the country. The distinguished honourable member for Bennelong is not exempt either when we look at Mr O'Reilly's report to him on tax evasion and avoidance, which we see clearly showed the mushrooming growth of what we call straw companies years before the Government was removed from office ; but nothing was done. What we have inherited is a massive evasion of tax. I am surprised that the honourable gentleman thinks that, by raising the question now , he can in any way suggest that the present Government is not anxious to recoup the losses that were incurred in his term of office. As my Prime Minister has said, on every occasion we introduce legislation into this Parliament to try to recover the bottom of the harbour tax evaded, it is opposed by the honourable gentleman and his group and it is defeated in the Senate. The real issue he should be addressing his mind to is this: The taxpayers of Australia have had to subsidise the tax evasion losses incurred by people whom the former Government could well have prosecuted and failed to do so . Mr TICKNER —Has the Minister for Finance in his capacity as Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Public Service Matters seen reports of speculation about the position of the Auditor-General, Mr Brigden? Can he inform the House of current developments in relation to this matter? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for Hughes for his question. I and the Government are concerned about the impression which has apparently got about that the Government is trying to put pressure on the Auditor-General. That has been mentioned in a couple of articles. I want to make it perfectly clear that the Auditor-General reports to the Parliament. It is not for the Government to hold any views about his performance or the appropriate time of his retirement. In fact, the Government's task is to make arrangements for the appointment of a successor to Mr Brigden when that becomes necessary. Mr Brigden's term does not expire until he reaches his retirement age on 25 June 1985. However, in December 1983 Mr Brigden advised the Chairman of the Public Service Board that it was his intention to retire in July 1984. On 24 January Mr Brigden formally advised Sir Geoffrey Yeend, the head of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, of his intention to retire in 1984 , preferably on or shortly after the anniversary of his appointment in July 1984 . The Prime Minister took action to seek a successor on 1 March, and on 2 April the Cabinet chose Mr Monaghan, then a commissioner of the Public Service Board, to succeed Mr Brigden on the occasion of his retirement. On 18 April Mr Brigden wrote to the Prime Minister deferring his retirement on a variety of grounds. Of course by that time the Government, acting on the earlier advice of Mr Brigden, had chosen a successor and needed to act to choose a successor to Mr Monaghan in relation to his position with the Public Service Board. On 11 May the Prime Minister announced the Government's intention to recommend to the Governor-General the appointment of Mr Monaghan to succeed Mr Brigden and on 24 August Mr Monaghan's appointment was confirmed by the Executive Council and announced, with the time of his succession to the position of Auditor- General to be at the time of Mr Brigden's choosing in relation to his retirement . I have met with Mr Brigden, explained the circumstances and indicated that the Government has no view at all about the appropriateness of the timing of his retirement. That is, as it always has been, a matter entirely for Mr Brigden. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister representing the Attorney- General. Is Mr Gyles being replaced by another QC to follow up his work on tax evasion? If he is not, how can the Government say that Mr Temby, whom we know has inadequate powers, can do the job that in any case fully occupied Mr Gyles as well as do his other work? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will take this question on notice, Mr Speaker, because I have not had a chance to discuss with the Attorney-General the matters which have now come to the attention of the Leader of the Opposition. I will do so and give the honourable member an answer later today. Mr Peacock —But you are pursuing tax offenders and tax evaders. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We have a very bad record to follow from the previous Government. Mr MILDREN —Will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what reaction to the Federal Budget he has received from the Australian community? Mr HAWKE —Mr Speaker, it will come as no surprise to you or to members of the House that we have had a very positive reaction. The Australian people very clearly welcome the very positive and constructive approach of this Government to the conduct of our affairs and also welcome, as they should, the very significant reductions in personal income tax which are reflected in the Federal Budget. Not wishing to rely just on our feelings and intuitions in this matter, it came as a matter of some solace to us to read today's Age and Sydney Morning Herald which carried the results of a public opinion poll on the people's reaction to the Budget. I am pleased to say that that poll shows that this Budget is easily the best received of any of the last five Budgets. Mr Goodluck —Does that include Tasmania? Mr HAWKE —Yes, as distinct from the honourable member for Franklin, we regard Tasmanians as Australians. I know that the House will be particularly pleased to know that only 19 per cent of people expect to be worse off because of this Budget. Let us compare that figure of 19 per cent with the huge 62 per cent of people who thought that the last Budget of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition would leave them worse off. That was his 1982 Budget. I suppose he thought that 62 per cent was a bit of an improvement, because in 1981, 73 per cent of people thought that the Budget would leave them worse off. Mr Young —And that is the one he leaked. Mr HAWKE —Yes, that is the one he leaked. Of course, all this shows that the Australian people are very perceptive. They realise that the Deputy Opposition Leader was a failed Treasurer of a failed Government which produced double digit inflation, record high interest rates, zero economic growth and another quarter of a million unemployed in this country. I am pleased to say to the honourable member that while the Opposition goes around preaching its peculiar brand of voodoo economics, this Christmas tree of spending promises and unlimited tax cuts, this Government delivers. It has produced an economic recovery that increasingly is the subject of comment in other industrialised countries. In that respect, I am sure that all members of the House will be very interested to notice the report in today's Australian newspaper which reports that, according to the influential Conference Board based in New York, the Australian economy is expanding much faster than those of all the other major Western economies. According to the report in today's Australian, an index of leading economic indicators compiled by the Board shows that Australia is growing at an annual rate of 15 per cent, a recovery more rapid, I remind this House and the Australian public, than any of the four previous recoveries in this country. It should be a matter of pride to all Australians, including those on the other side of the House, if they have any pride in their country, that Australia's inclusion in that index is a recognition by the international financial community of the growing importance of the Australian economy. It is interesting to note that it is reported by the Australian that one of the likely consequences of the Conference Board having put Australia at the head of the international growth table will be an increased United States interest in Australian business ventures. I conclude by saying in response to the honourable member's question that the Opposition Leader can go around the country as much as he likes desperately electioneering and trying to buy off every conceivable group in the country with irresponsible, totally outrageous promises because the simple fact is that while he talks, this Government is delivering the goods, the goods which show record growth and a country in which more and more Australians are able to get work and to have a share in its wealth. Mr LLOYD —I refer the Minister for Communications to his statement of 27 March announcing that the Government would crack down on starting price bookmaking and organised crime. Is the Minister aware that the Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, has reported that, 'in fact the Minister's statement did not amount to any such thing'? Did he, in fact, recommend to the Attorney-General that new laws be passed to make lawfully available to police forces access to subscriber call record printers or other necessary equipment to help them detect the operational headquarters of SP bookmaking rings? If the Minister did recommend such legislation, when was it made and what was the response of the Attorney-General? Mr DUFFY —I think it is important to understand from the outset that the letters received from Mr Redlich were not the beginning of this matter. Prior to those letters being received, a high level group of officials was established to consider material relating to Telecom Australia that had appeared in the Connor inquiry into the introduction of casinos in Victoria. Further, that group was investigating matters raised by Special Prosecutor Redlich in his previous report of 1982-83. That group included the head of my Department, the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the Managing Director of Telecom. At that stage, I anticipated advice from the group which had been working for some time on the matter when what had become known as the Redlich letters appeared. One of the letters to which Mr Redlich referred in his report was marked ' Confidential'. But, clearly, the classification of that material seemed to indicate to me that Mr Redlich intended the classification to be treated differently from a 'Confidential' classification that might be on a normal government document. I was somewhat perplexed by that letter because it made various allegations and suggestions of a serious nature. I do not know whether Mr Redlich expected me to stuff it up my jumper and forget about it. I therefore decided at that stage that it was imperative that I obtain advice on the matter. I immediately referred it to the permanent head of my Department. Subsequently, it was handed to the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police , the Managing Director of Telecom and the two key Cabinet colleagues involved in this matter, the Attorney-General and the Special Minister of State. Shortly before passing that letter on to all except the Secretary to my Department, to whom I passed it immediately, I received a phone call from Mr Redlich. I indicated to him that I intended to pass his letter to those people whom I have mentioned. I confirm quite clearly that he accepted my view that the letter should be provided in the manner that I have set out. Honourable members will know that Mr Vincent has commented on the use of the scrap machine. Mr Redlich says that broad allegations apparently had been raised with the Government about corruption in Telecom. Mr Redlich accepted that the review undertaken by Mr Vincent had sufficient terms of reference to allow him to cover the matters that had been raised by Mr Redlich. Furthermore, Mr Vincent invited by public notice submissions from any persons who wished to provide information to him. I note from the Vincent report-no doubt the honourable member for Murray and honourable members opposite who are interested in the matter will also note-when looking at the people who were interviewed, that Mr Vincent even took it upon himself to have discussions with journalist Mr Bob Bottom. There has been a detailed response to the scrap machine matter in the Vincent report. It will be noted that Mr Vincent has advised the Government that there are certain aspects of the scrap machine which he considers should be limited in their use. This matter is detailed in the Vincent report and is one of the matters which the Government is considering at the moment, arising out of the report. This week, there will be a detailed ministerial statement on the Vincent report, which will include a specific response to the matters raised about the scrap machine. Dr THEOPHANOUS —My question is directed to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In view of the fact that there is a continuing need for English language classes for migrants, what action has the Minister taken to expand and to improve the adult migrant education program? Mr WEST —This year, the Labor Government has allocated a record $43.7m to the adult migrant education program. A priority in 1984-85 is to allocate over $3m, in agreement with the States, to provide extra permanent teacher positions. Over the last two years, we have created or converted from casual 379 permanent positions. Of those positions, 201 were appointed last year and this financial year a further 178 will be appointed. It will be up to the State governments, through their departments of education, to make the appointments. At the teaching centres, in conjunction with the classroom activity, we have introduced a child care service which, together with last year's allocation and this year's allocation, will cost more than $1m. This child care service has already been established, and more than 40 locations are in operation throughout Australia in co-operation with voluntary bodies and child care organisations. That service is being implemented following consultation with the Office of Child Care, State child welfare authorities and a number of other bodies with expertise in child care. The Government has moved to increase the length of language courses in industry to 60 hours. In 1983-84, 4,400 migrant workers undertook a course in the English language at their work place through AMEP. We are advancing arrangements with the States to integrate the on-arrival and on-going phases of AMEP, to enable the more efficient use of resources by the States and to provide a better chance of continuity of study. Honourable members will be interested to learn that, nationally, 40 full time and 70 sessional bilingual information officers covering 25 community languages are currently engaged. We provide a survival English language course to meet the needs of those migrants who need to communicate in English about everyday matters. The number of students catered for by that arrangement has risen from only 3,050 in 1977-78 to 18,000 in 1983- 84. A further innovation in this Budget in the adult migrant education program has been the provision of $280,000 to create four new self-access centres and an intensive language course. We therefore now have 29 self-access centres in the service nationally. These provisions-that is, the self-access centres-are innovations to enable migrants to study English at their own pace under teacher guidance at a convenient time to suit the individual. We shall very shortly be updating agreements with the States covering the operation of the adult migrant education program. I shall be signing each agreement with each State Minister for education to provide revised administrative and co-operative arrangements so that AMEP is further entrenched in the Commonwealth-State co-operation process under clear and mutually accepted guidelines. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the honourable gentleman to the latest issue of Syntec, the respected economic commentary, and to a number of comments contained in that document on the current Budget and the outlook for next year. I remind him of the following quotations: The 1984-85 Budget actually worsens the public sector/ private sector imbalance . As this revenue growth rate falls away and the full year cost of this year's Budget measures come home, the Federal Budget deficit is set to rise sharply on a no policy change basis. Finally, I remind him of the warning that 'preliminary deficit cutting action in the Autumn of 1985' will be needed.In view of the Minister for Science and Technology having confirmed the accuracy of that last prediction by Syntec, will the honourable gentleman tell us which taxes will be raised in a Hawke mini- Budget next year if this Government is re-elected? Mr KEATING —The former Treasurer might have been run by Syntec, but I am certainly not and neither is this Government. If we are in the business of quoting advice, W. D. Scott and Co. Pty Ltd's latest economic advice to business is: The current budget deficit is not an issue in the sense that attempts to reduce the deficit further would have produced disastrous results. . . . The budget deficit is a result of this fact. The result would have led to an immediate wage push and the abortion of a strong and economic recovery. I could quote others. One of the most respected business economists, Don Stammer from Bain and Co. and a former Reserve Bank economist, has said: This Budget has a lot of balance and deserves many marks out of ten. Let me preface my remarks by saying that the former Treasurer asks questions about Budgets, about deficits and about economic policy when he has the worst economic record of any politician in the Parliament. This is the man who watched the Australian economy fall apart in front of his eyes for three years and was powerless. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks that admission is absolution. He thinks that the sheer admission of his failure together with the admission that the Fraser Government never had a policy, that the Fraser Government's economic policy was derailed and that the Fraser Government never had an incomes policy, absolves him from the sins he committed against the fabric of the Australian economy and against the Australian people in general. Mr Howard —Don't worry about my soul. What about the question? Mr KEATING —I will answer the honourable member's question. For the last three years that the Australian economy was in his hands, he was simply an economic commentator, as though he were an impartial person each day giving us information about the current day's bad news. That was his role in the last three years, in contradistinction with the role of this Government. The simple view of the former Treasurer is that deficits are all about getting the lowest possible deficit, not the right deficit or the most appropriate deficit. The other day he said that the Budget contained a mere $1.2 billion reduction in the deficit from the $8.5 billion growth in receipts, although to accept his proposition would mean no indexation of pensions, no increase for the States, no on-going costs for defence or any of the other demand driven or indexed outlays. It was an absolute nonsense which he has been speaking about now for a week. Let me just nail this fact. As a result of this Budget, this Government and the Australian people are perfectly satisfied, as indicated by the Prime Minister today when he talked about the latest poll, that this deficit is the right deficit for the economy at this state of its development from the disastrous hole those opposite left us in, and it will lead to a recovery and a strong pick up in private business investment. The Government did not work out what was the lowest possible deficit. We could have had a lower deficit with no tax cut, as the former Treasurer suggested. This is a deficit which we think is appropriate, which W. D. Scott and Co. thinks appropriate and which Bain and Co. and most of the financial community think appropriate. The judgment about the deficit in the Budget resulted, after the Budget was presented, in falling interest rates on secondary markets in the bond tender for $1,200m and in the short term market. There is no way that the former Treasurer can put his puny, emaciated and discredited views to this Parliament as though they have any force or credibility whatsoever. Mr Howard —What about next year? Mr KEATING —The former Treasurer is a failure and we will keep reminding people that he is. Let me tell him about next year: He was talking about next year. The other great lie parroted by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is that for some reason, having come from depression levels of receipts and got to this point, we shall in some way relapse into a depression level of receipts. That is not going to happen. That is why talk by the former Treasurer about next year's Budget is bunkum. If we are really talking about fiscal deterioration, what about the fiscal deterioration from 1981 of a Budget deficit of less than $1 billion to $9 .6 billion in prospect in 1983-84? He should not talk to us about fiscal deterioration. The Budget next year will be as sound as this year's and will get the approval of the public next year as will the Budget this year. Mr GORMAN —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction whether his attention has been drawn to a report in the media over the weekend that funding for the home deposit assistance scheme has been exhausted. Will he let the House know what is the present situation? Mr HURFORD —I can assure the honourable member for Chifley that I have seen that report, and I am grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of the House so that I can give some information about it. It needs to be made clear that the home deposit assistance scheme is the former Fraser Government scheme that was terminated on 30 September last. It is to be distinguished from this Government' s very successful first home owners scheme which commenced on 1 October 1983 and which has been greatly responsible for the recovery in housing construction. I am pleased to tell the honourable member that there are funds available for the previous scheme, as indeed there are for the first home owners scheme. As the Prime Minister said earlier in Question Time today, this Government delivers the goods; it delivers them on all programs, old ones as well as the present ones. There was a short hiatus period between the funds being made available under the appropriation for the 1983-84 financial year and funds being made available in 1984-85. But that hiatus period is over and $15m is available in the current financial year for the old scheme, just as $265m is available for our first home owners scheme. I do not believe that any hardship will have been caused. I remind the House as to applications related to those contracts entered into before 30 September last year that we are dealing only with applications put in very late in the day and people obviously did not need the money for their settlements. Anyway, they will now get what is due to them; and they will get it quickly because this Government delivers the goods. Mr O'KEEFE —I ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade whether he is aware of Korea's tough line on trade imbalance with Australia. Does this refer to Australia's iron ore and coal trade in particular? Can the Minister inform the House what steps are being taken to protect our trade and what negotiations are taking place with Korea on these important issues? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Our trade relationships with Korea are very satisfactory indeed. There has been some Press response to the question of developing country preference in respect of certain matters such as steel. Our market generally with Korea has been an expanding one, although this year there has been a reduction of beef to Korea because of that country being interested in advancing its domestic production of pork. Generally speaking, in respect of iron ore or such matters, our trade is doing very well indeed. I note the sensitivity not only of Korea but of all countries in respect of developing country preferences. The honourable member will also weigh up that matter in respect of what it means to Australia's trading position and our own production. In that respect I am talking about steel. We have a very substantial steel industry in Australia and we are looking at the question of an influx of imports that could well create a destabilising effect in that industry. The honourable gentleman himself comes from New South Wales and will be well aware of the fact that if we were not to have some marginal operation monitoring the situation in respect of imports we could well find massive retrenchments in industry, particularly in areas such as Wollongong, Newcastle and the like. I am sure the honourable gentleman will be well aware that what we do in terms of trade is always looked at in terms of balance. I think Korea has been able to say with a great deal of confidence that the raw materials it gets from Australia enable it, to its advantage, to go into secondary production, whether it be of steel or other matter, which it in turn exports. So there is no real danger to Korea in terms of its having the facility to get the raw materials from Australia at a very fair price. All that Australia is saying is that in terms of trade we do not want to be put in a situation in which, because of excessive import penetration, we in turn have an upset in our domestic production that can create dislocation in industry, particularly in provincial centres. The honourable gentleman will also know that last year's trading position was a record one indeed. From the overall positions of the Department of Trade, we turned a deficit of $800m into a credit of over $1 billion. That gives honourable members an idea of the situation. If we want to look at the fastest growing areas of markets we will find them particularly in Korea and also in Hong Kong and Singapore-basically in South East Asia. There has been a quite remarkable improvement in our trading position. The honourable gentleman, I know , represents a rural community and will be well aware of the problems facing Australia with overproduction. For example, in wheat, because of a pretty substantial wheat crop with a surplus still not sold from last year we are facing enormous competition-- Mr McVeigh —It is not sold; we cannot get rid of it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member ought to take an interest in it. We are facing enormous competition from the United States of America, Canada and the European Economic Community, which are subsidising their wheat sales on no- deposit three-year terms. What we are having to do as a government is to underwrite our wheat sales. I think last year we underwrote wheat sales to the extent of about $750m. The honourable gentleman will be well aware that there was a different complexion in years gone by because it was a question of actually getting foreign exchange and paying for it. We are now facing enormous competition in a number of these markets. But the Government is very supportive of the primary production area and has to get that balance right in the process of support. It should be understood that we are anxious to give countries preferences but that they cannot be maintained if they are going to destabilise the local manufacturing base. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Has the Minister for Primary Industry received the latest proposals by the Australian Dairy Industry Conference on marketing arrangements for the dairy industry? What is the present state of play with respect to the development of more up to date and realistic marketing arrangements? Is it possible to have any change to these arrangements in place by 1 November this year? Is the Government concerned about the possible breakdown of orderly marketing of milk throughout Australia which, if allowed to occur, could result in a loss of many factory jobs in rural Australia as well as the demise of many family farms? Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for McMillan for his question on this matter. The Government and I are very much aware of the current problems in the dairy industry. I have been working very hard at developing a reasonable degree of consensus within the industry and between the States on new dairy marketing arrangements. Unfortunately, the Australian Agricultural Council at the recent meeting in Townsville was unable to reach overall agreement on future dairy marketing arrangements and the industry itself has been divided. As honourable members are aware, the basic problem with the milk industry throughout Australia is that some dairy farmers receive 11c or 12c a litre for their milk and others receive 33c a litre. The regulation of the dairy industry is largely in the hands of the States. The international price situation, to which my colleague the Minister for Trade has just referred, applies, as well as to the wheat industry, in the dairy industry. The price of products on the international markets is now down to minimum prices under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The only instrument available to the Commonwealth with respect to dairy product pricing is the domestic value for levy purposes and, despite the fact that that has not been increased since December 1982, production in Australia has now risen to something approaching six billion litres. If we are to solve some of the dairy industry's problems, we need a more national approach to try to spread some of the revenue in the industry throughout the industry. I put to the Australian Dairy Industry Conference for consideration a proposal which incorporated key features of the industry's proposal itself and of the report of the Industries Assistance Commission. These included the establishment of a market milk committee and a levy on all milk to build export returns up to a level of 120 per cent of real export prices. I indicated to the ADIC that I would also take forward an entitlement scheme for consideration by the Government if a number of specific conditions were met; for example, broad industry support, full negotiability and simplicity. I am informed by officials of my Department and from what I read in the rural newspapers that the industry has reached unanimous agreement. All the States have reached unanimous agreement about a levy and entitlement scheme. The officers of the ADIC have met the officers of my Department, and this week officers of my Department are visiting all the States to see the State Ministers for agriculture and the dairy industry authorities or dairy corporations in the States, because the proposal from the ADIC, which has now been unanimously agreed to, very much involves the States in its administration. I inform the honourable member that I hope to receive a formal submission from the ADIC soon; but, regardless of that fact, I am moving as quickly as I can. Another part of the honourable gentleman's question referred to timing. That depends on how quickly we can get agreement with the States and with the industry on the full package of legislation. That would come into effect from 1 July 1985. There is a proposal before us, or a hope expressed by the industry, that a levy mechanism could be put in, without the full package of measures being in effect, from 1 November 1984. It would be pretty difficult, given the timetable of the parliamentary sittings, to get the legislation through this House and the Senate. But the industry certainly is very hopeful that a levy mechanism can be put in place. Even if a levy mechanism is put in place, that will not get away from the basic problem of international prices and production levels. In respect of the last part of the honourable gentleman's question, the potential for revenue loss to the industry if there is a disastrous outbreak of interstate trade is something that the Government has under scrutiny. All I can say at this stage is that I trust that the people setting out to destabilise the dairy industry and to rip tens of millions of dollars out of the industry's revenue are aware of the existing legislation. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 32(1) of the Inter-State Commission Act 1975, I present the Inter-State Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report to review localism policy in Australian broadcasting . The report was made available to honourable members during the adjournment. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Lloyd) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —For the information of honourable members, I present correspondence between the Government and Commissioner Costigan concerning arrangements for the determination of his commission and the transition to the National Crime Authority. Honourable members will note some deletions from several of the letters which have been tabled. These deletions have been made to protect personal privacy and investigative procedures. I seek leave to make a statement relating to the documents. Leave granted. Mr HAWKE —Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) asked a number of questions about the concern expressed by Mr Costigan regarding the progress of the transition from the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union to the National Crime Authority on 6 September. I informed the House of the position in the following terms: It is the wish of the Government to see an effective transition from the proceedings and processes of the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority. It is clear that Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority have a different view on the adequacy of the transition arrangements. While Mr Costigan appears to believe that there will be problems with the transition, the National Crime Authority has advised that its members 'disagree' unanimously with Mr Costigan's assessment of the situation. Clearly this is a matter between Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority. I am pleased to say that to assist the House I will table later this day the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority on this matter. That is taken from page 706 of House of Representatives Hansard of 6 September 1984. That is exactly what I did last Thursday. Indeed, a broad view was taken of what documents were relevant to the exchange of views on the progress of the transition. The correspondence tabled last Thursday went back to the letter I sent Mr Costigan on 21 June 1984, upon the passage of the National Crime Authority Act. This letter confirmed the arrangements for the transition agreed between the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and Mr Costigan at their meeting in March of this year. On 7 September the Leader of the Opposition read out a list giving the dates of other correspondence between Mr Costigan and me. As he indicated, these letters were not included among those tabled on Thursday. A cursory inspection of the dates involved would have shown that they all dated back to at least March, and in a number of cases to 1983. These letters cover a period well before the transition commenced, and well before the National Crime Authority had come into existence. Indeed, the date of the first letter mentioned by Mr Peacock showed it was written four days after this Government was sworn into office. I at no stage indicated that I was purporting to table related correspondence with Mr Costigan extending back to the commencement of my Government. Nor was this sought by the Opposition prior to the tabling. But, to make it crystal clear that this Government has nothing to hide in this matter, that is what I have just done. I am sure honourable members will be interested to examine the correspondence which was of such interest to the Leader of the Opposition last Friday. Let me outline some of its contents to honourable members. Mr Costigan first wrote to me about his activities on 15 March 1983, a mere four days after this Government had formally assumed office. In that letter Mr Costigan referred to the investigations which had taken place under the previous Government. He referred to the methods by which organised crime had 'raped the Australian community'. The Commissioner stated: Quite frankly, I am appalled at what I have found. He referred me to a number of letters he had written to my predecessor. He reminded me that his previous report had recommended that a permanent body was needed to maintain the impetus and trend of his investigations. He expressed concern that the proposed National Crimes Commission Act had been 'emasculated' by the Spender amendment. Mr Costigan sent me a further letter 10 days later, following his meeting with the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans), raising similar concerns. I met with Mr Costigan on 30 March 1983, to discuss those matters and indicated subsequently, in a letter of 11 April, that the Government had decided to consider the matter at further length before making any final decisions on the future of the Crimes Commission. The Government, as part of its consideration of the issues, subsequently conducted a national crimes seminar in the Senate chamber to discuss the kind of body which might be established. There followed an extensive period of consultation with Mr Costigan. As the correspondence I have tabled demonstrates, the Government made every effort to respond to and accommodate the requests made by Mr Costigan. Indeed, on 26 October 1983, I indicated that the Government would extend the Commission-then due to terminate at the end of the year-for a further four months. This offer was made without any written requests from Mr Costigan for an extension. I wish to outline the nature of subsequent exchanges in some detail. Mr Costigan, in reply to my proposal of 26 October 1983, criticised the powers that were proposed for the new Crime Authority, and indicated his view that no date for the termination of the Commission should be set until the legislation was passed. He stated that he found it difficult to believe that I would wish to have the fight against organised crime abandoned, but said that if that was the decision of Government so be it. Such was my concern over these remarks from Mr Costigan that I immediately instructed officials to meet with Mr Costigan as soon as possible to discuss his concerns with him, and proposed that ministerial discussions also be held if necessary. A few days later the Attorney-General also met with Mr Costigan. Mr Costigan wrote to me on 24 November expressing 'a degree of optimism' that the handover to the Authority would work. In the same letter he sought a twelve- month extension of his Royal Commission. I replied by proposing a six-month extension, with a report to be provided in April, but anticipating a further extension if this was necessary to ensure that the transition to the National Crime Authority proceeded smoothly. Mr Costigan replied in February 1984, saying that he was unable to provide a report by April. Following further representations from Mr Costigan and discussion between him and the Special Minister of State, it was agreed to extend his Commission to 30 September 1984. Mr Costigan expressed his satisfaction with these arrangements and the press statement issued at the conclusion of the meeting was agreed by both parties. I have gone through these exchanges with Mr Costigan in some detail to show that the Government made every effort to meet Mr Costigan's concern about the duration of his Commission consistent with its overall belief that the Royal Commission model does not provide a suitable long term body for fighting organised crime. The Government has remained committed to the establishment of a national crime authority able to take over, on a continuing basis, those of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union's investigations which bear upon organised crime more generally than just in connection with the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. Through the period of this Government, it has taken Mr Costigan's comments very seriously. It has sought to be helpful and to offer support to him. Indeed, in his correspondence, Mr Costigan acknowledged the support I and other Ministers have given him. I would like to acknowledge again the Government's appreciation of the valuable work with Mr Costigan and his Commission have performed. It is now of vital importance that the task of fighting organised crime in his country be carried forward by the Crime Authority. It is obvious from the correspondence that the Government and Mr Costigan had differing views about the timetable which should apply to the winding up of the Royal Commission. But I warn members of the Opposition that it would be unwise to seek to make any capital out of that lest their hypocrisy be exposed yet again. I refer the House to page 4 of Mr Costigan's letter to me of 2 November 1983 which states: I have repeatedly requested over the past 18 months some finality on the future of the Commission, and have asked for it in adequate time to allow me to do my job properly. Neither Government has ever attended to that task with sufficient appreciation of the lead time required and this is no exception. This Government is confident that its record of combating organised crime will withstand any scrutiny. The documents tabled today demonstrate that we have given Mr Costigan total encouragement and support. My letter of 26 October 1983 to Mr Costigan stated: I personally and the Government collectively support strongly the work of your Commission and the way in which you have been conducting your Commission. Mr Costigan referred to this interest and support in his letter of 2 November 1983 in these terms: When I saw you in April this year you indicated your wish, with which I concurred, that the Commission should concentrate on painter and docker activity , with particular reference to drugs. That is the course I have followed. These sentiments give the lie to the Opposition's contention that we have sought to thwart Mr Costigan's activities, and have attempted to frustrate the fight against organised crime. Again, let us look at Mr Costigan's own words. Mr Costigan wrote in his letter to me of 5 March this year: I am anxious both that the new Crime Authority commence operation as soon as possible and that I hand over to it in an efficient manner the investigations I am now conducting. Your Government's determination to establish the body is welcome to me and in the public interest. My concern is that there may be a lack of continuity in the investigations. In a letter of 27 February 1984 I had already assured the Commissioner that, in the context of the transition, the Government would 'co-operate fully in ensuring the continuation of those inquiries'. Mr Speaker, let us compare that concern with the cavalier attitude of our predecessors. How did they demonstrate concern for the continuity of investigation? How did they seek to avoid any thwarting of Mr Costigan's inquiries? Mr Costigan's letter of 24 November 1983 states: . . . the uncertainty surrounding the life of the Commission has made forward planning very difficult; by way of example last year my term, which was due to expire on 31 December, was not extended until 25 December. Such uncertainty is very disruptive to the work of the Commission and harmful to the morale of staff . Mr Leo McLeay —Who was in government then? Mr HAWKE —There are no prizes for guessing whom he was talking about then. That cavalier approach of the previous Government compares starkly with our constant encouragement and support of Mr Costigan and our continuing consultation with him. Last Thursday I met with the Chairman, Mr Justice Stewart, and the other members of the National Crime Authority. We discussed matters relating to the transition, the winding up of the Costigan Commission and the considerable amount of work which the members of the Authority have already carried out as they commence their task of fighting organised crime. I asked Mr Justice Stewart , one of the country's most experienced and knowledgeable fighters of organised crime, whether there was anything further the Government could do to assist the National Crime Authority to carry out its responsibilities. He replied that there was not. I asked him whether he was confident that the National Crime Authority would be an effective body in fighting organised crime. He replied that he was. I suggest that if the Opposition is really interested in the fight against organised crime-an interest which it has not shown in the past-it should cease its futile and totally deceitful attempt to score political points over this issue. The Opposition should get behind Mr Justice Stewart, the Hon. Max Bingham , QC, a former Liberal Attorney-General of Tasmania, and Mr John Dwyer, QC-the latter two members chosen on the unanimous agreement of the eight participating governments-and support them and the Authority as a whole in the challenging and important work of fighting organised crime. I present the following paper: National Crime Authority-Ministerial Statement, 10 September 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.09) —Mr Speaker, it is the psychology of this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that all matters of fact and fiction, truth and falsity, are interpreted and presented by him as questions of his own personal integrity. He suffers from the gross delusion that he, at all times, personifies truth and those who dare to point out his mistakes or inaccuracies are vilified as being beneath contempt and incapable of telling the truth. Last Thursday the Prime Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, misled this House. He did so again on Friday. Of course he is incapable of admitting that he was in error. Instead of telling the House that he was wrong, he comes in here today selectively quoting from Hansard and attempting to gloss over the facts. Let me clearly and dispassionately spell out the Prime Minister's misleading of the House. Last Wednesday, in pursuing the Opposition's concern about the continuation of adequate investigation of organised crime in Australia and the Government's desperate determination to wind up the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, I asked the Prime Minister: . . . Will the Prime Minister now table the Government's correspondence with Commissioner Costigan? That appears on page 594 of Hansard of 5 September 1984. The Prime Minister replied: Let me say that I think it is appropriate that the correspondence to which the Leader of the Opposition referred should be tabled . . . we will table the correspondence. That is, the correspondence I had asked about between the Government and Commissioner Costigan. On Thursday, the Prime Minister, in response to his unqualified undertaking, tabled: . . . the full correspondence from Mr Costigan and the National Crime Authority . . . That appears on page 706 of Hansard of 6 September 1984. Anybody can see that that is not what the Prime Minister was asked. He attempted to pass one thing off as another. I asked for correspondence between the Government and Mr Costigan and was told by the Prime Minister that he had tabled it. Yet the next day he tabled only part of the story. When the Opposition discovered this, we pursued it again in Question Time on Friday. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) asked the Prime Minister about correspondence passing between Commissioner Costigan and the Prime Minister in December. In response, the Prime Minister said: The correspondence between Commissioner Costigan and myself has been tabled, as has correspondence involving the National Crime Authority. We took the matter further. During a Press conference we were able to show that the Prime Minister had not, in fact, done what he said in the House. At least eight letters were not tabled by the Prime Minister, letters relating to the wind-up and transition and, more importantly, to the continuity of the fight against organised crime in Australia. Of course, later on Friday, the Prime Minister came back into this House to add to his answer but still refused to admit to his inconsistencies. Today we have this statement which purports to be the full tabling of all correspondence between the Government and Mr Costigan. It is a statement clothed in special pleading and is again a failure to acknowledge that the Prime Minister misled this House. We welcome the further release of letters, letters for which we have been asking for nearly a week. The tabling of these letters has been achieved, of course, with all the difficulty surrounding the drawing of a rotten tooth. Whenever this Prime Minister is confronted with criticism or a challenge to his supposedly unassailable version of the truth, he responds by attacking his challengers and appealing to the general observer from allegedly high moral ground. But this time the facts have caught him out. Putting the Prime Minister's shortcomings to one side, let me say that the issue of organised crime in Australia represents one of the most serious threats to our way of life. The Australian public knows this and the Opposition knows it ; but does the Government? Under this Government, there is presently no major investigation of organised crime at all. The Hawke Government has created this situation. In these tabled letters we read Mr Costigan's statement of 24 November 1983-a full eight months after the Australian Labor Party came to office-in which he said: In all the circumstances I feel the public interest and the demands of my work require me to request that my commission be extended to the 31st of December 1984. Unless such an extension is granted it will not be possible to maintain the thrust of my investigations or to hand them over to a new Crime Authority in an efficient and sensible manner. How right he was! That quotation is from a letter of 24 November 1983 from Mr Costigan to the Prime Minister. The whole thrust of the Costigan correspondence is this: Mr Costigan was investigating the activities of the Painters and Dockers Union. His investigations revealed tax evasion which the previous Government legislated to eliminate, and I challenge the Prime Minister to deny that. At that time the Labor Party was a very powerful supporter of Mr Costigan. But Mr Costigan proceeded further and uncovered a rotten network relating to the smuggling and sales of hard drugs and illegal activities in a range of areas. It was here the network expanded further. In a letter of 5 March 1984, a year, to the day, after the Hawke Government came to office, Mr Costigan stated: Since the delivery of Interim Report No. 5 I have been concentrating on Drug Trafficking and the Union . . . In close co-operation with the Police, who have done a great deal of work in this area, many painters and dockers have been identified and their systems of importation and distribution are becoming much clearer. Indeed, only last week arrests were made and more are expected shortly. These investigations ranged beyond Queensland, of course, and into New South Wales and Victoria. At the same time I have been pursuing inquiries into the financing of these dealings . . . Then four sentences of this clearly crucial letter of 5 March 1984 are deleted. The Prime Minister told us that he had tabled the full correspondence. I have had only a moment to look at this correspondence; but, following the reference to the pursuit into the financing of these details that he referred to, four sentences of a crucial letter have been deleted. Madam Deputy Speaker, I take you back to Mr Costigan's letter of 25 November 1983 in which he stated: Moreover, I am finding increasing resistance to my investigations- I repeat the words 'I am finding increasing resistance to my investigations'- even with the powers granted to me under the Royal Commissions Act there is a growing tendency to impede my work by lengthy court proceedings, which I have no doubt are intended to outlast my term. That was stated in a letter of 25 November 1983 from Mr Costigan to the Prime Minister. It is interesting that at the very time when Mr Costigan was pleading for more time, in fact asking for his term to run until December 1984, the Hawke Government was putting more and more pressure on Mr Costigan to terminate his investigation by 30 April. That is what the Prime Minister's letter of 16 December 1983 refers to. Mr Costigan was saying that his investigations were of such importance that they must continue until the proposed National Crimes Commission-that was what it was referred to as at the time-was ready to pick up Mr Costigan's investigations, leaving no hiatus between them. But the Government was saying 'Wind it up and cease your investigations by the end of April 1984', in other words: 'Stop digging and start writing'. I would like to know some of the background to the letter written by the Prime Minister on 16 December 1983. Was the matter of Commissioner Costigan's response discussed at a Cabinet meeting? If it was, did the Treasurer (Mr Keating) take the view that Mr Costigan's investigations into certain matters in New South Wales should be stopped as soon as possible or, to use the words allegedly attributed to him, Costigan would bring down the Wran Government? What were the matters which Mr Costigan was investigating which caused this Government to be so adamant about closing down Costigan's investigations at a time when he was indicating that he needed the inquiry to run until the end of this year? We know that, because of the fear of these continuing investigations, the Hawke Government insisted that Mr Costigan wind up his inquiries. The Government has now placed the nation in the position where no major investigation into organised crime is proceeding. The Government wound up the Costigan Commission before the National Crime Authority began operations. Mr Young —That is not true. Mr PEACOCK —The Government has wound up the Costigan Commission. Mr Costigan is in the process of reporting. He is in the process of a transition which he has indicated to the Government has been a failure. There is now no investigation. In just 18 months, we have witnessed the Australian Labor Party, which so strongly supported Mr Costigan's important work, shifting ground totally and forcing Mr Costigan to wind up his inquiry, even though that action left the nation in the lurch about organised crime. I draw the attention of the House to the Prime Minister's letter to Mr Costigan on 26 October 1983. At that stage, the Prime Minister was trying to make arrangements so that investigations would not cease. That is why an extension of time to 30 April 1984 was granted to the Costigan Commission. At some time in the latter part of 1983, the Government lost its ardour about Mr Costigan's pursuit of organised crime and, consequently, dropped the requirement that the investigations should continue unabated. That means that at this moment nothing is happening. We are talking about the worst sort of cancer in this country. The Government has left the door open on hard drugs. In June this year it brought in a weak National Crime Authority which we had to toughen up in the Senate. In discussing the Costigan material in such a short canvass today-there will be plenty more time to follow this matter through-I have not discussed the full range of pressures and obstructions which were brought to bear against the Costigan Commission. I have not mentioned the Government's inactivity on the Age tapes and a whole host of matters that related to them. In summary, what we have today is a continuing denigration of Commissioner Costigan by this Government, its supporters and lackey and, in particular, the Attorney-General (Senator Gareth Evans). That denigration was referred to in the correspondence and is continuing to this day. Those who talked to the Attorney- General at the Australian Broadcasting Corporation studios before the recording of a Nationwide program last week would bear that out. The correspondence shows that Commissioner Costigan has time and again appealed for his Commission to continue, but he was chopped off at the knees. His inquiry has been wound up. In its place there has been a transition, which has been described by Commissioner Costigan as a failure. In the Commission's place is the National Crime Authority , whose Chairman is working part time and has now been given the job of looking into the Age tapes. He is looking into Nugan Hand. The Chairman of the Crime Authority has not received a briefing-indeed, he refuses to receive one-from Commissioner Costigan. To me, that is beyond the wit of man. The Special Prosecutor, Mr Redlich, has been trenchantly critical of the Government in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police, and has pointed out his praise of Costigan and the laying of 600 charges. The Government knows that the Gyles report, when the Government is prepared to table it, will support Costigan and condemn the Government in the taxation arena. We come down to this interesting point: In the latter part of 1983 at a Cabinet meeting or elsewhere-I believe it was the former-the Treasurer said: 'You will have to wind up the Costigan Commission or he will get to the Wran Government'. Is that why, allegedly, the Treasurer is making representations to have elements of the Gyles report suppressed because of matters relating to tax evasion? This Government is filled with hypocrisy. It is engaged in a cover-up. The elements of that cover-up are coming out bit by bit, and there is more to come. The people of Australia are the only ones who are suffering. Costigan has been outstanding, but as he was getting closer to the issue he was getting closer to Hawke's little mates. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Kerin) adjourned. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Lusher,Mr Ruddock and Mr Spender. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Burr and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advert of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Hawker and Mr McArthur. To the Right 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: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia , namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of three Christian Crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-borne Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable house will: propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change.'' And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled; should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that: The Attorney-General enforce laws 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 importation and sale of grossly obscene publications, including those associated with blasphemy be prevented; Imported video tapes/discos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board; Censors more appropriately reflect responsible attitudes; Further measures be taken in association with 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 Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives should disallow the new Customs and Objectionable Publications Ordinance and that the Attorney-General should introduce laws to: 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard-core pornography 2. Prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications 3. Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board 4. Require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes 5. Protect Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation; and Your petitioners also request 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 Lusher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid for private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia shows : That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilising chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. by Mr Hawker and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that we believe that there are unresolved economic, social, biological, genetic, environmental, technical and ethical problems associated with the mining of uranium and the Development of Nuclear power, in particular: (a) to the proven contribution of the nuclear power industry to the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the increased risk of nuclear war; and (b) the absence of procedures for the storage and disposal of radioactive wastes to ensure that any danger posed by such wastes to human life and the environment is eliminated. Your petitioners most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines to be commenced; (2) No new contracts for the sale of Uranium be approved; (3) Uranium mines presently in production cease with the fulfilment of current contracts; (4) No new Uranium is supplied to countries making or testing nuclear weapons. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blanchard. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We assert that TAFE, with over 1 million students, requires greatly improved resources if it is to continue to train Australia's skilled workforce effectively. 2. We call upon the Commonwealth Government to provide greatly increased funds to ensure that TAFE is accessible to all Australians, unlike the present time when thousands of people are turned away from TAFE colleges each year. 3. We urge the Commonwealth Government to equip TAFE workshops with the advanced technology used in modern Australian industries, and to expand TAFE's capital works program so that sufficient quality accommodation is available for TAFE teachers and students. 4. We ask that the Commonwealth Government greatly increase TAFE's recurrent expenditure, so that TAFE can respond quickly and flexibly to industry, Government and community demands. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. 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 shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain concerned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That the Motor Vessel KRAIT remain as a Dedicated Operational War Memorial in the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol as has been the case for the past nineteen and a half years, on behalf of the people of Australia. And that: your petitioners consider that the monies raised in the recent public appeal have been so raised for restoration to ensure the continuing seaworthiness of the KRAIT for the purposes of it remaining afloat and continuing to be used in the community service. And that the current proposal to remove KRAIT from the care and maintenance of the Royal Volunteer Coastal Patrol to the National War Memorial in Canberra, ACT would, if implemented seem to represent a breach of faith upon which the aforesaid monies were raised. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That we sincerely believe that the new Commonwealth censorship procedures for publications and the A.C.T. Classification Ordinance 1983 standards for classification on printed materials, No. 1-February 1984 passed by the Senate last Wednesday, removing from existing Commonwealth law: (a) the power to prevent the importation and sale of hardcore pornography (e.g. x-rates videos); (b) the power to prevent the importation and sale of grossly obscene publications including those associated with blasphemy; (c) the power to require videos for non-commercial use to be registered by the Films Censorship Board before release from customs was a step in the wrong direction. It is the view of the religious community on the north side of Brisbane, of which we are a part, that the new laws should be amended immediately to give protection to all Australians, particularly women and children from exploitation . It is believed that those materials that come under category 2 classification should not be allowed to be made available to all, and the knowledge that this kind of material described under classification 2 is now lawful under the new regulations is nauseating. We believe it is the duty of the Government to protect society from those who would incite paedophilia, child pornography, terrorism and extreme cruelty. We believe this protection should be extended to cover items such as are currently listed under category 2. We respectfully request that amending legislation be drafted accordingly.. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Commonwealth Government of Australia in Parliament of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Country of Australia, respectfully ask: That the Government of Australia be responsible for the staffing and financing of the Australian Cadet Corps as run in Government Schools. The undersigned pray that the Law be changed so as to allow all students who wish to take part, the opportunity to participate, regardless of their financial position. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth- that the railway line and train-passenger service remain in service. 1. that the railway line remain maintained 2. that the passenger service include return trips and 3. that the services become more frequent. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Railway Line between Victor Harbour and Adelaide remains open. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that the current discriminatory application of sales tax on confectionery at the rate of 20 per cent is an unfair and unjust burden on this important manufacturing industry and your petitioners therefore pray that confectionery be treated in a similar fashion to all other foods, including snack foods, which are exempt from sales tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are patients, colleagues and friends of Dr J. Martinick. That she is apparently being victimised by the Department of Health and the Federal Police regarding itemisation in 1983. That at no time in the last year the Department of Health Liaison officer or investigator had approached Dr Martinick to discuss any apparent problems. That the Federal Police who are not a representative of the Department of Health made the first contact with her. That we are perturbed that the normal procedure of investigating an irregularity was not adhered to in this case and we request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should clarify this situation and amend the Health Insurance Act if necessary to ensure that the Medical Practitioners in future receive a fair and just hearing. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: That the phasing out of the recurrent grant to residential colleges will be detrimental to the ability of disadvantaged and country students to receive a tertiary education. That alternative arrangements to fund needy students will be of no net benefit to those students, owing to the higher costs of administering such arrangements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the recurrent grant to residential colleges be maintained as the most efficient and equitable means of ensuring that all citizens, irrespective of background, have equal opportunity to receive a tertiary education. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. 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. 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. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully request that the Australian Government negotiate with the Australian Council of Trade Unions significant taxation relief for lower and middle income earners together with improvements in the social wage with particular emphasis on improving the positions of those reliant on social security payments. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain elected representatives and officers of Local Authorities in Australia shows considerable concern that the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program Levy, at 2 cents per litre on petrol and diesel, was indexed in the 1984 Budget, but that funds raised from indexation of the levy will go into consolidated revenue, and not specifically into expenditure on road funds. It has been estimated that indexation of the levy will raise $491 million over the next six years to 1988/89, of which Local Government could have expected to receive $58 million. This is a further denial of funds to Local Government, following $13 million lost this year from Personal Income Tax Sharing entitlements. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government will amend the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Fund Act, such that funds raised through indexation of the levy will be placed in the Trust Fund, and used for much needed road construction work. 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 humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully show: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol ; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The need for a firm Government statement rejecting for Australia the move to terminate ANZUS and other external defence arrangements recommended for New Zealand by that country's governing Labour Party. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.29) —Madam Deputy Speaker, in opening I welcome the first of your sex to occupy the position of Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms of this place. This is the first occasion that any lady working within the Department of the House of Representatives has appeared in uniform, if we can call it that. On behalf of us all, I extend, madam, our welcome to you. In raising this matter of public importance, the coalition lays down for the people of Australia the view that we would adopt today were we in government. First, we would be entering into discussions with the New Zealand Government to ascertain from that Government its future intentions with respect to ANZUS, with respect to the five-power defence pact, with respect to its commitment in the Sinai and with respect to its commitment in Singapore. Secondly, we would assure the United States that in the event of a withdrawal by the New Zealand Government from ANZUS we would be entering into discussions with the United States to ensure a continuation of that special defence relationship which is absolutely critical for this country and for regional security. But we have heard not one word from the Government on this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that it is a matter for New Zealand and the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has declined to be interviewed. This goes to the core of the maintenance of the security of this country and cannot just be bypassed because the Prime Minister or the Minister for Defence feels that he might be embarrassed by it. It is important to recall that even at Question Time today the Prime Minister, in a derogatory reference to those who sit on the coalition side of this House, asked whether any of us had pride in our country. Quite demonstrably, the present Prime Minister has none in his country. If he had, he would have made a statement at the very latest today in the Parliament. Instead of trying to run behind his deplorable record in trying to cover organised crime, he should have come here and made a statement to this Parliament and explained what his Government would do to maintain Australia's relationship with the United States and to try to maintain a relationship not just for Australia's sake but for the sake of all the countries in this region. What have we heard? Glorious silence. Indeed, it is with some difficulty that the Minister for Defence comes along and is prepared to answer, on this matter of public importance, fundamental charges with respect to the maintenance of Australian and regional security. One can understand this position. We know that there is turmoil in the Labor Party as to the attitude to be adopted to visits of nuclear vessels and to nuclear armaments. We all know about the incredibly nonsensical decision that was taken at the Pacific Forum at Tuvalu last week. We were told that there is to be a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific, but it is one with a difference. It is one which Michael Somare, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, wisely resiled from on his return. It is one that runs contrary to the general precepts that were laid down by Dr Mahathir, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, when he was in Australia not so many weeks ago. He spoke of the necessity of the maintenance of the ANZUS relationship for the sake of not just Australia but regional security. The decision runs contrary to the stance long taken by Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, on behalf of Singapore, who has spoken of the value of the five- power defence pact and the degree to which it brings the United States in a secondary way into maintaining security in the region. Where do we get to? One knows that in the Labor Party the dispute on uranium was allowed to be eased for the sake of giving some temporary political solace to the Premier of South Australia. We now have the nonsensical, partial uranium export decision, which means that there is some peculiar difference between uranium in South Australia and uranium mined in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. We know that significant elements of the Labor Party totally oppose the present government policy. We also know that in the Labor Party the attitudes towards ANZUS, defence relationships and nuclear free zones present a complete dichotomy, depending on the person in that Party one speaks to. The concern we have and the concern of the Australian people are that, without a statement from the Government about what it intends to do about Australia's future, there can be no certainty whether the Foreign Minister's views, the views of the Minister for Territories and Local Government (Mr Uren), the views of the honourable member for Casey or the views sometimes asserted by the Prime Minister in public places will prevail. One needs to remember that the Prime Minister himself has not been without blemish-indeed, those of us in this place know how many he has. It is sad that those in the community at large do not see more of them. It is worth looking back at the advertisement signed by the Prime Minister back in September 1976 in the National Times. It was in a petition that said: . . . Military alliances are a source of international tensions . . . foreign military bases on our soil are detrimental to Australia's safety. It declared: . . . the USA-Australia alliance dragged us into the Vietnam war. It demanded: . . . opposition to military alliances, foreign military bases and military interventions and support for national and social liberation. That was said by the present Prime Minister. None of the views asserted by the socialist left or the Minister for Territories and Local Government or by the Minister for Foreign Affairs is far removed from the views of the Prime Minister himself as adopted in public in print on earlier occasions. We all know that the Premier of Victoria has had a well known position on these matters. One recalls that he deliberately contacted one of his fellow Ministers to suggest that there should be no more visits of nuclear vessels to Victoria. He specifically addressed a letter to his Minister for Public Works on 27 May 1982 and directed him to advise port authorities to deny facilities to nuclear powered or armed ships. He then suddenly realised that that was not politically popular and changed his mind. However, we know that the views now adopted by the New Zealand Labour Party only two years ago were those of the Premier of Victoria. It is not just the Premier of Victoria who is involved. We know that in 1976 the New South Wales Premier, that pillar of moral rectitude, said that he had written to the United States Consul in Sydney in 1976 over a planned visit by the United States ship Truxtun, indicating that he would prefer it if the warship avoided Sydney. As a result that vessel went to the naval base on Commonwealth territory at Jervis Bay. Therefore, we have the Premier of Victoria , the Premier of New South Wales, the honourable member for Casey and all his socialist left colleagues, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr West) and the Minister for Territories and Local Government all part of an Australian Labor Party policy which, to quote item 7 of the Labor Party platform , states: . . . under Labor Australia will pursue an independent foreign policy and develop reliable lines of communication with all great powers, thereby enabling Australia to achieve a closer association with the non-aligned movement and to engage in effective collective action for the establishment of regional zones of peace and neutrality, notably in the Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the South Pacific. It is important to know that there are significant sections of the Labor Party- Premiers of the Labor Party within Australia, the Prime Minister in print and, indeed, the Labor Party platform-that figure in a number of statements that link very closely the policy of the governing party in Australia with the statements that came out of New Zealand this weekend. What has highlighted the urgency of this matter is the statement of the Leader of the Australian Democrats. On the Australian Broadcasting Corporation AM program this morning he said: . . . if we are going to be sincere about nuclear bombs, nuclear proliferation, or disarmament, we are going to, we should have nothing to do with any nation that has got an arsenal of death like the United States has or the Soviet Union has of 50,000 nuclear bombs between them. Let us realise that the Leader of the Australian Democrats and quite a core within the Labor Party have a policy that is totally in line with that pronounced by the New Zealand Labour Party over this weekend. We in Australia need to know where we are going with ANZUS, where we are going in our defence relationships and the stance the Prime Minister and his Government will take for Australia's future. If we examine what has been said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs we shall see how necessary that is, for we know that, at a time of a defence rundown in Australia, our Foreign Minister has been in Geneva talking about withdrawing permission for the joint facilities to be operated with the United States in Australia. We know that at this very moment the Minister for Foreign Affairs has just returned-in fact, I think he has just gone off to Central America-from a visit to Portugal where he has been talking, incredibly, of entering into discussions on some new act of self-determination in East Timor. He is alienating Indonesia, and in a statement in Geneva he threatened the relationship with the United States. One also has the policy and platform of the Labor Party in Australia, or significant sections of it, quite aligned to that which has been promulgated only this weekend in New Zealand, as well as the Leader of the Australian Democrats taking again a non-aligned stand which threatens that American alliance. It is important to remember that the Minister for Foreign Affairs not only has taken a stance in his public statements but has even gone so far as to agree to the establishment of a Labor working party in Western Australia to determine how the new policy of his Government-that is, the Australian Labor Government-of limiting visits of United States naval ships is to be applied. We have the Foreign Minister setting up a committee in Western Australia to review the policy that supposedly the Minister for Defence is administering. I ask: Just who is laying down the policy of this Government? What is the policy of this Government? Why will the Government not come clean and tell us what sort of a relationship it will enter into with the United States of America ? If we say 'There is no threat; we can sit back', where do we go? Let me highlight some of the problems connected with that. First, one would hope that there is no threat, but we know that in the Government's strategic basis papers, which have not been denied and which have been published in the National Times of 30 March to 5 April this year, the following statement was made: Significant elements of instability in the relationship between the US and the USSR heighten a sense of uncertainty and risk, even though nuclear conflict still can be seen as improbable. Initially greatly inferior in nuclear armament, the USSR, by its own sustained efforts and aided by the relative US neglect of US nuclear forces, has achieved superiority in the critical area of ICBMs- Intercontinental ballistic missiles- and intermediate nuclear forces which is not fully compensated by US maritime and air forces. Time will not permit me to run down the comparison of the forces of the United States and the Soviets in the Pacific and Indian Oceans but I think it is worth commenting that at the moment the Soviet Pacific fleet is the largest of any elements in its forces. We need to recognise that Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam is now in very significant use by the Soviets and that at Cam Ranh Bay there is today a squadron of Tu-16 Badger aircraft-long range bombers capable of deployment and carrying nuclear weapons. I quote not a light document but the Armed Forces Journal International of April 1984, on the Pacific naval balance. It states: They are the only Russian strike aircraft deployed anywhere in the world beyond Soviet borders. They now provide the Soviets with a capability to strike and interdict the vital sea lines of communications through Southeast Asia. While there is no threat it is important for Australia and Australia's future that we maintain that defence relationship. It is not just a matter of the perception within both Australia and South East Asia. There is a long list of equipment that we have obtained from the United States and about which there is a continuing procurement obligation. If the relationship with the United States is severed or threatened in any way, I suggest that our whole independent defence capability-if we have one at all-will be totally fragmented. We have only to look at the FFGs through to the F18s. There is a long list there, that I have not time to read to the House, which identifies our procurement relationship and our security relationship and which, in terms of containing the risk to this country, requires a statement by the Government to maintain that United States defence relationship. It is worth commenting that the late John Curtin is attributed with saying on 27 December 1941: Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom. How that man would roll in his grave at the indecision and imprecision and lack of a positive stance by the present Prime Minister and members of the Australian Labor Party. The announcements this week of the New Zealand Labour Party and today by the Leader of the Democrats require a clear and unequivocal statement by the Australian Labor Government as to the directions it will take to preserve Australia's relationships with the United States in the defence field. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Defence)(3.44) —I do not think I have heard a more desperate effort to scratch around for issues in this Parliament in the period I have been here than the one we have just heard. Mr Rocher —Treat it seriously, Gordon. Mr SCHOLES —How could one treat buffoonery seriously? The Government has made its position on the ANZUS Treaty clear. Its relationships with its neighbours and its allies are as sound as they have ever been. They are not based on rantings and ravings and exaggerated claims; they are based on real contacts, real discussions and a real understanding of each other's needs and the requirement that each should be able to make and has an entitlement to make its decisions on the basis of its own best national interests. I can well imagine the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) charging in like a bull at a gate as a Minister, making comments on a sensitive matter and wrecking discussions which are taking place and which will continue. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and I have attended two ANZUS Council meetings. In Washington in 1983, we went through an exhaustive examination of the ANZUS Treaty. We examined what each party to that Treaty believed it meant and the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a very comprehensive statement on the Australian Government's position in relation to that Treaty in this Parliament which, if the right honourable gentleman were less interested in his destructive politicking and more interested in Australia's national interests, he would take the interest to read. Because the right honourable gentleman finds the politics of misleading and distortion more important than Australia's international relationships, the defence of Australia and our own security, I will quote to the House what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on that occasion: The Government has completed its review of the ANZUS Treaty, first as a national act and then in association with Australia's alliance partners. The review has led us to a firm and unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's national security and foreign and defence policies. In saying this, I do not say that the Treaty guarantees Australia's national safety and welfare, nor do I place us in that posture of happy dependence that has satisfied the foreign policy ambitions of many Australians in the past both within and without this Parliament. However, although the Treaty was drawn up a generation ago, and in very different circumstances, we have reached the conclusion that the commitments and obligations that were accepted then remain valid and appropriate today. The Treaty has the full support of this Government, but we recognise that we must still pull our full weight in our own protection. That statement is on the record in this Parliament. It is clear and unequivocal. It is not a lot of hollow rhetoric such as the right honourable gentleman opposite went on with both as Minister for Defence and when he acted as Foreign Minister and his Government went on with. The ANZUS Treaty to them was a cover- up for neglecting defence and putting off decision making to the extent that, when they went out of office, they were $10 billion behind their promises in relation to defence acquisition programs. They have gutted the defence of this country and they have done it quite consciously and deliberately as a government of pretence. The right honourable gentleman mentioned John Curtin. I think John Curtin would turn over in his grave if he thought a man such as that would use his name in support of an argument. John Curtin came to office because the government of the day, when the country was under its greatest threat, was a government of similar political colour to that of the right honourable gentleman and had prepared us in exactly the same way-by miles of speeches and rhetoric in Hansard and nothing about defence. John Curtin was put in office because the country's defence could no longer be entrusted to the conservative parties of this nation. Our record with our neighbours with respect to our support for our alliances is clear and is on the public record. We reiterated last year, and reiterated again after the ANZUS Conference in New Zealand this year, our commitment to that treaty. Our policy on visits by nuclear warships is clear and is also on the public record. We have made decisions which had been deferred by the previous Government about the commitment of Australian forces at Butterworth and about the Five Power Arrangements. We have made it quite clear that we will continue an Australian presence in South East Asia. There has been no equivocation, and a clear decision has been publicly announced and well received by our neighbours. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Foreign Minister and I have all visited, and have had visit us here, representatives of the governments in South East Asia. We have had more than useful discussions arising from those visits. Our relationships with those countries are as sound now as they have ever been and are certainly sounder than when the glib talk of the Opposition was a substitute for policy. This Government will make its decisions in accordance with what we see as the best interests of Australia. Those decisions are publicly announced and are on the public record. It should be pointed out that, as recently as last month, the Prime Minister and the American Secretary of State had extensive talks around issues of relationships between the United States of America and Australia. As a result of those talks, it was able to be stated that they were as one on matters of policy arising from the ANZUS Treaty and our role in this area. It is easy to be a critic, especially if one ignores the facts. It is easy to be destructive, and it is easy for an Opposition with no record of performance to talk glibly about what it would do if it were back in office. We all know that Opposition members believe they have the divine right to govern and that they are being denied that right by a foolish Australian electorate which has not accepted that they should continue in office because of their incompetence. But we have nothing to hide in our international and defence relationships and in our commitment to our alliances. We certainly will not rush, like a bull in a china shop, into a matter of some sensitivity and tell a neighbour, an ally of long standing, how it should run its affairs and what decisions its government should reach. It is for the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand people to determine their policies. When those policies are decided-certainly Australia and the United States have expressed and will continue to express views about those policies-they are entitled to be respected as the decisions of a sovereign state, of a government entitled to make decisions and to accept the consequences of its decisions. Let me reiterate. Since this Government came to office it has clearly enunciated its foreign policies. It has stated without equivocation its commitment to the ANZUS alliance. It has discussed and reached conclusions satisfactory to all concerned in respect of Australian forces and arrangements in the defence areas in South East Asia. We have extended the defence co- operation talks which regularly take place with South East Asian nations to talks between officials on broader defence issues. On a regular basis we will commit Australian aircraft to the Five Power Arrangements and we have offered to provide a commander if requested by the Council for the Integrated Defence Networks. We are demonstrating, and in the last two Budgets we have clearly demonstrated, our commitment to the defence and security of Australia. We have increased in real terms the defence expenditures on this nation and we have reversed the trend of the disasters of an actual drop in real terms in defence expenditures which took place only one year before we came to office. Mr White —One point five per cent. Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman demeans himself by his statements in this Parliament. He is now able to demand, because he has the luxury of being in opposition and, therefore, has no responsibility, things that in government his Government had no intention of performing. We will not make commitments that we are unable to meet and we certainly repudiate the Opposition's attempt to suggest that defence decisions that it had put down for the late 1980s and 1990s are now being deferred because they are not made in the early 1980s. I said at the start that this debate is a scraping of the barrel for election issues by a party which has been disowned by the Australian electorate and which demeans itself by attempting to bring Australia's international relationships into disrepute. Mr Cadman —You tell Lange that as he takes off for the Soviet Union. Mr SCHOLES —The honourable gentleman is interested in the Soviet Union. I remember when he was making great noises in this House about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the then Prime Minister's wool was on the wharves, ready to be shipped to the Soviet Union. Let us not talk about people going to the Soviet Union. We will keep our obligations and we will state our policies honestly and unequivocally, as we have on the matters raised in this matter of public importance. The Opposition clearly wishes to ignore the record. It wishes to ignore the facts and it is prepared, as on all other issues, to descend to the gutter to damage our international relationships in any way it sees as advantageous for domestic political purposes. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(3.59) —The Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) has accused the Opposition of scratching around for issues. I cannot think of a more important issue than the defence and security of the nation. If there is one overriding responsibility for any government of whatever political persuasion, it is the defence and security of the nation. So there could not be a more important issue for us to discuss. The Minister also said Australia's relations are sound. That hardly fits in with the statements being made all around the world, as the present Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) stumbles around from crisis to crisis and puts at jeopardy those sound relationships which have been built up. Of course, the most recent example of this is the Indonesian Foreign Minister's statements in relation to the activities of the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), hardly a demonstration of sound and worthwhile relationships being built up. The Minister for Defence talked about the good discussions that the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Secretary of State for the United States, Mr Shultz, had recently. I am sure they were amicable and friendly discussions. I wonder whether during those discussions the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for the United States discussed the Foreign Minister's threatening attitude which he expressed in the discussions he had and interviews he gave recently in Geneva, after Mr Shultz had visited Australia. There was no mention of threatening the future relationships and viability of the joint facilities in Australia when the discussions took place in Australia with the United States Secretary of State. He was shuffled off and sent away without any deliberations in relation to that significant threat. We are living in a dramatic period in the defence of this region. The decision of the New Zealand Labour Party to withdraw from ANZUS illustrates the results that come from what I regard as an historic failure to see the realities in perspective. If ever we have had a demonstration of that historic failure we have seen it in the person of the Minister for Defence today. The New Zealand Prime Minister, Mr Lange, when he appeared on the television program Four Corners on 1 September, seemed to argue that Australians and Americans were good people, and therefore they would be quite happy to go along with New Zealand's wishes to ban US naval ships in the Pacific and at New Zealand ports but quite happy to accept New Zealand as an ANZUS member. It was a very strange logic, because it led to the view that only nasty people would object to such a view of ANZUS. It seems that the New Zealand Labour Party-we have seen the evidence of it today-has now been at work to weaken New Zealand links with the western security system still further. It has decided that New Zealand should withdraw from ANZUS and any defence treaty with nuclear powers. It is clear that it comprehends New Zealand ending participation in the five power defence agreement, because it has also decided to withdraw the army battalion from Singapore. This is a momentous recommendation for New Zealand which, unfortunately, has developed a minute to midnight psychosis. I think the Minister for Defence was right in one of the things he said today. He said that it is time for this House to give a message to New Zealand. It is a sovereign country and if it decides as a nation to play Russian roulette with its own security it is entitled to do so. Let it not feel for a moment that in doing that it can consider its special relationship with Australia will remain unaffected. New Zealand makes its own bed and is entitled to lie on it. That message should be spread to New Zealand and made very plain indeed. This unhappy situation is more a product of ignorance than deliberation and thought. The Soviet-leaning policy of the New Zealand Labour Party and its Government has failed to come to grips with the realities of Soviet power and Soviet ambitions. The New Zealand decisions come at a time when Soviet power is building up in the western Pacific and in South East Asia. In Vietnam the Soviet Union now has a capacity, as my colleague the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair) said, to interdict shipping going through the straits in South East Asia. There is no doubt that the Association of South East Asian Nations are concerned-they have expressed that concern-and in that concern they have drawn closer to the United States. This Government has had an ambivalent policy towards these developments. It has failed to give leadership to its own public opinion, let along New Zealand's. It has steadfastly, persistently and obviously refused to present Australian public opinion with the facts about the growth of Soviet influence in the ANZUS region. Why has it refused to do this? We know the Government has a special view that Vietnam was held captive to the Soviet viewpoint. But that does not explain a Government decision to avoid speaking about the Soviet build-up, which concerns us all. I suspect the real explanation is that Labor Party members have decided that this Party would split wide open if the realities of the growth in Soviet power were soberly, sensibly and sensitively conveyed to Australian public opinion. The ALP Conference could not address the issues, because it was touch and go whether the Left would take over the conference. We know that the Defence Minister, when he was in South East Asia, did speak up and show his concern. The Minister for Defence visited South East Asia and issued strong words of concern. But he and members of his party have not said a word in Australia about the growth in Soviet strength. The Minister was quite prepared to speak out up there, but he has not said a word down here. All the Labor Government has done is to keep talking loud and long about a review of ANZUS, as if the Treaty had become a disease which needed to be cleansed. The Treaty, working as part of a system of security in the Pacific, made a powerful contribution to the stability of the fastest-growing economic region in the world today. If New Zealand has not benefited as much as others, it is no fault of the region. We, for our part, could not have gone so far down the road of closer economic co-operation if the economic future of the region had remained uncertain. The economic future of the region depends on the capacity of the security system for the region to hold, and to hold firm for the next decades as it has in the past. Soviet power, when introduced into a region, is divisive, destructive and pathological. We see the hallmark of Soviet influence in Vietnam today; in Afghanistan with 3,000,000 refugees and in the Horn of Africa, a total human disaster. The Pacific is not a disaster area, Vietnam excepted. The New Zealand Labour Party has decided it would like to see the United States' power in the region seriously weakened. Let its members not kid themselves. It will encourage , not deter, the Soviet thirst for more political conquests. Consider the way things have developed in Europe. It is not altogether a depressing picture now, but European nations were concerned that there was no counter-balance to Soviet power and so at the end of 1979, two years after the Soviet SS20 deployments, the United States called on the Soviets to agree to call off this part of the arms race. Through all this the Government has had to battle the issues out in its own ranks, with mixed results. An amazing development has been the clear indications that the Central European communist countries consider that Soviet policy of artificially creating tension is wrong headed. The desire of the East European leader to visit Western Germany was overruled recently by the Soviets and this is a clear indication that the Soviet threats do not have the support of all Soviet allies. The clear aim of the Soviet Union is to retain the SS20 in its armoury at all costs. It was angered rather than conciliated by the United States' offer for both nations to eliminate either progressively or with one decision intermediate range missiles. The fundamental fact is this: We live in the fastest-growing economic region of the world. Our economy has prospered in trade with Japan, China, Taiwan and South East Asia in particular. Do we want to keep this going or do we want to see it fail? It will fail if the security system which underpins it fails. It is important that we appreciate that we have and need a system of security because it produces the stability we need for our economic well-being. We need ANZUS because it delivers a system of security which brings to every one of us the benefits of peace-economic progress and the opportunity to extend the benefits of a higher quality of life to others. If we talk to ASEAN leaders or thinkers we are quickly made to understand how concerned they are about the drift in Australian attitudes and foreign policy. They say their expectations were that Australia would understand the nature of the security challenge with the Soviets enhancing their strength and role. Let the Australian Democrats take note of the situation. Let them get up and say the Pacific does not need a system of security. Let them say it, in fewer words than their leader used on AM this morning. For that is now their policy. Let the Government make its position perfectly clear. This is a position which so far has been bound in obfuscation and division within the ranks of the various Labor factions. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(4.09) —It used to be said of Norman Kirk when he was Prime Minister of New Zealand that he ought to have been Prime Minister of a bigger country. After hearing the Opposition speak today on the matter of public importance one is led to the conclusion that it really ought to be the Opposition in a smaller country. There is certainly no doubt that in a smaller country it would stand a better chance of becoming the government than it does of becoming the government in this country at the next election. It is remarkable that such a matter, referring to the actions of New Zealand, should be proposed for debate. The matter of public importance is in the following terms: The need for a firm Government statement rejecting for Australia the move to terminate ANZUS and other external defence arrangements recommended for New Zealand by that country's governing Labour Party. It is a pretty pathetic comment on the part of Opposition members that they should have brought in something that happens in another country in an attempt to make it an issue here. That shows just how short they are of issues with which to attack this Government. The real reason behind this matter of public importance is the outrage and the frustration of members of the Opposition at the fact that ANZUS, which they have always regarded as being their private property, is being so well handled by the present Australian Government. The commitment of the Australian Labor Party and the Government to ANZUS is perfectly clear. The Opposition has called for 'a firm Government statement rejecting for Australia the move to terminate ANZUS'. My goodness! How many firm Government statements do they need? The Opposition got into a great tizzy last year when the new Government announced that it wanted a 30 years on review of the ANZUS Treaty. That was a perfectly reasonable move, given that the Treaty was concluded in 1952. That review certainly took place. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in presenting the results of the review, first of all explained what his objective was in having the review performed. I quote from the Hansard where he said: Let me now explain why on attaining office earlier this year, the Government decided the time had come to put the ANZUS Treaty under the microscope-to subject it to a searching examination and to compare our findings with our partners. He continued: Our objective was not to revise the Treaty, nor was it to seek to weaken it. On the contrary, we were convinced that by stripping away the misconceptions, and the unrealistic expectations which surrounded the Treaty, we would strengthen it and bring it back to terms with reality. I was quoting from what the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden, said. That is precisely what the Government did; I think it did so to great effect. I would like to go through the issues which were reviewed in the course of that process and the conclusions which the Government reached. If these do not constitute a firm statement of support for ANZUS, then I do not know what does. These are the main conclusions of that review: It is in Australia's interests to maintain the ANZUS Treaty. Although concluded in very different circumstances the ANZUS Treaty has continuing relevance. It supports Australia's security in current and prospective strategic circumstances and reflects a coincidence of strategic interest between Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is a very firm statement of support. The review continues: this coincidence of interest provides the basis for co-operation which yields substantial benefits for Australia's defence effort and which affords substantial benefits to the United States also; Another firm conclusion. It continues: the provisions of the Treaty have been a significant factor in the development of consultation and co-operation with the United States and provide a firm basis on which United States military support could be sought in the event of major threat to the security of Australia, or New Zealand; A third firm statement. The review also states: while the provisions of the Treaty do not define precisely the nature of the response which partners might provide according to their constitutional processes in the event of attack or major threat, the Treaty has significant deterrent value; ANZUS has facilitated the development of available co-operation in defence matters with benefits much wider than the scope of the Treaty's provisions; The review concludes: the Treaty provisions do not derogate from Australia's right of national decisions in foreign and defence policy matters. That statement was put down in September 1983. How long does it take members of the Opposition to catch up with matters if they cannot regard that as a definitive statement of the Government's position? What was the reaction of the United States of America to that review? Let me quote a couple of reactions from Secretary Shultz who was asked what he thought of the idea of a review. He described it as 'an excellent idea'. He said it was: . . . most worthwhile to go through the discussion that we did and to arrive at where we are . . . it's been a good exercise. I remember that on 24 August the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who has just spoken, also got into a great tizzy when he discovered-I use that word advisedly-that the Republican Party had 'dropped' reference to Australia from its platform. At that time it had also dropped reference to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation which he did not make clear. In commenting on these fabricated and fevered concoctions of the honourable member opposite the United States State Department put out a Press release which said: We wish to make clear, as we have done repeatedly, that the United States Government attaches the highest importance to Anzus and to our excellent relationship with the Government of Australia including the personal relationship between President Reagan and Prime Minister Hawke. There is no question that not only has the Australian Government made its position clear and its review of ANZUS has been well accepted, but also the alliance is in far better shape than when honourable gentlemen opposite were responsible for looking after it. I would like to deal particularly with the question of ship visits because that matter was alluded to by those opposite. This Government's position is perfectly clear. Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer you and members of the Opposition to the statement made by the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) on 26 February 1984 in which he said: The Australian Labor Party and this Government have gone on record as supporting the visits of naval ships of our ANZUS allies. To that I add 'in accordance with strict safety arrangements which have been arrived at in consultation with the United States'. The same is not true of the Opposition. I well remember in my days in the Department of Foreign Affairs that in 1971 the well known and famous Billy McMahon banned visits by United States nuclear powered warships to this country. That banning took place when the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) was a Minister in the then Government and when the former Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser, was the Minister for Defence; I believe he was in between resignations at the time. That ban remained for some years until Mr Killen, a former Minister for Defence, lifted it. So the only banning of visits of United States nuclear powered vessels to this country came as a result of action which was taken by Mr McMahon in 1971. Mr Beddall —Why do they hate the United States? Mr BILNEY —I do not know that honourable members opposite hate the United States but they certainly have an infelicity and an incapacity to deal with it, which contrasts very favourably with this Government. The last matter I would like to deal with is the nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. I want to use what little time remains to me to go through the principles of what is a nuclear free zone. I might add that these were presented by Australia to the South Pacific Forum and accepted by that Forum unanimously. The principles are as follows: South Pacific countries should be free to live in peace and independence and to run their own affairs in accordance with the wishes and traditions of their peoples. Did the Opposition object to that? The principles continue: South Pacific countries should enjoy peaceful social and economic development free from the threat of environmental pollution. Is that part of the Opposition's problem? They continue: South Pacific countries acknowledge existing international treaties, organisations and regional arrangements, such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Law of the Sea Convention, which contribute to their objectives. There should be no use, testing or stationing of nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific. And so they go on. It strikes me that this whole exercise by members of the Opposition is simply a pathetic attempt to score cheap political points in Australia at the expense of Australia's foreign relations. They will not succeed . I suggest to them that if they are so worried about what New Zealand is doing they should cross the Tasman and attempt to run for government there. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The discussion has concluded. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests : Sales Tax (Nos. 1 to 9) Amendment Bills 1984 Sales Tax (Exemptions and Classifications) Amendment Bill 1984 Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1984 Patents Amendment Bill 1984 Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate transmitting a resolution relating to the disclosure of evidence and documents of joint committees in the following terms: (1) That, unless otherwise ordered, the Senate authorises the President to permit any person to examine and copy evidence submitted to, or documents of committees, which are in the custody of the Senate, which have not already been published by the Senate or its committees, and which have been in the Senate's custody for at least ten years: provided that if such evidence or documents were taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis, disclosure shall not take place unless the evidence or documents have been in the custody of the Senate for at least 30 years, and, in the opinion of the President, it is appropriate that such evidence or documents be disclosed: provided further that the President report to the Senate the nature of any evidence or documents made available under this Resolution and the person or persons to whom they have been made available. (2) That the disclosure of evidence or documents of joint committees be authorised by the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives under the same conditions as are provided in paragraph (1). (3) That the foregoing Resolution have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate desires the concurrence of the House of Representatives in that part of the Resolution relating to the evidence and documents of joint committees. The Senate, Canberra, 6 September 1984 Ordered that consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting. Consideration resumed from 7 September. Schedule 2. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Proposed expenditure, $83,056,000. Department of the Special Minister of State Proposed expenditure, $269,763,000. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(4.20) —I wish to address a couple of matters in relation to the vote for the Department of the Special Minister of State. The first matter refers to the moneys provided for the Australian Federal Police. The documents provided by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) indicate that $ 127,921,600 will be provided in this appropriation. In money terms it is an increase from $115,977,000 last year. It brings to mind statements that have been made in the House by members of the Opposition claiming that there are insufficient resources for the Australian Federal Police to fulfil its expanded role in this new emphasis on crime detection in Australia. In response to those statements last Friday in this House the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) referred to what he called increased resources that the Government had given to the Australian Federal Police. I invite the Minister to study the figures that he has provided. If he does so he will find that the sum of $127,921,000 is voted for the Australian Federal Police, but that that figure includes $3,500,000 which the AFP will have to expend on coastal protection. That is the figure given at page 235 of Budget Paper No. 1. The Budget document states, referring to the increase for the Australian Federal Police: Also included in this increase is an additional $3.5m for civil coastal surveillance which is the AFP's share of the costs of the program. The amount will facilitate the upgrading of the civil coastal surveillance . . . To cover the responsibility of the Australian Federal Police to protect the family courts in Australia an increased amount over last year of over $1,250,000 is provided. On the first count I made in a number of collations that had to be made in this area the amount was $1.269m. If one takes away from the figure of $ 127.9m the sum devoted to coastal protection and family court protection one gets a figure of $123.151m. If one goes to last year's vote of $115.6m and increases it by a rate of inflation of 6.5 per cent, one finds that there is a deficiency, in real terms, of several hundred thousand dollars in this year's vote when compared with that for last year. These are the figures the Minister has provided in his documents and they simply do not square up with the figures that his Prime Minister used in this House last Friday and the contention that the Australian Federal Police is getting additional resources from this Government. I remind the Special Minister of State, who is at the table, and the Committee of Mr Redlich's report which was tabled in the Senate last Friday. The Special Prosecutor stated, amongst a number of other things: An immediate cause for the gravest concern is the gross incapacity of the Federal Police to respond to and cope with the multifarious facets of identified Federal crime, whether 'organised' or not. He continued: I have previously expressed my concern as to the present resources and capability of the Force to respond to the increasing demands of criminal law investigation and enforcement quite apart from its ordinary policing and numerous protective security functions. He went on to say: As estimated, 100 detectives are required by the Police full-time on Social Security matters alone. He continued: There is a critical need for more and adequate resources for the Federal Police to enable it to carry out its primary statutory obligation. . . . . From my perspective, the capacity of the A.F.P. to deal with Commonwealth Crime has deteriorated since my last Annual Report. I recommend that necessary funds and human resources should be allocated to the A.F.P. as a matter of priority. Finally, he stated: At one stage in the Review period the Management Team noted that there were, for example, 34 vacant management positions in that city- referring to Sydney- many without applicants at all, the main reasons cited being the 'considerable financial hardship' which apparently results from the relocation of A.F.P. members after recruitment in or posting to Canberra and is also due to the increased housing and commuting costs involved in both establishing and maintaining a residence in the capital of New South Wales. Quite clearly in the view of the Special Prosecutor there is a great deficiency in the resources of the Australian Federal Police. The current view held by the Special Prosecutor-this is not something pertaining to past years but is a current view-is that not enough is being done. Yet the figures we are studying in this Committee indicate that there is no advancement at all in the sums available to the Australian Federal Police specifically to fight crime. I would like the Minister to reply to this claim, as I am sure he will. The figures he has given and which are available in the Budget statement show, by subtracting the amounts allocated for the two additional areas I have mentioned-coastal protection and family court protection-that the amount allocated to fight crime is in fact static, if one wants to be kind to the Minister and ignore the matter of the several hundred thousand dollars difference in updated money terms. I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that the amounts being spent on electoral matters are very much increased. There is a quite obvious expansion in the sums required to run an election because of the increased numbers of members of the Houses of Parliament. This is reflected in the many millions of dollars-- Mr Young —It was your idea. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister is quite incorrect. He should not mislead the Committee and the people of Australia by continuing to misrepresent members of the Liberal Party of Australia here. All of those members condemn the Government 's attitude towards increasing the size of Parliament and their determined vote opposing such an increase has been recorded in this House. Quite clearly, enough money is being wasted on one aspect of the electoral process which does not relate to the increase in the size of Parliament. I refer to the matter of public funding. Of the money being appropriated to this Department, $8m is being thrown away. For the first time in the history of this country it is being thrown to the political parties to help them go out and badger voters for support at the forthcoming election. If that $8m were put into the Australian Federal Police to help fight crime in this community all of us would be very much better off. There would be more respect for political parties in the sense that the public would know then that taxpayers' money was not being handed out to fight elections and $8m would be available to the police force to fight crime this year, which is now not available. Mr Young —Public funding does fight crime. It stops corruption in politics. Mr STEELE HALL —The Minister is being facetious, as always. I do not think that the public should ever take him seriously. He meets any serious charge about the quality of his administration with a throwaway line. That will not do in facing the public of Australia and explaining his priorities and how political parties can get $8m while he starves law enforcement in this community. The figures show that, despite the reports of Redlich and the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, he is not as concerned about crime this year as he was last year. He certainly is not as concerned as he ought to be, considering the measure of importance the community places on the fight against crime. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(4.30) —I make a few comments first about those who pose ridiculous situations and expect to be taken seriously. It really is ludicrous for the Opposition to appear to be holier than thou on an issue which it ignored for so long at such enormous cost and to attempt to criticise the Government which is the first government in Australia's history that has taken significant action in this area. For the previous speaker, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), to suggest that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) should be more serious flies in the face of the Opposition's very long and disastrous record. During the last month or so many of us have been not so much amazed as perhaps bemused by the attempts of the Opposition to clothe itself in the garb of respectability by suggesting that it has nothing to answer for and that somehow the current Government is at fault. The facts show clearly the opposite. If one looks back in time to see why the current level of expenditure on the fight against organised crime is so high, one finds that it was an accident of fate. It was never expected that the current expenditure of over $2m on the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union would be spent on organised crime. It was meant to be a political stunt aimed by the current Government at the Australian Labor Party. That expenditure has now become part of the Budget. If that accident of fate had not occurred the level of expenditure we would have encountered upon coming to government would have been much lower than it is. In fact, one argument would have been that that amount of expenditure was an aberration and that we should now get back to a more normal situation. The Government could well have been justified in so arguing because of the historical growth in the policing area. However, on the contrary, we suggested that the expenditure of the day was not adequate and should in fact be extended. Hence last year's healthy Budget appropriation for the Australian Federal Police has been matched this year. In speaking to the estimates for the Department of the Special Minister of State one cannot separate its three components. One cannot separate the Australian Federal Police from the royal commissions or from the National Crime Authority because the three are intrinsically bound. In fact, if one is to be at all genuine and attempt to achieve any credibility in speaking on this topic, one has to look at the totality. One must look at the expenditure on the Australian Federal Police during the current year, an amount of $127m or almost $128m; on the Bureau of Criminal Intelligence; on the two royal commissions which, taking last year's Budget, are currently costing $5m and, taking the current Budget, are to cost $1.8m; and, of course, on the National Crime Authority, which now has its own separate allocation of $6.9m. If one puts those together, one finds an increase in the current Budget's allocation towards fighting organised crime of somewhere in the vicinity of 13 per cent. If that is not substantial, I wonder whom members of the Opposition hope they will persuade . It seems to me that they have a great capacity to convince themselves. But from my interpretation of the community at large, their capacity to convince the community is somewhat lacking. The fact is that this Government feels very strongly about what has happened in Australia in recent years and feels a very great need to rectify the situation, to repair the damage. But the fact is that it is much easier to destroy than it is to build. It will take us quite some years to build the staff, to recruit and train the men, to equip them adequately and for them to absorb the skills. One will therefore note that in this year's Budget particular reference is made to the computer extensions necessary to help the Federal police force to fight organised crime. Of course, in this year's Budget $3m was allocated to computer services, $219,000 to scientific research and $2m to equipment purchases in this area. This is necessary to catch up with the backlog. We did not start off in a fair situation and carry it on. We started off five years behind. Five years, from 1976 to 1981, were missed. The situation was let run amock and run riot. To start to correct it we have to pick up a five-year backlog. I would have thought that during the last two years the increases in expenditure allocated to this area were major, significant and well-targeted. The assumption the Opposition is trying to put forward is the age-old one, which is that if one throws money at a problem that will solve it. We know and the Opposition knows that that does not work. The fact is that if the Opposition were still in government we would expect to see a winding down of the Costigan Royal Commission and a reduction in expenditure. But that is not happening. If one takes the royal commissions plus the National Crime Authority, one is talking about a sum in the vicinity of $8.7m or $8.8m being spent directly in this area. That will be a major adjunct to the activities of the Federal Police. Under the schemes and the legislation that have been put to the Parliament by the Government the interaction between the State and Federal spheres will be vastly more productive because in the past we faced a duplication and a tying up of resources because of the unworkability of what had long been argued for. The other aspect to consider about the increases in regard to the Australian Federal Police-I think this is where the current Opposition fell down over the years-is that it is very hard to quantify, to put a figure, a result or a cost benefit on what these increases will achieve. Therefore, in political terms the Opposition had trouble selling the need to increase the Australian Federal Police because it is not a visible, front-line police force. In that context it is reasonable and perhaps appropriate to show the differences that can occur. During the current year, drug seizures by Federal agencies of, for example, cannabis oil went from 37,000 grams in 1977 to 30,000 grams in 1982 and to 90, 000 grams from January to June this year. If one looks at drug seizures in general during the last two years, one finds that there has been a significant increase. That might not make headlines-it might well mean that sport will be on the front pages-because it is a bit hard perhaps to market that in the political sense. A clear implication can be drawn in regard to the situation for the last four years. During the first two years of that period the issues were buried, ignored and talked over and down at. During the current year and a half to two years there has suddenly been a complete reversal. Members of the Opposition pose as the custodians of public morality and as people who tried to correct the situation. Clearly the facts do not reflect that. Clearly the community knows that. I suspect that members of the Opposition talk to the converted few who believe their rhetoric. The fact is that serious matters are involved. The serious matters are the problems involved in lead times in building up police and investigative capacity and in mounting the equipment programs and training skills that are needed. If, in fact, the measures had been in excess of the quite magnificent increase of the last two Budgets, they would not have been productive. The argument that the Opposition is trying to put is that we should have thrown more money at the problem because that is what it says it would have done. It would have pretended that it was doing something. The famous words of the ex-member for Macarthur-' Make out you are doing something', that is, be seen to be doing something-we are told are all that are warranted. It does not matter whether it works or not, just so long as the appearance is given. However, we are not about appearances. We are about results. The drug seizures during the first six months of this year show that we are very much about results. The productivity that is developing in the relationship between the Australian Federal Police and the various State police forces shows that we are about results. The continuation of the Costigan Royal Commission and the development of the National Crime Authority show that we are about results. I have not heard one speaker during recent weeks, in wanting to jump on this bandwagon, ever link together the expenditure on the National Crime Authority, the Costigan Royal Commission and the Stewart Royal Commission and the Australian Federal Police. In all seriousness, if one does not do that, one's whole argument is shonky. I suspect that the public of Australia knows how much not to believe what is put forward by the Opposition. There are other matters relating to the Department of the Special Minister of State which I think are important. Perhaps the most important, in terms of the Parliament of Australia, is the Australian Electoral Commission. For the first time as a country we now have, and visibly so, an independent electoral body that will make judgments based on the facts and not, as we found happening during the late 1970s, by ministerial intrusion. I think that in the years to come that might well be seen to have the most significant effect on the democratic process of this country. It is long overdue. It should have happened decades ago. The fact is that that Commission will now sit as an arbitrator, independent of the party influences that the previous Government was previously so fond of pushing. The Minister has experienced a hard year in terms of organising the Commission, but the results have proven the independence of the Commission. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(4.40) —When I was elected to this Parliament in March last year I became the youngest member of this House, the baby of the Parliament. We all enter this place with prejudices due to our background, our generation or whatever is relevant to us. I am no different from anybody else in this chamber. One very strong prejudice, one very strong matter of public concern that I have a very deep feeling about, is the drug trade and the spread of what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) this afternoon called a cancer. It is a hackneyed phrase which has been used by many before him, as most of the phrases in his speeches are, but nevertheless it is a true phrase. The drug trade particularly is of some concern to me because it not only afflicts a section of my generation in stark terms and the generation older than I am but also afflicts more starkly and in even greater numbers I suspect the younger generation. We all talk in this place-a lot of public concern has been expressed lately by one inquirer and another-about the need to combat organised crime particularly in the area of drugs, the need for a modern professional force and the need to do something about drugs. This afternoon the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) expressed concern about the resources of the Australian Federal Police in this area and the need for something to be done about them. Talk is cheap, but doing something about the problem costs money. It takes a bit of guts and it takes a bit of consistency. When those opposite start acquiring any of those traits perhaps they can come into this chamber and speak with some sincerity about this matter. They presided over this country for eight years and watched organised crime grow like Topsy and watched the drug trade boom with it. Because of their concern, their affliction with Adam Smith eighteenth century economics, of cutting and pruning budgets everywhere, the Australian Federal Police failed to keep up relatively at all with the spread of organised crime and the drug trade. Talk is cheap, but doing something about it is a lot different. This afternoon the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) gave honourable members some figures; let me give some more. Let us take heroin, for example, and these figures are supplied by the Department of the Special Minister of State. In 1982, the last full year of Liberal-National Party Government, 32,014.4 grams of heroin was seized. In 1983, the first year under the Hawke Labor Government, the seizure of heroin rose to 97,071.65 grams. For the half year to the end of June this year seizures were already 78,038 grams. I could cite similar statistics for opium, cocaine, cannabis oil, cannabis and many other drugs, but the fact is that the runs are on the board, the results are on the board, under this Government and we should ask why. That question is very relevant to the debate in the chamber at the moment about budgetary allocation for the Department of the Special Minister of State. A joint management review was commenced on 9 January this year by the Federal Police and was completed in April. It brought down 124 substantial recommendations, most of which were followed by this Government. The essential theme to those recommendations was that the Australian Federal Police needed to develop skilled police forces in a bigger and better way, more consistent with the needs of fighting modern day crime. What has this Government done about it? It has allocated $560,000 for the enhancement of computer technology. This year the Budget will provide expenditure for the development and maintenance of technology in the following areas, just to name some: An amount of $3m for computer services, $219,000 for scientific research and $2m for equipment purchases including the upgrading of the communications room and the further acquisition of digital voice privacy equipment. This Government is doing something about the need to get into the modern technology era to fight organised crime. Of course, there have been many other related things which have strengthened the Federal Police, such as the opening and strengthening of posts in Washington , Los Angeles, Jakarta and Bangkok and the provisions made for liaison posts in Singapore, Manila, Hong Kong and Rome. In this Budget there is increased expenditure for coastal surveillance and the protection of the Family Court of Australia. All of these things show that this Government is sincere about law and order and about the real need to fight organised crime or, in the case of the attacks on members of the Family Court, the spasmodic terror crimes that need to be confronted in our society. To get it on the record, let me deal for a moment with the numbers in the AFP and the increase in staffing. In the budgetary year 1983-84 there was an increase in employment in the AFP of 256 persons over that in the 1982 Budget. In the first year of the Labor Government, its first Budget, there were 256 additional people in the AFP compared with the number under the previous Government. Yet honourable members opposite still come into this chamber and talk with puffed-out chests about law and order and say that we are not doing anything. As if that is not enough, this Budget adds yet another 165 persons to the AFP-37 in the investigative area, 72 in the Family Court area, 37 in coastal surveillance and another 19 in training and support. This Government is doing something about crime. I am sure that every honourable member expresses the concern that we should be beefing up the AFP and its support services. The spread of organised crime is something that is more than a national cancer; it is a national embarrassment to a nation of 15 million people to have the status of organised crime that we have. But this Government, unlike the last one, I reiterate, is doing something about it in terms of money, the numbers of people in the police force and the technology needed. In the short time available to me I would like to touch on one other matter. That is on the subject of what the honourable member for Boothby ended his speech to the chamber about, and that is the issue of public funding for election campaigns. I have recently come back from a tour of the United State of America where I have had a look at the political system. If we as a nation, in attempting to enhance, support and ensure the survival of our democracy, did not move towards public funding we would be the odd one out. In the United States of America public funding has been long established in a variety of formats and is widespread in Europe. That is something that we on both sides of the Parliament should be proud of. We should not be attempting, as those opposite are, to score political points with it. I think the honourable member for Boothby quoted the figure of $8m. An amount as small as that is all that is needed to enhance, preserve and strengthen the democratic foundations of this country. It is probably the best investment that any government could make. The real reason the honourable member for Boothby and those opposite do not like public funding is that at every election time they are able to lay their hands on more cash than we are, with their franked-up, direct mail services which they have learnt from the Republicans. Until this Government came on the scene there was the natural bias of the corporate sector towards the conservative parties but, of course, that has changed. The balance has switched and now honourable members opposite are confronted with equal funding from public funding. The tories are a little worried that for once the Australian Labor Party might get a fair go in terms of election spending. It worries the dickens out of those opposite because they know that they need to outspend us three and four to one to have any chance of winning an election, especially if they continue the kind of fear and terror tactics they are displaying over the pensioner assets test. In short, the provisions for the Department of the Special Minister of State are good. They meet areas of prime concern-much needed electoral reform, the fight against organised crime and the need to beef up the Australian Federal Police. I conclude by saying to the House once again-the honourable member for Boothby should remember this: Talking is cheap; doing something about it is much harder. We have taken the harder road, and we are winning. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(4.50) —I thank the honourable members who have participated in the discussion on the Department of the Special Minister of State. I shall deal specifically with the two items that have been raised by the Opposition and spoken to by my colleagues the honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch). The resources made available to the Australian Federal Police have been the subject of some discussion during the past few days. There has been quite a deal of conjecture about what Mr Redlich said in his report about the AFP's resources . His views have been, of course, well known for a long time, because the management review team of the Australian Federal Police, which delivered its report much earlier this year, visited Mr Redlich and Mr Costigan to obtain their views. Mr Redlich put much of what was contained in his final report to the management review team of the Australian Federal Police. The management review team made 124 recommendations, a number of which have already been put into place and many others of which are now being looked at. One particular recommendation, which is of enormous importance to the AFP's increased efficiency in dealing with some of the major problems with which Australia is confronted, concerns the training period for senior investigative officers. It was recommended that the training period be shortened. It now takes five or six years to train a person to enter the senior positions. That training period will be shortened to meet the demands that are being made on the AFP. People who criticise the resources made available to the AFP think that if we doubled the amount of money available and doubled the intake of people into the AFP the problems could be overcome. The fact is that we are talking about four or five years down the track-the time it takes to train the number of people who will be required. My colleague the honourable member for Barton touched on the extra resources being made available to the AFP for coastal surveillance and the Family Court of Australia. One must express great disappointment at the fact that Australia has reached the stage where our Family Court of Australia judges must be given considerable protection. When we have witnessed outrageous acts against judges' homes-in one case, the wife of a judge was killed-the Government has no option but to make available the resources that are required to give those people the sort of personal protection that is necessary. As the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) correctly ascertained, the cost of that protection is $ 1.2m. A number of people must be immediately taken from other tasks to put that protection into operation. We must consider the new year's intake with the number of people who will be saved from the guarding service. One of the features of the AFP which the honourable member for Boothby overlooked is the fact that the separation of the guarding service from the AFP will mean that 120 people will go into general police duties. Many of those people will relieve some of the officers who have been taken from other activities. Mr Steele Hall —It is still all in the one budget at the moment. Mr YOUNG —A proportion of that budget will have to go back to the Department of Administrative Services. The amount will depend on the total number of people who go from the guarding service back into the Department of Administrative Services. One problem has been the period that it takes to train people, but other matters must be considered. We cannot separate coastal surveillance from the budget and say that it does not count. The major reason on which the Government based its decision to hand over coastal surveillance to the AFP was the allegations, and, in some cases, the evidence from former commissions, about drugs coming into Australia through the north. We need a law enforcement agency to counter some of the criminal activities that could be occurring in the north of Australia. The three units under the AFP will be situated in the north-west of Western Australia, the top end of Queensland and Darwin to counteract criminal activity which may be going on unapprehended. We shall have to wait for and witness the impact of that measure. The debate on some of those matters has got totally out of hand. Some people seem to have the impression that the National Crime Authority is exactly the same as the Costigan Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union; but it is not the same thing. The Crime Authority has been handed all the details of the Costigan Commission, but it will seek references from the States and probably from the Commonwealth about other matters that should be investigated. The Crime Authority will need different resources. Many investigations are going on, and I shall give the House an entree into the Commonwealth-New South Wales Joint Task Force on Drug Trafficking. Its annual report has been made available. The report contains much confidential information, but some of the figures can be made public. Since 1979, since the task force has been in operation, 180 people have been arrested and 315 charges have been laid. During the past 12 months, 30 arrests have been made and 90 charges have been laid. The task force has been responsible for breaking up 14 major and seven minor drug trafficking groups. Of those convicted of offences as a result of charges brought by the task force, 40 received prison sentences in excess of five years. Acting on information provided by the task force, the Australian Taxation Office instituted 26 investigations, resulting in $4,728,000 being recovered as understated income and/or additional taxation penalties. In addition to those figures, we have noted in Mr Redlich's report and earlier reports from summaries of the activities of Commissioner Costigan that the Taxation Office has been enormously successful in reassessing the incomes of many other people. It is not as though we have reached a full stop in our fight. To some extent, Australia received a rude shock on noting the amount of information about criminal activity that has occurred in the last few years in Australia. Certainly, Australia was in no shape to combat that criminal activity in the way in which it emerged during the 1970s and early 1980s. That activity will not go away by using any panic rhetoric; it will go away when considerable thought is given to the best way of combating that crime. Collectively, we thought that the setting up of the National Crime Authority-that was an original concept of the Fraser Government-was the best way to take over the investigations of the Costigan Commission, which has been in operation for four years. The AFP, like any other department, is always in the battle for financial resources, and we shall have to examine closely not just its resources but also its training methods and the implementation of the report of the management review team, whose recommendations have been accepted almost in toto by the AFP. We have made major gains in terms of what must be done, not just in this country . Placing surveillance officers of the AFP in strategic places around the world where much criminal activity originates before it enters Australia might be a great way of enabling us to collect the sort of information that we require. I shall refer to the electoral law changes and the appropriations for the Commonwealth Electoral Commission. Obviously, when there is a massive electoral redistribution, habitation review and election all in the one year, any government must cater in what appears to be a generous way for the Commonwealth Electoral Commission in that one-off situation. The provision is not generous; it is just sufficient for the Electoral Commission to carry out its necessary function. The law in Australia has changed, and public funding has been introduced. That practice is not unique. I realise that some people in Australia still oppose that concept, but the fact is that most Western democracies have some form of public funding for elections. We have introduced a system whereby public funding runs parallel to the private system and the private system is maintained, and most other Western countries have done the same. Provision has been made for the Electoral Commission to do that as well. We have made the Commission an independent organisation to carry out its statutory functions. In considering the appropriations available to the Commission in carrying out its duties in the years to come, we must await the success or otherwise of what the Commission has been doing in 1984. In the debate now going on about how effective we are in fighting crime and about the sorts of resources being made available it is not just a question of putting another nought on the end of the figures; it is very much a question of having a very serious and comprehensive look at the structure of crime fighting in Australia. The co-operation and co-ordination needed was very much at the heart of the way in which we established the National Crime Authority, having in the end the complete co-operation of all the State and Territory governments to see that it proceeded. Now that all the material has been handed over by the Costigan Royal Commission to the National Crime Authority, we will hopefully have a great deal more success than otherwise would have been the case. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(5.01) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has not really answered my concern. He has dealt in general terms with his support of the Australian Federal Police and very rightly has praised its successes. I believe the AFP is very deserving of praise because it is having to face greatly expanded responsibilities. The thing which is of concern to me and which caused me to speak in the first instance is the claim by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and by other members of the Government that greatly increased resources are available to the Australian Federal Police. I had hoped that somewhere the Minister would prove me wrong in the detail I gave him, but apparently his silence is confirmation of the fact that, given an inflation rate of 6.5 per cent, there is no increase in real terms for the general policing work of the Australian Federal Police when coastal surveillance and Family Court protection are excised from its vote. I do not want to dwell on that point, but I am disappointed that the Minister has given no hope to the Committee that there is an increase. I predicate that it is an actual reduction of $700,000, given a 6.5 per cent inflation rate for Australia for 12 months, in the funds going to the Australian Federal Police for those matters I referred to, excluding those two processes. I mention consultants' fees, the allocation for which I see has increased by 254 per cent. It is all very well for the Minister to say that there are no funds, that funds are scarce and that they have to be allocated sensibly. But the Government has a choice; it has some capacity to administer funds at the margin of its general responsibilities. It has chosen, of course, in this year of office to estimate $700,000 for consultants, which seems to be an enormous increase. I am not at all sure that that represents the whole of the consultancy work of the Government, but at least it is the line here for payment of fees and travelling expenses in respect of travel within Australia of consultants engaged by Ministers of state. It seems to be an enormous increase that I would have thought would need much further explanation to the Committee than the expenditure lines of the Department given here, the general comment being that provision has been made. Provision has been made, but for what purpose does the Government want to expand by 250 per cent its consultancy work? It seems to me that that is an inordinate increase that ought to be explained here. The Minister might also explain why there appears to be no vote in his Department for the increase in the size of the Parliament in the sense of payment of additional members of parliament who I understand will be paid from Saturday night, 1 December. That being the case, the Minister might tell me why he has not made provision for the seven months of this financial year. It seems to me to be a quite substantial sum of money. One begins to wonder at the capacity of the Minister to administer his Department properly and to stand responsible for his Department's figures when there appear to be omissions of that type. I again record my disappointment that in real terms, given the rate of inflation in this community, the Australian Federal Police will be slightly worse off than last year. That does not stand to the Government's credit; it stands to its great discredit. It flies in the face of expert advice from royal commissioners and special prosecutors and it is a position that this Opposition will remedy as soon as it returns to government. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(5.06) —I hope that the Australian Federal Police does not have to wait for the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) to return to government to get additional resources because by that time crime will be running rampant. Very briefly, using 1982-83 as the base figures there were 3,073 members of the Australian Federal Police. In 1983-84 there was an increase of 256 or 8.3 per cent. In 1984-85 there was an increase of 164 or 4.9 per cent. That is a total of an additional 420 or 13.67 per cent in the manpower resources of the AFP. I am sorry that I do not have all the particulars of the consultants with me but, as the honourable member knows, the Department of the Special Minister of State services all departments with consultants. I will get the information for the honourable member for Boothby. I put on record in relation to the make-up of the AFP that, when the guarding service is separated from the AFP, some 65 per cent of all AFP personnel will be involved in or utilised on investigative work, which will give it a very high ratio of people involved in what we in this Parliament are concerned about with respect to major or organised crime in this country. I would have thought that a very high figure, considering the history of the AFP and the very rapid development and impost of responsibilities placed on it in the last four or five years. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $981,602,000. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.08) —The Department of Foreign Affairs has increased its impact on our lives in a number of directions. Under this Government initiatives have been taken to increase the external powers over our lives. The decision on the Franklin Dam case, added to the Koowarta case, has brought to some fulfilment the dream of Mr Whitlam that the signature of many and various conventions will be used to transform the Australian Constitution. These United Nations conventions are lightly entered into by many United Nations members who sign and ratify without any intention of implementation-from human to racial minority rights. It would indeed be instructive to test the sincerity of the preponderant numbers of signatories. These conventions get kicked off in some arena of the United Nations apparatus, often with only a junior officer of the Department to respond to initial formulations. They get shaken down and sent to Canberra for further consideration. Sometimes the drafting is quite developed before it gets to the State Government which gets snowed under by the pressure from Canberra to respond. We on this side of the chamber are unhappy with this sloppy process. Initially we have decided that in government we will not use the external affairs power to expand the role of the Commonwealth at the expense of the States and that we will involve the States in the negotiation and ratification of all treaties which concern them. We in government will address this issue as one of importance. This year has seen the unfolding of a number of major United States initiatives in disarmament. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), under the authority of the retiring permanent head, Mr Peter Henderson, has structured a very able group of men to develop Australian policies and input into the disarmament and arms control negotiations. Our effectiveness is determined to a great extent by the nature of the working relationship we have with the United States in this field. Contrary to the socialist left view, it is the United States and not the Soviet Union which is making the pace for arms control. A very good case was prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs for the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a strong case to advance negotiations for a comprehensive ban treaty. This has been bipartisan policy for many years. One of the problems is to devise a suitable and stable verification system. There has been a lot of pressure from the United States Congress for a greater effort by the United States Administration. I note the Government was inclined to give the public impression that it was Australia which wrought the change for a more forthcoming position. We may, of course, take some credit, but I am sure Senator Edward Kennedy, who took charge of this issue in the United States Senate, which culminated in a vote of 76:22 at the beginning of June in a Republican- controlled Senate, expressing support for a comprehensive test ban treaty, would not totally agree with the Australian Foreign Minister and the Australian Government taking the credit for the change for a more forthcoming position. It hardly seems appropriate to rob the diplomatic situation of the concern expressed by the United States Senate in order to big-note our own efforts. It is notable that the statement delivered in conference and prepared by the Department contained no threat to the United States. However, in the Press conference outside the Minister for Foreign Affairs made a charge for headlines which he got-banner headlines-followed by analyses saying that he had raised a threat to withdraw the joint facilities, apparently if the United States deviated from his perception of what it should do. In the face of that sort of thing, we wonder why the New Zealand Labour Party does a flip. It may be that when one strings together a series of gratuitous attacks on the United States, on ASEAN and on ANZUS people around the region get the sense that all banks are for the stick-up. Threatening public gestures seem to be the name of the game. Even Dr Mochtar, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, who our Foreign Minister always paraded as a supporter in his Vietnam diplomacy, cannot rest easy with the present Australian Minister's current activities. So when we need to carry trust in a delicate situation, it is not there. Even John Ryan has given voice to the view that he was betrayed by the Minister for his refusal to agree that names of participants in the Sheraton exercise should be made public. That is an old issue, but it leaves again the taint of broken words and understandings. What does it all add up to? It means people are unsure of what the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs is all about. It is a general problem, not an invention by me or by professional critics. Therefore, it is obvious that we take a lot of risks with these antics. Talk to the United States at the more unofficial level and there is consternation about why we should feel it was necessary to threaten to withdraw co-operation with them in the great task of building stability and peace. The United States Congress is very vulnerable to misimpressions. This, I think, has been illustrated by the failure of the Republican Party platform to include specific references to Australia. The Minister and then members of the Labor Party found some comfort that NATO was not mentioned either. We do not want to be too complacent. There was a running battle between Congress and the Reagan Administration, Congress wanting to withdraw 95,000 troops out of disappointment for NATO members' perceived indifference. President Reagan intervened. The NATO bonds have great strength, but ANZUS bonds are more fragile. It ill behoves the Minister to expose ANZUS to negative attention by threatening United States facilities, and then laugh it off as he sought to do in this House. The Minister for Foreign Affairs complains about the lack of bipartisanship. He cannot have bipartisanship on the basis of an ALP document. Bipartisanship has to emerge from this Parliament, yet he has studiously avoided making a comprehensive statement to the Parliament. What has he done? He announced a review of ANZUS, which left some gaps which we pointed out. We on this side took a reasonable and measured approach to that statement. ANZUS deserves the utmost bipartisan approach, but there were some weaknesses in his statement. He announced the withdrawal from the Sinai peacekeeping force, in terms which we think exposes Australian peacekeeping to the proposition that we will participate in peacekeeping only if the Soviet agrees. He has defended his various negative attacks on ASEAN policy on Kampuchea. He sensibly referred the foreign aid inquiry to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence inquiring into the Horn of Africa. None of this amounts to a comprehensive statement of foreign policy, which can summon a response which will excite bipartisanship. It is all too episodic, designed to shift issues around the Caucus room in the hope the issues will disappear or become confused. The ALP conference debate on foreign policy was a mess. Chaired by a man who has set himself as an expert on the magistracy, the Party scratched around its phobias- we all remember the concentration on Indonesia and the United States-and the scene was left with resolutions deliberately designed to mean different things to different people. So we find that the Parliament for the duration of the first Hawke Government has been deprived of a comprehensive statement and debate on foreign policy. Why ? I am sure members on that side, particularly the Left, have many things to say , and would like to say. The Right faction does not care about foreign policy as long as what is done does not lose votes. And the centre-left? They see themselves as the masters of the diplomacy of chastisement-that singular and selective art which chides our friends and condones our critics. In this way it stands ever ready to get the numbers in Caucus for the power struggle between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister. Our foreign policy has been the channel by which we have exported the factionalism of the Labor Party. This has been pointed out recently in an editorial in the Age: The institutionalism of the factions has been one of the most marked features of the first term of the Hawke Government. With the formation of the centre-left the stage has been reached where all but a few Labor MP's can be categorised quite clearly into three groups. Each has its own managers, calls its own meetings and produces its own material. The execution of foreign policy has been guided by one faction leader and somewhat ineffectively amended by another, the Prime Minister, and of that faction leader the Age says: The Prime Minister is a member of the right faction. His use of the numbers it commands has been ruthless. This applies not only to the way he has pursued policies that obviously conflict with Labor Party policy but also to the way he attained his position as party leader last year. It was partly because Mr Hawke was so clearly aligned with one group that the centre-left was actually set up. Mr Hawke has by his actions promoted an intensity of factional feeling which was previously unknown at the national level. His recent demands to his colleagues that factional restraint be exercised therefore seem somewhat ironic. It is a little late for the Prime Minister to attempt to become the statesman in the Labor Party. Members of the other two factions could hardly be expected to lay down their weapons on the advice of a Prime Minister who has shown repeatedly that he will wield his own quite ruthlessly whenever he sees the need. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.18) —Despite what the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said in this debate, we are dealing with the estimates for the Department of Foreign Affairs. I thought that I would bring the Committee back to the estimates, which are very important documents and reveal the Government's commitment to the area of foreign affairs in creating Australia's image overseas and, perhaps more positively, helping to resolve international conflicts and promoting goodwill around the world. Having had the opportunity recently to travel on the South American continent, I have nothing but praise and admiration for the work of the personnel within the Department of Foreign Affairs. I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to some of the items in Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 which the Committee is now considering, in view of the fact that Australia is spending nearly $1 billion on foreign affairs . This is a tremendous commitment at a time when there are so many bodies competing for money, such as schools and hospitals, and assistance is also required for housing, particularly for low income earners and pensioners. Nevertheless, Australia has an important role to play in the area of foreign affairs and indeed does play that role. Australia makes a commitment of nearly $ 250m in bilateral aid projects. Last year when in Papua New Guinea I had the opportunity to visit many of these projects and also projects in the Solomon Islands and elsewhere. About a quarter of the budget in our former colony of Papua New Guinea is a straight-out Australian grant of bilateral aid. But for that aid that country would not be progressing as it is. I think it is important to point these things out. The Australian people often do not appreciate the amount of aid that we give to Papua New Guinea. A lot of work has been done on aid by the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program and elsewhere and I do not intend to deal with that at any length. We also contribute nearly $112m for bilateral food aid, world food programs and food security measures. During my recent visit on a parliamentary delegation to Central America, I was delighted to see the awareness of the need for specialised food for children. I am pleased to note the work that has been done in relation to the need for food for babies and the nutrition programs that are under way. I have noted that Australia is contributing to many of these schemes not only with food aid but also with personnel working overseas. The Government is giving $8.8m to the non-government organisations. In some countries they can do a much better job than direct aid from Australia. There are sometimes difficulties in aiding a country direct, particularly when its neighbours object to government aid. Often Australia can re-route aid through the non-government sector to help a nation and in this way achieve its aims. One of the other matters which I wanted to touch on was the amount that we pay for our overseas service, both for administrative expenses which are estimated at $31m and for salaries and payments in the nature of salary to our ambassadors , consuls and all the staff in the various embassies and high commissions that we run around the world, which are estimated at $66m-a very considerable amount of money. I found when I visited some of these countries during the parliamentary recess and as a member of a delegation both this year and last year that people in these countries work in very difficult situations. The postings in many of them are far too long. Three years is too long to spend in a city such as Mexico City, where every day the air is so polluted that just breathing it in is equivalent to smoking 40 cigarettes a day. That is an appalling situation for young children to have to face each day. I think the Department should look at cutting down the postings in such places from three years to two years. I do not refer only to Mexico City. In Lima a Maoist group of terrorists is growing and threats have been made against many of the embassies, including the Australian Embassy. The Ambassador there, a very fine man, Gerald Harding, his wife Mary and children, welcomed those of us who visited Peru. These people live under a threat. Many countries have insecurity and in many of them diplomatic families are at risk. I know that in both Mexico and Peru the Australian Embassy has had to expend money on special security arrangements. In Mexico there was even a shooting at the West German embassy in which a guard was killed. Also the Australian Embassy there has been robbed. I pay credit to people like Cavan Hogue, and Mira, his wife, and the other officers at the embassy in Mexico. Not only do they have responsibility for Mexico, a nation of 77 million people, but also they have to cover Nicaragua, El Salvador and all the other Central American countries. There are many difficulties in these places. The same problem exists in Papua New Guinea. When I was in Port Moresby last year, I found that there was a very serious security problem for embassy staff and personnel. The same can be said of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. Ambassadors have to have secretaries and stenographers who are Australian. There is also a great problem in many countries for diplomatic staff. Yet these ambassadors and their staff make a tremendous impact. I noted that the ambassador in Peru was on first name terms with many key people. Whilst I was in Peru, Ambassador Harding handed over a gift of medicines to the mayor of the city of Lima, a city of six million people, with appalling poverty. The medicines were purchased out of moneys made available by the Australian Government. My visit gave me an opportunity to appreciate some of the risks that many of Australian Government officials and their families have to endure on overseas postings. I turn to the other matter on which I wanted to touch. I feel there is a need for an integrated service overseas. At present we have people from the Australian Information Service and the Departments of Trade, Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Foreign Affairs working in all these countries, often in the same office. They are really not all responsible to the ambassador or the high commissioner. I feel that there must be an integrated service in these overseas postings. The ambassador or high commissioner should be in charge of all officers but I note that in some areas there are difficulties and some personnel wear two hats. I also believe that the Public Service Board should establish an investigation service or inspector service within the Department of Foreign Affairs. At present, to comply with legislation, the Public Service Board sends overseas inspectors who really are not familiar with foreign service. The ambassador's fund and all the other matters which are part of our foreign aid are then subject to scrutiny, but scrutiny which is not always efficient. In some embassies and high commissions, it takes days and days just to break in a new inspector when he or she arrives. I also was most impressed by what I saw of the American Peace Corps Service. We met on a delegation a number of young people working in Honduras and other countries. I know that many Australians work overseas and do a great job but I feel that we could promote such a service and the notion of Australians working overseas, perhaps in a Pacific country or other third world countries. But they would need some guarantee of employment when they came back. I feel that any system such as this, if it is to work, must provide a guarantee of Public Service employment when people return. Young graduates or young people who have some training could help train people in another nation, but there must be a guarantee of some form of re-employment when they return to Australia. The need, as I found in New Guinea last year, and in the Solomon Islands, was for technicians and technical training. People were needed to show local people in these new nations just how to fix a boat or a radio transmitter and this type of thing. But there must be some form of job security when they return to Australia . I put this to the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, and I trust that my words will be considered in due course. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(5.28) —Several months ago, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) pointed out in this House that, although the Labor Government had been in power for about a year, the House had not yet had the benefit of a comprehensive statement on foreign policy, a statement on how this Government sees the world, sees its problems and sees Australia's role in their management. Now, after several more months, we still do not have such a statement and yet we are here today being expected to approve an appropriation of almost $1 billion for the Department of Foreign Affairs. A billion dollars to do with we know not what may seem to many to be a costly form of dithering around in the world. Of course, we know why the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) cannot make a comprehensive statement. It is because his Party is so torn by factions that it cannot reach agreement. Worse still, it is the socialist Left with its peculiar doctrines on foreign policy which increasingly has the initiative. However much the Foreign Minister may pander to the socialist Left, he also knows how damaging its policies would be to the Government and indeed to Australia. One must take notice in this respect of what members of the Australian Labor Party themselves say. Mr Ken Gott, for example, is a respected writer and well- known member of the ALP who was recently appointed by Labor to monitor the activities of the League of Rights. Writing in a recent issue of the ALP newspaper, Labor Leader, in an article called 'Socialist Left Foreign Policy', he had this to say of the socialist Left: This group should be seen for what it is-a sect of fraudulent imposters unfit to be in a democratic socialist party and dangerous to it. Dangerous in an electoral sense because if their bizarre double standards were more widely known in the community the ALP would suffer at the polls. Dangerous, too, to ALP principles because of the creeping moral pollution coming from people infatuated with totalitarian or authoritarian regimes who, in their hearts, despise pluralist and democratic societies. Given the strength of the socialist Left in the Labor Party-it had almost half the votes at the recent national conference-it is no wonder that, with what Mr Gott calls the creeping moral pollution of the socialist Left and its infatuation with totalitarian and authoritarian regimes, the Foreign Minister has conducted such a dangerous insensitive and irresponsible foreign policy. In 18 months this Government has managed to damage every significant alliance this country has. Let us look at the American alliance, which is so fundamental to Australian security. In December 1983 the Government declared that allied warships which may be carrying nuclear weapons will not be permitted to undergo repairs in Australian dry docks. In the notorious case of the HMS Invincible it was the British Government, the British alliance and the five-power defence pact which were most directly threatened by the Government's decision. But the anti- American thrust of the policy was clear and the viability of ANZUS was made more uncertain. The Government likes to say that visits of United States ships are still possible, that it is only home porting or repairs that are ruled out. Yet visits to Sydney and Melbourne are banned already by the State Labor governments and the principal State for visits is now Western Australia. The current socialist Left pressure in the ALP is to get the Western Australian Government to adopt the policy of the Wran and Cain governments-that is, against visits. The ALP conference in July this year decided to limit the frequency of visits by United States warships. That was step one. Step two was the Foreign Minister's appointing a committee in Western Australia to examine the whole question and it is almost certain that that committee will recommend following the Wran-Cain betrayal of principle. The Foreign Minister's call last year for a review of the whole ANZUS Treaty is only a further twist. Whatever the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) may have said in the House this afternoon, the fact is clear that ANZUS has already been weakened by Australia and not only by New Zealand. The Foreign Minister's statement last month that the United States-Australian joint facilites at North West Cape, Pine Gap and Nurrungar may be closed down unless-and this is what it amounts to-the United States capitulates to Soviet demands on arms control, only takes the whole anti-American policy or quasi-policy a stage further. We can add to all that Australia's failure to give any public support to United States Central American policy, and one can only anticipate the absurdities we will get from the Foreign Minister on his return from Nicaragua. Add, too, Australia's bizarre voting at the United Nations on the United State's Grenada resolution in November 1983, when Australia first voted to condemn the United States and then changed the vote to an abstention-anything but support. Also add , although this is not the Foreign Minister's direct responsibility, the leaking of sensitive and secret government documents to the Press, such as the strategic basis paper which appeared in the National Times in March and April this year, and which must plainly have damaged Australia's standing in the allied intelligence community. Taking all these measures, which are still only a few among the many, one has a policy towards our fundamental alliance which is reckless to the point of being suicidal. But let us look at our dealings with other friendly countries. Our relations with the Association of South East Asian Nations began to weaken from the beginning of this Government. The Foreign Minister put a rapprochement with Vietnam ahead of our good standing with ASEAN. In May 1983 our willingness to resume aid to Vietnam while Vietnam still had an army of occupation in Kampuchea undermined the whole ASEAN strategy. Then in October 1983 we refused to do what we had done in previous years-to co-sponsor the United Nations ASEAN proposal on Kampuchea; and in April 1984 as a country we refused to condemn Vietnam for further incursions on the Thai border. If we add to this the Government's continued mishandling of the East Timor question, we get a rounded picture of how Australia stands with the various ASEAN countries in general. There is not time to go into other matters in any detail, but let me mention a few. We have broken a uranium contract with France because we do not approve of France's defence policy. That is what it amounts to. We do not approve of the way in which sovereign France decides to conduct its defence policy. We will not sell it uranium. We will break a uranium contract, and, of course, we damage our traditional good relations with that democratic Western country. We have downgraded the Commonwealth. In fact, the Foreign Minister has called the British Commonwealth anachronistic, by refusing to support a Commonwealth initiative to send a peacekeeping force to Grenada. We certainly did not support the Americans in Grenada. We certainly did not support the Commonwealth in Grenada. We have also embarrassed the Chinese and Japanese governments by premature comments on the possibilities of the steel and beef trade. We have announced the withdrawal of our Sinai commitment, despite its admitted contribution to peace in the Middle East. The Foreign Minister, in his speech in this House on the matter, conceded quite handsomely that every one of the criticisms of the Sinai commitment had turned out to be misplaced, and our share in the Multinational Force and Observers was a positive contribution to peace in that region. Nevertheless, we are withdrawing it and, consequently, removing the one lever of influence that we might have in that region. But, at the same time, we have announced the upgrading of Australia's official contacts with the terrorist Palestine Liberation Organisation to ambassadorial level. As far as southern Africa is concerned, we have made ourselves irrelevant to the process of peaceful and gradual evolution towards the elimination of apartheid in South Africa, which is the ideal shared by all parties in this House, by refusing to acknowledge the positive developments that have taken place there in the rewriting of the constitution in South Africa, a rewriting which split the dominant party, which led to defeats in by-elections, and which has brought a great deal of controversy on the Government. But we have decided to regard the whole thing-officially, at least-as petty, trivial and cosmetic. So we have made ourselves irrelevant to the developments there. It appears that what Mr Ken Gott calls the moral pollution of the socialist Left has well and truly infected the conduct of our foreign policy. It certainly does not control it, but it has certainly infected it. It is plain that the Australian Government's foreign policy is certainly not worth the $1 billion that it costs the Australian taxpayers. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(5.37) —I speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 in relation to the Department of Foreign Affairs. I am interested to follow the two Opposition speakers who have spoken on this matter, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman). The honourable member for Wentworth concluded by saying that we were spending $1 billion on foreign affairs but were not getting value for it. The most substantial element in that foreign affairs budget is $769m for aid. The actual expenditure of the Department of Foreign Affairs for administration is $99m and for overseas services it is $97m. So we have $200m in round figures for the administration and running of the Department, and we have this rather significant appropriation for aid. Whilst the honourable member has been quite scathing and has said a number of general things about foreign affairs, he directed none of his attention towards that more than three-quarters of the budget which goes on this very important area of aid. I do not intend to take up my full time, but I should like to comment briefly on some of the matters that have been raised. The honourable member for Warringah raised, among other things, our relations with the United States Government. I recently had the opportunity of spending 26 days in the United States as a guest of the United States Government. One of the things that impressed me in my contacts with the State Department and the Pentagon, and with CINPAC in Honolulu, was the good relationship that obviously exists between Australia and the United States. Having been associated with the United States in a number of wars, ranging from the First World War to Korea and Vietnam, and because of our association in ANZUS, it is obvious that our relationship with the United States is warm and friendly and that we are regarded as a trusted nation. One would imagine from things that members of the Opposition say in this Parliament that the ANZUS alliance was about to fly apart as the result of Australian policies and attitudes. The criticisms of the honourable member for Wentworth of the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party were all about the factionalism that he reflected on but none of the things he said reflected in any way on the decisions made in the area of foreign affairs. The Conference very strongly affirmed its adherence to the ANZUS alliance. The foreign policy developed at that Conference is a positive and realistic foreign policy for Australia today and into the future. The honourable member also made some capital about matters which he improperly portrayed. He spoke about visits of nuclear powered warships to Sydney and Melbourne being banned by the governments of New South Wales and Victoria. The position of the Hawke Labor Government is very clear: The visit of warships of our allies or, for that matter any nation, is entirely the prerogative of the Commonwealth Government. The Commonwealth Government would not accept that any State government had a right to interfere in such a matter which is very much within the defence responsibility of the Commonwealth. The honourable member also endeavoured to make capital out of statements made in Geneva about disarmament. I am sorry that the speech of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) which I read recently has been so badly reported in some sections of the media. In effect he said that we have certain joint Australian-American facilities which play a part in peacekeeping, that we have a good relationship with the United States and that we intend to use that good relationship to pursue disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament. He also said that the long term future of the association with the United States to some degree hinged on the extent to which progress was made in an area very important to every single human being and, indeed, every form of life on this planet. There is some suggestion that we are trying to twist the arm of the United States and in some way associate ourselves with the views of the Soviet Union. It is also true that we have restored diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union from the low point which they had reached under the Fraser Government, with a view to playing a positive role in influencing that great power as well. Of course, in addition the Labor Government has appointed an ambassador for disarmament so that Australia is playing a more participatory role in the continuing conference on disarmament in Geneva and in the conference on chemical weapons that took place in Stockholm where we supported the initiative of the United States. We have nothing to apologise for. We have a participatory and innovative Minister for Foreign Affairs. He is rather more active than his predecessors were in the Fraser Government. It is true that we are exploring new initiatives in difficult areas such as Indo-China. It is rather better to be talking in an endeavour to solve those problems without any further loss of human life than to be locked into the confrontationist situations of the past. Having said those general things, I now say that the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 provides $981m for the Department of Foreign Affairs, an increase of $ 75m. I have already dealt with the fact that almost $200m of that is involved in the administration of the overseas service. A respectable increase of 7.1 per cent in aid is given in the Budget. All honourable members would be aware that the report of the Jackson Committee commissioned by this Government to review the Australian overseas aid program was received earlier this year and that is a matter of discussion throughout the Australian community in order that we might develop a consensus approach to the important question of overseas aid. There has been an increase of $11m in aid to Papua New Guinea as well as an increase of $25m in bilateral aid. The Australian Development Assistance Bureau now has a staff provision of 399, an increase of 11 staff. I notice that we are opening consulates-general in Shanghai and Auckland. I believe that the Department of Foreign Affairs is doing an excellent job for Australia and the world. I believe that the fairly modest increase in the appropriation for the Department of Foreign Affairs is well merited. I support the Bill. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade and Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs)(5.45) —I feel, as Minister representing the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), when looking at the remarks that have been made-now on record in Hansard-by the Opposition spokesman for foreign affairs, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), and supported by his colleague the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), that it is difficult to appreciate that we are discussing the Estimates. In fact, the Estimates were not mentioned at all, except in the conclusion of the speech of the honourable member for Wentworth who said that he had a lot of difficulty in seeing the worth of an expenditure of $1 billion to be spent in this Department. That was his only reference to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85. Of course, he omitted to mention that $769m of that expenditure was for aid. Although in this debate wide ranging statements can be made it is a pity that honourable gentlemen opposite do not approach the problem in terms of what the people of Australia really want to see happening. They want an energetic Minister for Foreign Affairs able to undertake very difficult tasks indeed to try to get a balance between the communist bloc and the free world-the super- power rivalry. There are regional tensions and, as we and the Australian people recognise, the world is a very dangerous place indeed. Wars, running into the hundreds, have taken place since the conclusion of the Second World War. It requires a very active, energetic, innovative and mature consideration of these issues to get the Australian point of view, representing our people, in all these spheres. It is counter-productive not to look at the positive things that my colleagues the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) and the honourable member for Brisbane (Mr Cross) have been able to state so succinctly. I make reference to those matters. The honourable member for Lowe is a very compassionate and understanding man. He is concerned about the arduous undertakings of our ambassadors, their staff and their families on behalf of their country in postings such as he mentioned. He made a good point about the diplomatic postings being of some unnecessarily long duration, for example, three years for difficult postings. I now believe that the time has been reduced to two years so that there can be some alleviation of those difficulties. What the Minister naturally would have in mind is the best interests of personnel. The matters which the honourable member for Lowe has raised are matters which he has taken into consideration. I am also indebted for the remarks made by my colleague the honourable member for Brisbane. He made an effective rebuttal of a number of issues improperly raised, in my view, in regard to alleged weaknesses in the present Government's approach to a number of issues. Not the least of these issues was ANZUS. A Labor Government sponsored ANZUS. That should not be forgotten. Mr Spender —That is quite incorrect. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not incorrect. I do not know why the interjection should give that statement any validity. Following the Second World War the Chifley Labor Government was anxious to encourage such an alliance. In fact, history shows that there should be some arrangement-this may be surprising to the honourable member, considering his innocence-related to the danger of war in the Pacific, because of the recent settlement of that major dispute. Honourable members opposite have to understand the background of this country. What they, as an opposition, have always failed to understand is how they have misled the Australian people. We are still looking at the former Government's policy which got us into Vietnam. Honourable members opposite should listen calmly and absorb the fact that the downward thrust of China was the analysis of our involvement in Vietnam. How wrong and atrocious it was! But honourable members opposite have no recollection of that now. We acknowledge the problems of that area. Unless we have an Australian point of view we will not make any progress in the settlement of these very difficult areas. It has to be understood and noted that never at any stage did the Liberal Government suggest that there might be some Australian participation in the management and control of the joint facilities. It was left to the Whitlam Government to arrange for the first time for Australians to participate in the management and control of those facilities. Over a period the Opposition has had a lackey approach. It will always follow somebody else's point of view. In the United States of America, which is a very keen democracy, all points of view are raised. We welcome that. As honourable members know, the United States is coming up for an election contest. We will see in that contest a number of issues raised relating to world peace. We are delighted to have heard President Reagan's statement that he would be anxious to see the world get rid of nuclear weapons. Nobody could agree with that more. When honourable members opposite come in here today and make statements, such as those that were made by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Warringah, supported by the honourable member for Wentworth, they should have a look at their own performance. I notice that on two out of the 40 days in the 11 weeks of sitting two matters of public importance have been raised relating to foreign policy. Opposition members have said today that we should be very careful of entering into United Nations conventions where we are required to talk about matters such as human rights. Do honourable members opposite seriously suggest that, if the United Nations has an international treaty on human rights, we should not agree with the principles that the world has expressed in such a treaty? Why belittle and downgrade the fact that, because we entered into a treaty on human rights, the external affairs power which relates to the Koowarta case should be deemed in any way to be a derogation of State rights? We are dealing with human beings. Let us look at the issue of preserving the World Heritage listing in Tasmania. To suggest that, for example, we did the wrong thing again in Tasmania and to say that it was a derogation of what we call Australia's interest I think is very far fetched. There were no sloppy processes there. The greatest difficulty we have had is to try to get through to the Opposition that our foreign policy has to be an Australian policy, one that expresses our ideals and aspirations. The honourable member for Warringah was very worried about aid to Vietnam. I think the matter he raised concerned about a dozen dairy cows; that was the extent of the aid. This aid was terminated by the previous Government as though it was some sanction. The issues that are certainly of grave concern to the whole Association of South East Asian Nations region are peace, stability and dialogue. The governments of Indonesia and Malaysia are very keen about this question of dialogue with Vietnam because at least that would prevent an escalation of tension. We all have an obligation to talk about peace and security. It does little credit to honourable gentlemen opposite to try to belittle the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the basis of the efforts he has made all over the world in the furtherance of world peace. The appointment of the Ambassador for Disarmament was an innovative step, one that the world will applaud. I make the point that the honourable member for Warringah was worried about the fact that we did not join a peacekeeping force in Grenada. I do not think Margaret Thatcher was so keen to suggest that that might be a solution either. We have had some very wild and woolly expressions here today in a dissection of the Budget allocation to the Department of Foreign Affairs. Quite frankly, the only people who addressed their minds to the matters before us were the two members of the Government who spoke in this debate. It is very clear that all we got from members of the Opposition was a diatribe of abuse on a personal basis against the Foreign Minister, who is overseas again working very hard towards a solution of the problems that are of grave concern to the Australian people. As the honourable member for Warringah is back in the chamber I say to him that I hope that he will have a chance to raise some of these issues as matters of public importance. Members of the Opposition have raised two this year; that is the interest that they have in this matter. Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I suppose the problem is that the truth hurts and that is why honourable members opposite are interjecting more than ever. The point I am trying to make is that the whole process of what we are about in foreign policy is to try to correct the mistakes of the past, to try to indicate clearly, for example, that we do not want to sell uranium to France while it is exploding nuclear weapons in the Pacific. Yet Opposition members come into this chamber today and say that that is an outrageous thing to do. I would like honourable members opposite to test public opinion on that issue. The honourable member for Wentworth says that it is dreadful for us to be selling uranium to France and then to break that contract. There is no question of breaking the contract. On his recollection the issue is very clear. If France desists from exploding nuclear weapons in the Pacific the contract will continue. But it seems that the expediency of chasing the dollar is more important to the Opposition than the question of peace, security and environmental protection in the Pacific. We give high praise to our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for his initiative in the recent South Pacific Forum, which was not even mentioned by honourable gentlemen opposite, on the question of a zone of peace in the Pacific where at least we can show some leadership. It is important for us to say to honourable members opposite in the course of this debate on the Estimates that we have nothing to answer on any of the allegations they have made. They certainly did not make any allegations about the allocation of funds. Those allegations that they did make they certainly did not understand. Let me make the question of policy very clear. We recognise that, in a democracy, there are different points of view. The Australian nation has different points of view on a number of matters but it is unified on one issue: It expects an Australian government and an Australian Foreign Minister always to express the views of Australians. It expects a mature, independent policy that clearly is motivated by peace not only in the region but also in the world. It is a tragedy that, over a period, the Opposition, when in government in the 1960s and in the latter period of the 1970s, did nothing but slavishly follow whatever was suggested to it on the basis that that was the way to go. The result has been disaster in a number of areas. The world is now facing the natural reaction of peace movements in Europe and elsewhere. The people of the world are genuinely concerned about the question of nuclear war. It does little to assist in the solution of that problem to suggest all the time that Australia has no role to play and it has no initiative. In the past that has always been the weakness of the Opposition; it has never exercised any initiative of its own. I leave honourable members with the thought that the next time they want to talk about the problems that have bedevilled the peace and security of this world-- Opposition members interjecting- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Clearly Opposition members just cannot sit in this chamber without making continual interjections. Next time this matter is debated I would be happy for the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) to raise it as a matter of public importance. Twice this year the Opposition has raised matters concerning foreign affairs; that is how keen it is about it. I know it was a little different when the honourable member was interested in that portfolio. Perhaps he can get some energy into his shadow Ministers to talk about issues that really relate to matters of public importance and not drag in a whole lot of ratbag issues on the estimates of Appropriation Bill (No. 1). What has been said has nothing to do with the estimates, not one issue, but is a whole series of statements against the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the basis that something should have been done. He has an outstanding record in this area, one that the honourable member envies. Opposition members will be judged on these issues at the next election. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Progress reported. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. I have been misrepresented by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). Leave granted. Mr KEATING —I was not in the House this afternoon, but I have just received the greens of what the Leader of the Opposition said in a debate where he referred to a letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to Mr Costigan on 16 December 1983. I would just like to put on the record that it is a matter that I am not aware of. I know of no such letter. It may well exist, but I do not know of it or of its contents. The Leader of the Opposition made the mealy-mouthed allegation under privilege, like the reckless coward that he is-I have called him a coward in this place before-that I took the view in Cabinet-- Mr Sinclair —I raise a point of order. I suggest that that be withdrawn, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is an unparliamentary expression which I take exception to. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! I ask the Treasurer to withdraw that statement. Mr KEATING —I withdraw in deference to you only, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was alleged that I took the view in Cabinet that Mr Costigan's investigation into certain matters in New South Wales should be stopped as soon as possible and that Costigan would bring down the Wran Government. This allegation is completely untrue. I have not, at any stage, in or out of Cabinet, made the remarks attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. I can only say that I endorse the Government's decision that the National Crime Authority take over the functions which are now being exercised by Mr Costigan. Apparently the Leader of the Opposition thinks this passes for policy and discussion in this country. I just remind the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, that-- Mr Sinclair —Mr Deputy Speaker, this is clearly outside the normal matter that is presented in a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Sinclair —There is a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There are very tight rules in this place. Mr Young —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: A whole range of personal explanations have been made by members of the Opposition to which this Government has taken very little objection, allowing them to give full expression to where they think they have been misrepresented. None has been more serious than the charge that has been laid against the Treasurer today by the Leader of the Opposition. He should be allowed to give a full explanation of the charge that was made against him. Mr Peacock —He is not telling the truth and you know it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer is giving a personal explanation. There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —The Leader of the Opposition came in here today and threw that allegation around because he knew the Government was announcing changes to foreign bank entry into Australia to try to-- Mr Spender —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: The Treasurer is allowed to correct what he says is a misrepresentation. Now he is getting into a debate. It is as simple as that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Treasurer in the resumption of his personal explanation-- Mr KEATING —Mr Deputy Speaker, I make the point that this is totally untrue. It is a total fabrication, as the Leader of the Opposition knows. Consideration resumed. Schedule 2. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $5,171,217,000. Department of Defence Support Proposed expenditure, $397,592,000. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(6.06) — Firstly, I make the point that it is quite ridiculous for the Committee to be expected to consider these estimates in the way that we are now being called on to consider them. We did move at one stage to have Estimates committees. We were quite prepared to continue that practice. It is interesting to note that the Government has run away from them. Mr Young —You did away with them. Mr SINCLAIR —I am delighted to hear that the honourable member suggests that we are going to have longer now for our estimates debates. Mr Young —You did away with them. Mr SINCLAIR —Yes; we were going to reintroduce them. Mr Deputy Chairman, I believe that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) suggests that we are going to have longer Estimates debates. I am delighted to hear that. To cut them short in this way shows the necessity of the Government to try to cut down debate on matters on which it is incredibly vulnerable, and none more so than in the defence area. The second matter is that it is of great concern that the level of public interest payment on outstanding debts is about equal to the appropriation for the Department of Defence which is now being debated by this Committee. It is an incredible indictment of this Government that it continues to increase that interest payment and the public indebtedness to the point where every citizen in this community needs to worry about the supplementary tax measures that it undoubtedly would introduce were it to be re-elected and about the future indebtedness that ever increasing deficits generate throughout our community at large. I want to draw attention to a number of matters in the Defence estimates. First , I will run over them in general. I think it is worth saying that this Budget marks a slowing in the rate of progress of several areas of defence activity. That is very sad because quite obviously there are problems: The re-equipping of the Royal Australian Air Force for the FA18; the problems in the building of the FFG, the two follow-on destroyers; the difficulties of the floating exchange and of course our very heavy dependence on defence procurement from the United States of America about which I made some reference earlier today. These are all matters which are of real worry. I am afraid the rate of increase fails to maintain the increase needed to finance the five-year defence program. That is of concern for there is a very real priority, which we had set about undertaking, to try to re-equip the defence forces. We had a hiatus in the period when we were determining whether or not to purchase another carrier. All the comments of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) about the reduction in funds under the Liberal-National Party coalition government need to be related to the fact that we had expressly commented that additional money would be provided when we determined whether or not we were going to go ahead with a carrier. The Minister in this Budget has claimed a real growth of 3.3 per cent. This incorporates some double counting and payment to the United States. Real growth is more like 2.4 per cent. There is a shortfall of about $120m on the five-year defence program and it will create yet more troubles for the future of the Defence Force. In the field of running costs, there is always conflict between what is available for manpower, what is available for equipment procurement and what is available for exercises and maintaining the sharp end of the forces. Sadly these estimates do not adequately provide for those three alternatives. I am most concerned at the general results of the Government saying: 'Because we are going ahead with the FA18 program we don't need any more money for anything else'. The field of running costs determines the degree to which the defence forces are able to exercise and maintain operational readiness. The largest elements are those most closely liked with deployment and training, such as replacement, repair and overhaul of equipment and stores, covering appropriations for ammunition, rations, fuel, stores and spares and equipment overhaul. In these estimates allocation for this function increases by only 5.1 per cent and the proportion of spending devoted to them falls from 13.1 per cent to 12.6 per cent . That means that given that this year we are certain to have an inflation rate of from 6 to 6.5 per cent, there will be a net decline, in real terms, in funds available in this critical part of the Defence estimates. Sadly, when one takes into account the fact of the conflict with the five-year defence program which calls for a real increase of 2 per cent annually just to cope with the complexity of new equipment, there will be a decline. That decline , in my view and indeed in the view of anybody who knows the present state of the defence forces, will further reduce the operational capability of the Australian Defence Force at a time when we have the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) running around the world alienating us from our friends and allies and putting us in a position of extraordinary vulnerability and a need to enhance our independent military capability. Fortunately, the Budget provides for greater fuel purchases, although I am not too sure to what degree they will be used to supplement the stockpiles which I know have run down since the Labor Government took over. It is also interesting to note that, although the naval fuel allocation has increased by 17 per cent, there has been a net decline in the rest of the fuel vote which has increased by only 3.5 per cent. Again, that is a net decline when measured against the rate of inflation. What we are getting is some additional money for the Navy, whereas for the other Services it seems that in real terms, with inflation increasing by 6 to 6.5 per cent, there will be a decrease in the amount of money available. So , overall fuel expenditure has risen but deceptively, while there is more money for the Navy, it seems that there will be less fuel for the other Services. I am already concerned about the Air Force in this respect because of the program which has cut down the number of flying hours permitted in the Mirage. We have even had the Chief of the Air Staff saying that in his view there are now problems in maintaining the operational capability of the pilots of our now aging Mirages. Again, I believe that to be a very serious indictment of the funding allocations of this Government. The major problem in the general section of the Budget relating to replacements and repair of equipment, et cetera, is the decline of about 0.7 per cent in the allocation of funds to this area. I regard that very seriously indeed because of the consequences of any further rundown in operational capability. I think that there are also some problems in the change in accounting practices at Williamstown Naval Dockyard. The dockyard has adopted commercial accounting practices and is to operate with a trust fund which is to be reimbursed by its customers. The transfer of liability to the customer means that in practice the value of the Navy's allocation for repair and replacement of equipment has been reduced. Thus, I am told, $1m of the increased appropriation for workshop and servicing work is due to the transfer of liability for part of the modernisation of HMAS Swan and HMAS Torrens. In reality it is not there to increase the funds available. The effects of this accounting change are even more noticeable in Division 234/2/05, which covers appropriations for repair and overhaul of equipment. A rise of $23.7m is claimed, but $18.1m is simply a transfer of liability for activities at Williamstown. The real value of the increase is only 3 per cent-again, well below the level of inflation. Again we have this problem: We have been told that there is a real increase, yet the real increase is not real when one takes into account the rate of inflation. I believe that that creates further difficulties in maintaining the operational efficiency of the Services. There are real dangers in the rundown in running costs. It has been argued that new equipment being ordered is less expensive to maintain. However, the equipment is so much more expensive and so much more sophisticated that we need more funds and not less to ensure that the Services are able to operate and maintain the equipment. I believe that there would be very serious dangers for the Services if the restraints imposed to enable increased spending on equipment were, in the end, to deprive the Services of the benefits they expect to gain from buying that equipment because of the way in which the funds available for repair and maintenance were contained. I wish briefly to raise a number of other matters in the short time that is available. First, I commend the Government for providing a special allocation to Naval Reserve cadet Dax. I believe it to be very necessary that the circumstances of his death be recognised. I feel very sad for the family and I am very pleased that an ex gratia payment has been made. Secondly, I believe it to be very necessary that we maintain the defence co-operation program. I have no time to speak on the matter but it is a very essential program and very necessary for regional security, and the more so because of the attitude of the conference of the New Zealand Labour Party held last weekend. I believe that, unless we maintain such defence relationships, Australia's future will be threatened. Finally, I notice that money has been provided in the Budget for the acquisition of sites and buildings. One of the very serious matters for concern is the determination of what land is to be obtained for the exercise and range area for the Army, particularly in New South Wales. I hope that full consultation with local communities will be maintained by the Government before a final decision is taken. Finally, I recommend to the Government that that land be Crown land and not private land, so that all the concern that was generated in so many areas of Australia, particularly in New South Wales, can be allayed. I am afraid that my time has run out. However, there are a good many things I would like to have said about Army land because the disruption to so many people that has occurred because of the Government's program last year concerns me greatly. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(6.15) —When the Parliament reassembled after the election of the Hawke Government, virtually from day one we heard the type of speech, although maybe in more dramatic terms, we have just heard from the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) regarding the rundown of the defence forces, how we are going into decline and how the Army does not have enough boots, et cetera. We have heard that for 18 months. The members of the Opposition seem to have forgotten that one does not build up a defence force overnight, nor does one run down the defences of a country overnight. The current Opposition formed the Government for 31 of the last 34 years. If it believes in its own rhetoric, which it obviously does not, it should look not at us but at itself. Members of the Opposition should throw stones through their own windows. It was the members of the Opposition who ran down the defence forces of this country. They are the ones who put the defence of this country into jeopardy. The conservative governments of this country have a long record of that. During the debate on the matter of public importance this afternoon the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) spoke about the Menzies Government during the early 1940s at the start of the War and how it was dismissed from government. What was the prime reason it was dismissed from government? It was because Mr Menzies had a lot of rhetoric but very little performance. In fact, the defence forces of this country were very inadequate, too inadequate to defend the country in the crisis that was facing it at the time. What has changed since the Menzies conservative Government or the Fraser Government or, in fact, with the conservative Opposition of today? Absolutely nothing has changed. The Opposition was and is high on rhetoric and low on performance. That is the Opposition's dreadful record. Yet members of the Opposition are still trotting out the tired old speeches week after week. It does not wash. It does not wash with the people of Australia who are now coming to the realisation that it is, in fact, this Government that will help build up the defence forces in many areas that I will mention, to build a sound defence structure for this country. The Budget allocation before us gives a defence allocation of $5,820m-an increase of over 8 per cent on 1983-84, or 3.3 per cent in real terms. That should be emphasised-a 3.3 per cent increase in real terms. It compares with the Fraser years, when real growth averaged only 2.5 per cent. The Budget allocation represents an increase of over $1 billion since the last Fraser Budget. That is an increase of over 21 per cent. As I have mentioned, the Opposition was and still is large on talk but very small on doing. The Reds were either coming over the horizon or under the bed. The Reds under the bed were replaced by everyone's bank money, I believe, during the last election campaign. As you would know, Madam Chair, over the last couple of decades Australia has moved from the concept of having a defence force structure to fight as part of a large allied force to a more self-reliant strategic posture based on the principles of developing independent national capabilities for the direct defence of Australia and its interests. The Government is taking advantage of the present period of assessed low threat to the nation's security to push ahead with a long term re-equipment program. Within this year's defence budget there has been a substantial increase in expenditure on equipment. The main part of this expenditure is devoted to already approved projects such as the FA18, additional PC3 Orion aircraft and the destroyer updates. At the same time there is continuing expenditure on, for example, the Australian basic trainer aircraft and mine hunting vessels. There is also an increase in expenditure on the construction of defence facilities and infrastructure. A major item in facilities development is the development of the Tindal air base in the Northern Territory which, when completed, will have cost nearly $170m-a very important project for the defence of this country. In all, more than 28 per cent of defence expenditure is allocated to equipment and infrastructure development. This is a significant increase over that of previous years. The real growth which has been allowed for this year's Budget defence outlays recognises the expenditure requirements arising from previous decisions on equipment and construction projects. It also provides for a number of new, high priority projects to commence this year, such as the acquisition of an anti-submarine helicopter for the guided missile frigates. The Government has in train some very important projects. One is the Australian frigate project which will commence next year. I can see the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Defence sitting in front of me and I congratulate them on putting that project in train last year. It was announced that the $830m project, a very important project, will be situated in Melbourne's Williamstown Dockyard. The project will employ some 2,000 people over the next 10 years to build two FFG guided missile frigates. Also in train we have the very important submarine program. At present tenders are being evaluated for a project definition study which will come down to two final contenders. That decision will be made shortly. That project is, in my opinion, very important for the future of Australia's defence. There will be six to eight submarines and the project will finally cost nearly $2 billion. Also decisions will be made soon on the helicopters for the Royal Australian Navy and for the Royal Australian Air Force. They are very important purchases and those decisions will be made in the very near future. We need a deliberative and honest look at our defence needs-what Australia needs and where we are going in our defence strategies. We also need a government that will follow through those deliberations and decisions in a very positive manner. This should be done with the people of Australia and this great country foremost in mind, not just the cheap political points that were the mainstay of the previous Government's policy. I refer to a few other aspects that the Leader of the National Party of Australia spoke about. The first was that we were deficient in many areas-the Government recognises that-and one is defence housing. It has been allowed to run down over many years and is in a disgraceful situation. The Government has substantially increased funds for defence housing in this Budget, allocating it $48m, with the commencement of some 350 homes throughout Australia in this financial year. That deterioration has been caused by many, many years of neglect. Some houses were built pre-Second World War and are still in existence. They are, as one could imagine, in desperate need of renovation and repair and this Government is doing something about it. This year it has substantially increased expenditure in this area; 350 houses will be commenced and a tremendous amount of money will go on repairs or renovation. I am sure that this expenditure will continue in the following Budget; so in a program over the next decade we will be able to see defence housing improve substantially. Defence co-operation has increased and expenditure on defence bilateral contracts with South East Asia and South West Pacific countries has increased to around $48m for 1984-85. We have seen continuing assistance totalling some $13. 3m provided to countries in the South West Pacific and to the Philippines and Thailand for a range of bilateral defence activities. These are very important subject points because those countries feel that they are important. Some 1,240 personnel from those overseas forces will visit Australia for courses and studies during the next financial year. I have mentioned just some points in the time that has been allocated to me this evening but honourable members should rest assured that the defence of Australia is in good hands in this Government. Substantial expenditure increases have been made in many areas. Funds have been allocated for projects that will be followed through. We will not hear just hot air and rhetoric from this Government; we will hear substantial policy statements. This Minister and this Government will follow through in a very real and progressive manner policies for the continual strategy and structure of Australia's defence forces. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(6.25) —The last speaker, the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles), spoke about self-reliance and independence. Certainly we must be more self-reliant and more independent in the future than for various reasons we have been in the past. All of us need to look to the future more than to the past, and to try to get away from this habit of ceaselessly sniping without really confronting issues which this country faces. Let us take just one issue that the honourable member touched on and that is the choice about submarines. It will be a very important choice for us and unquestionably one of the options we should be looking at is the nuclear alternative. The navies of the United States of America, the Soviet Union, France and Great Britain are mainly equipped with those sorts of submarines and the question we must ask ourselves is: Why should we deny ourselves recourse to that defensive weapon? Should we not look at the smaller class of hunter-killer submarines which are available in the French model and the British model? The Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) is in the chamber; I hope he will answer some of the questions I wish to pose to him. I would be very glad to hear his view on that matter and some specific matters relating to his Department. The net expenditure estimated for the Department of Defence Support for 1984-85 is $356.4m. This is down some $46.8m on 1983-84. The explanation for part of this lies with the Williamstown Naval Dockyard which has been moved to commercial accounting procedures; but the difference which is left, after some notional adjustments are made, still leaves some $13.5m accounted for. If one looks at what is being done one can only be somewhat concerned. The explanatory notes of the Department of Defence Support show that these discrepancies can be linked to real decreases in capital expenditure for that Department. Expenditure on plant and equipment is down $6.6m to $51.3m; capital works, down $13.2m to $ 46.2m; capital assistance to industry, down $2.2m to $19.2m; and there are other reductions. One must ask why these reductions have taken place. If one looks at one or two of the entries in the explanatory notes relating to estimates of expenditure and receipts for 1984-85 further disturbing questions arise. If one looks at page 90, which deals with the purchase of raw materials for aircraft spares, the purchase of long lead materials components procured in advance of expected orders and storage charges, one sees for the various systems referred to-guided weapons, aircraft materials, Jindivik components and storage- a proposed expenditure of $167,000 for this current financial year. Perhaps more importantly, if one looks at page 9, which deals with what will be spent on the development of production techniques and the development of new production items in the aerospace industry, including the Government Aircraft Factories, one sees that the proposed expenditure for this financial year is $4,540,000 which includes a scant $50,000 on project Winnin. Project Winnin, as those who have followed it will know, is probably the leading project in hovering decoy systems and we have $50,000 allocated to that project. That would seem, on any view of the facts, to be an extraordinarily low figure. I would be very glad if the Minister could tell us why that is so and why the other figures are as low as they are. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr SPENDER —The question that we must consider when looking at our future defence support needs is: How do we increase the viability of our industrial and technological bases? Obviously, overseas marketing is essential. The 1982-83 annual report of the Department of Defence Support states: Aggressive marketing activities are therefore conducted to ensure maximum exploitation of overseas markets for Australian defence related production services and technologies . . . Page 34 of that annual report shows that about $84m worth of quotes from Australia were being considered by foreign governments. I should be very glad for the Minister for Defence Support to tell me the fate of those bids and the initiatives that we have taken for the purpose of marketing Australian defence materiels overseas. Is it proposed that we have a military sales team along the lines of the United States of America military sales team? Is it proposed that we market our defence materiel as aggressively as the French, British, Americans and Israelis? It is essential that we do so if this country is to build up a viable and growing defence industry. It is obvious that our own base and that which we can provide from government orders is simply too small. Closer to home, Singapore has provided an example of what can be done. I do not for a moment suggest that we should market indiscriminately, but I believe that it is our duty to our country not only to talk about having an aggressive marketing policy but also to have a policy that is expert, determined and successful. I should be glad to hear how things are going and what kind of progress we can expect in the next 12 to 18 months. Has the Minister for Defence Support, like his predecessor, directed his attention on overseas trips to marketing Australia's defence materiel in overseas countries? I should be glad to know whether we have guidelines for the marketing overseas of materiel. What, for example, is the position of countries such as the Philippines or other members of the Association of South East Asian Nations? In short, the matter comes back to the Minister: What does he propose for the future expansion of sales? Without expanding sales and a continued expanding base in this country, we shall not become sufficiently large to export the kind of viable defence industry that I believe most honourable members on both sides of the House would like to see Australia have. I should be very glad to learn from the Minister how the Williamstown Dockyard is progressing, How it is faring against the private sector; how, generally speaking, the public dockyards compare in commercial and cost effective terms with private sector dockyards; how the Minister is going about his avowed plan of seeking to ensure that the public dockyards are placed, as I understand him to want, on a more commercial footing and how he measures the commerciality of those yards vis a vis their competitors in the private sector. Some deficiencies in certain areas have been noted in the Auditor-General's report. We do not have time to explore them, but I note that there are fewer than last year. I am glad to see that. The main question at which we must look concerns the future growth of our industry. That growth depends on the level of government support, which is necessarily limited. Growth depends upon offsets-I should be glad to hear the Minister's proposals in that direction-and how many people in his Department are committed to offsets, their levels and expertise. An industry's growth depends more than anything else upon our becoming, in effect, the industrial market place for defence material for overseas countries. Singapore is trying very hard to become that industrial market place. We should have achieved that position years ago-not so that we become arms marketers but to secure our own future by having a wide and growing industrial base and all the technological expertise needed to pack us against future contingencies when we may be left by ourselves. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(8.06) —In speaking on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and the appropriations for the departments of Defence and Defence Support, I was very heartened by the speech of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). Unfortunately, Australia's defence capabilities ran down over many years during the term of office of the party of which he is a member, and that is very sad. The industry started to go bad in 1963 when the Menzies Government made a political decision to buy an aircraft of British design-the F111. That aircraft had been given to the Americans by the British and was subsequently bought by the Australians, who faced all the problems experienced by the Americans. The F111 was bought at an uncommitted price. As everyone knows , the price went through the roof and the aircraft came to be known as the flying opera house. Despite the fact that, in service, the plane has been reasonable it has never met its specifications and today it is a subsonic bomb truck. The aeroplane cannot fly at supersonic speed with the load stated in its specifications. The real tragedy of the purchase was the destruction of the aviation industry in Australia. The British said to us that if we had bought the TSR2 they would have been prepared to give us a 50:50 share. We would have had an input into the design stage, through into the prototype stage and into the production stage. That approach was foresaken for the very shallow cynical operation of putting our hand in the hand of big brother America. That was the action of a gutless government which assumed that it was leading a gutless country. The run-down of defence over many years took place under the Liberal Party of Australia. There are basic reasons for that, apart from the Liberal party's political motivation. The Liberal Party's action culminated in the recent decision to buy the FA18. I objected in the House at the time to that decision, and I regret that my criticism of that purchase was not taken up by my Party. I think we shall live to regret that decision. If that plane proves to be the best in the world-I would strongly argue against that-we shall never be able to afford enough of them and, consequently, that plane will play very little part in this country's defence. This country has suffered from lack of direction in that the Government has never correctly identified the enemy. I remember being told for years where the enemy was. I remember the stories of the red arrows coming from China and landing on the Nedlands golf course. In those days, of course, the enemy was China; now, of course, China is a great friend. The truth is that China was never the great enemy and is not the great friend. That is the level at which defence matters were conducted by the Liberal-Country Party Government of the day. I believe that there is a basic problem with Australia's basic defence procurements and, until that position is remedied, we shall never have the industry base that the honourable member for North Sydney obviously wants and that he laments we do not have. While the Defence Department has the power to determine not only what is purchased but also from whom it is purchased, we will never have a rational industry. We ought to take a leaf out of the system in the United Kingdom where the defence forces are allowed to write the specifications for what they require. They then go to the department of defence supply which calls the tenders and hands over the prototypes to the defence forces for evaluation. The defence forces are allowed to say only what meets specifications and what does not. In respect of items that meet specifications the department of defence supply then negotiates on the basis of competitive arrangements with the various tenderers. It is a much more sensible method and it cuts out a lot of the obvious elements of risk in our present system, where there is not only an old boy network but also an enormous potential for corruption, either financial or intellectual. I suggest that one of the problems we have here today is the intellectual bankruptcy of our defence purchasing. I sometimes lament the myopia of my colleagues in the Left of my Party who see some danger in American bases. The danger does not lie in American bases, many of which we need and some of which we need far more than the Americans do. I put North West Cape in that category. We should remember that that is the only way we have of talking to our submarines whereas the Americans have at least two other operating systems. The real danger lies in the overwhelming dependence on American defence purchasing. This is something Australia has to break if we are ever to have any semblance of real national sovereignty and if we are ever going to be able to play a part in working for peace in this world. I strongly urge the Government of which I am a part to look in this direction. I do not think there is any doubting that Europe can match in quality and technical ability anything that America has, and I believe that we will get a much better purchasing deal from Europe than from America, particularly as the value of the American dollar is very high at the moment. The long term needs of Australia must be set out in relation to the real dangers or threats to this country. We must not allow our defence forces to have the final say as to where they can purchase what amount virtually to toys for the boys. We must adopt a much more rational policy. I am rather amused that the Army is currently in the process of exhaustively testing a replacement for its Land Rovers. We are in the situation of choosing between the Gelande Vagen and the updated Land Rover. The truth of the matter is that there is probably very little difference in the capability of these vehicles. The German vehicle is 40 per cent to 50 per cent dearer in respect of the categories required and it certainly cannot be that much better. It is a situation that the Israeli Army and just about any other rational country in the world would think laughable. Despite the protestations in the European Common Market for some sense of unity, I was recently in France and mentioned to people in the military there that I had not seen any Mercedes-Benz trucks in the Army. The answer was: 'But why should we buy them when we make these very excellent Renaults?' Why indeed? I think they exhibit far more intelligence than we have exhibited in the past. In this country we have lost design capacity. When the Army was allowed to buy Mercedes-Benz trucks instead of the Australian truck, which incidentally was offered at a cheaper price although it is true that the tender was late, I think it was quite frankly outrageous for a government simply to say: 'Your tender is late and therefore we will not allow you to tender'. When that order was lost, we lost also design capacity at the international factory, and that was dangerous to the defence capacity of this country, in my opinion. I also believe very strongly that to the north of this country we have the outward expanding island of Java, often referred to as Indonesia. I believe that this is a classic colonial, expansionist regime. I believe that, under the present Government, there is nothing to fear from Indonesia, but there is nothing to say that that will remain so in the future. I believe that, with the demise of the present leadership in Indonesia, we are likely to see a rise in military power there, with which we must contend. Unless Australia has the capacity to defend itself, it could find itself having to defend itself. I believe we can build up in this country industries which show that we have a viable defence capacity. It is the best way to ensure that we will never have to use it. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(8.16) —Someone on our side has dropped out of the speakers list, so I have the opportunity to speak for a few more minutes. I agree very much with what has been said and would like to take up one or two of the points made. The purchases that we make are of great concern and, looking back upon the decision to purchase the FA18, I do not know whether it was the right decision. I have not sought to make a technical assessment of the aeroplane, but from looking at the costs one must be concerned with its effect upon the future procurement policies of this country just as when we look at the costs of the follow-on frigates or any other major procurement that we make we have to be as sure as we possibly can that our choices are correct. We do not have the luxury that the Americans have of being able to put to one side a loss of some billions of dollars and saying: 'That did not turn out very well. Let us try again'. That is simply not open to us. Without entering into any assessments of the merits of American defence equipment against European defence equipment-or, let us put it bluntly, weapons- the fact is that if one looks at the way in which American procurement policies work one sees that there is a vast amount of waste in the development of such things as the main battle tank; and we have to be concerned, if we go down that sort of route, as to our capacity to pay for what we are going to get. I think we in this country have to be exceedingly prudent and careful about all our purchases. I should like to see very much more being done here. I pick up another of the points made, that is, the choice of Mercedes-Benz trucks. I am sure that they will be extremely good trucks, but the question that enters my mind is: How many years' spares are we going to have? Presumably we will have quite a few years' spares. What happens if, for whatever reason, we are cut off from those spares? How long will they last? How far is Stuttgart from the border with East Germany? It is not very far, if I recall correctly. Must we not look towards a future when, if there is a war, we may have to defend ourselves without any assistance from any allies, either because they deem it in the national interest not to come to our assistance or because they are simply unable to come to our assistance. If that should ever happen we are not going to be in a position to ring up and say: 'Look, we would like another 50 FA18s, a few gross of main battle tanks and whatever else we need', because unless we have the capability here we will not be able to get them. If we are ever involved in a major war-and pray to God that that never happens-we will have to fight that war with what we start with and we will have to re-equip essentially with what we can build in this country. Both political parties have had a tendency in the past to make political capital out of defence spending. The present Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) made an observation concerning what governments do as governments and what oppositions do as oppositions. I quoted it back to him in a debate some months ago. We must come to a realisation that God has not guaranteed the future of this country, that we live in an extremely dangerous part of the world. Although looking around we can see that it is obvious there is no present threat to this country, who knows what the next 10, 15, 20 or 25 years will bring? Should we not be planning that far ahead? Should we not be planning for our children, our grandchildren and the future of this country? Should we not as a parliament sit down and work as hard as we can in favour of the national interest to ensure that, if things go wrong, this great country-and it is a great country-will survive and that the people in it and the society they form have a future of their own that is in their own hands rather than handed over to somebody else to determine. We all know the fate of nations that have not paid enough attention to the future. We all know what a close run the Second World War was, how close the British came to defeat at the hands of the Germans before the Americans came into that war. We all know that God does not guarantee the lives of the good in this world. The meek may inherit the earth or heaven, but the meek will not be protected unless they protect themselves. I hope that whatever government is in power in future it will plan always to increase our own capabilities and to make the maximum use of the money we have. I trust that it will reassess again and again the procurement policies and the ways in which the defence establishment works. Without being unnecessarily critical of the defence establishment, I suspect that there is an in-built momentum within that establishment to purchase the state of the art, and not always to look at the long term and to the great need to get the capability in this country rather than from overseas. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.22) —In a statement to this House last November, the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes) said: The fundamental concern of defence policy, from which all other defence effort must derive, is the security of the nation, its independence and its interests from external armed attack or threatened attack. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, is determined to provide adequate defence for the Australian people. Accordingly, defence spending continues to emphasise investment in a range of new equipment necessary to sustain and upgrade our Defence Force. It is a fact of life that most of the defence equipment bought at the time of the Vietnam war is now due-in some cases well overdue-for replacement. The Fraser Government in its 1976 White Paper provided a five-year program for replacement of much of that equipment, but by the end of that five years through criminal negligence, it had deferred more than $3 billion worth of equipment expenditure, including: The Royal Australian Air Force tactical fighter-this decision was deferred by four years; the mine counter measures vessel-its entry into service was deferred by two years; the first fleet underway replenishment ship-its entry into service was deferred by six years; armour and anti-armour weapons-their entry was deferred by four years; the jet trainer for the Macchi replacement-the acquisition decision was deferred by 10 years. In an effort to redress the fiscal madness and irresponsibility of the Fraser Government and to modernise the Defence Force, the Hawke Government has been obliged to commit itself very heavily to a program of equipment expenditure. Some of the major investment projects include the following expenditure this year: $262m on guided missile frigates and modernisation of destroyers, including $87m on the construction of two guided missile frigates at Williamstown Naval Dockyard; $57m on local construction of an underway replenishment ship, two prototype mine haulers and two patrol boats; $48m on new medium trucks; $918m on the FA18 project and 10 additional P3C long range maritime patrol aircraft, with the arrival of the first aircraft of each type in Australia later this year. Other important new projects included in the 1984-85 defence budget are: Acquisition of helicopters for our FFG frigates; with an anti-submarine, surveillance and weapon targeting capability; joint production at the Ordnance Factories at Bendigo and Maribyrnong of new 105mm field guns for the Army; production in Australia of some 2,000 high frequency radios for the Army; acquisition of new electronic warfare equipment to equip the 10 P3C aircraft presently being acquired; the establishment of a base for the new FA18 fighter at Tindal in the Northern Territory involving works and land acquisition estimated at a total cost of $176m; acquisition of air defence and anti-shipping missiles. The FA18 will be equipped with the latest version of the Sparrow and sidewinder missiles, both highly capable and proven air to air missiles matched to the design and performance characteristics of the aircraft. The FA18 will also be capable of carrying Harpoon missiles and the full range of air to surface missiles. Harpoon missiles have already been purchased and will be distributed as required to FA18 units from the 'pool' of these weapons. In addition, the expenditure for weapons, ammunition and explosives is increased by 19 per cent. There is an increase of $18m in building repairs, which represents a real increase of 17 per cent on last year's expenditure. A sum of $48m will be spent on new and better service housing in 1984-85. This is a 30 per cent increase over last year and a further indication of the Hawke Government's concern for the welfare and living standards of individual servicemen and servicewomen. Growth in operating expenditures this year will allow increases in Navy steaming time, Army track running mileage and Air Force flying hours. In 1983-84, $1,442m was spent on operating costs. This is $87m more than had been spent in the previous year. In this year's Budget the allocation for operating costs is $1,539m-that is, an increase of $97m over last year and, again, a real increase of about 2 per cent. Not only have there been increases in operating costs this year but there were similar increases in the Hawke Government's first defence budget last year. Provision is included in the Budget to increase average training time for Army Reserve activities by 36 days per annum, with increased allocations for courses and additional depots. It is reported in the September issue of the Pacific Defence Reporter that the seventh annual report of the Victorian Branch of the Citizen Military Forces Association alleges: The present Government continues to place a low priority on defence in general and the reserve forces in particular. This slanderous and insulting claim completely disregards the fact that the Hawke Government is spending more on defence than any previous government. The Army Reserve is betrayed by the type of statements made by the Victorian Branch of the Citizen Military Forces Association. The Government has initiated an important step in the improvement of defence forces pay and conditions of service. A Defence Force remuneration tribunal is to be established. The tribunal will have the power to determine salary and salary related allowances for members of the Defence Force. It will be able to review salaries at least every two years and the Parliament will not be able to disallow its determinations. The statutory appointment of Defence Force advocate is to be made and this will ensure that the Defence Force is not disadvantaged before the tribunal by not being unionised. This year's Budget allocation for defence is $5,820m. It represents an 8.1 per cent growth in money terms over last year's defence spending, and a real growth of around 3.3 per cent. In the Hawke Government's first two Budgets the average increase for defence spending is 3.7 per cent compared with an average of 2.4 per cent in the seven disastrous years of the Fraser Government. In the 1977-78 Fraser Budget, after the first rash of promises, real growth in defence expenditure reached the dizzy heights of zero per cent. There was no growth whatsoever. Worse still, in 1981-82, after the next swag of promises, there was a reduction of minus 1.7 per cent. Not only do these figures show clearly the hypocrisy of the Opposition in claiming that this Government is not spending enough on defence, but they also show quite clearly the Opposition's total incapacity to manage a large and complex defence program. The Australian people are grateful that the security of our nation is in the hands of the Hawke Government. No greater threat to our defence capability could befall this nation than the election of a Liberal-National Party government. The Hawke Government has given new life to the ANZUS alliance which symbolises Australia's support for the Western community as a whole. The ANZUS alliance provides a sound basis which facilitates Australia's vigorous involvement in the avoidance of nuclear war and promotion of vital arms control and disarmament goals. Our national defence priorities and our involvement in our region are important not only in terms of our own security alone but also for the maintenance of strategic interests of ANZUS and the free world. The Hawke Government believes that while the potential for military conflict continues to exist, Australia must provide the means to protect its national security and integrity. This is the pledge of the Hawke Government. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(8.31) —I am aware that the time allotted for this debate has virtually expired but I seek the tolerance of the Committee to make a few brief comments. Very recently, by virtue of the courtesy of the Minister for Defence (Mr Scholes), I had the opportunity of observing exercises at Camp Kerr within my electorate of the 511th Field Regiment of the reserve forces. Needless to say, I was very much impressed with the sense of purpose and the efficiency of that particular regiment engaged in its artillery exercises, but I observed one or two things of which I think honourable members and the Minister in particular may care to take heed. Firstly, I was surprised to learn that the facility existing in Camp Kerr is utilised virtually on a 100 per cent basis throughout the year. It surprised me to learn that the various units of the forces coming into Camp Kerr are required to expend some of their very limited man hours, which are presently subject to restriction, in erecting marquees for instruction centres and certain other temporary support facilities for the troops of their regiment. So honourable members will appreciate that valuable time is wasted in establishing these facilities and dismantling them, only to have the process repeated by those who immediately supplant that regiment on site. It struck me that it would be of benefit if the Government were prepared to write off marquees or tents, to leave them there over a year or for such time as would be concomitant with their ordinary duration, so that the troops involved could apply themselves to training in the more vital aspect of their period at Camp Kerr. I was also somewhat surprised to find that the kitchen facilities for what would be at times up to 700 troops are indescribably inadequate. I would never have imagined that the catering section should be required to provide sustenance for the troops with such limited facilities. I was also surprised to learn that each unit transports at distance pedestals for the toilets, packs them up and takes them away. If it were a case of a week or a fortnight of utilisation of the camp facility, perhaps we would accept it. I think that the troops themselves would be well served, and economies would be effected in relation to the total training facility, by an address to the continuing utilisation of these facilities. I would like to think that both the Minister for Defence Support (Mr Howe) and the Minister for Defence will take note of this matter and address themselves to the question of whether mutuality of benefit could be achieved by dealing with that problem. I emphasised when I commenced my remarks that I would not take advantage of the good nature of the Committee in affording me the opportunity to register those comments. I leave them with honourable members. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Defence Support)(8.34) —I wish to respond to a number of questions and comments, particularly those made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). First of all, I think there has been a significant change in the Department of Defence Support from 12 months ago when we were looking at these estimates. Basically, the strategy that I have sought to pursue is to try to see whether it is possible to achieve real improvements in operating expenditure to make room for capital expenditure. I believe that that strategy is beginning to show some signs of success but these are very early days. If we look closely at the Budget figures, I think we have seen a real decrease in operating expenditure and, on the other side, notwithstanding what the honourable member has suggested, a real increase in capital expenditure . In particular establishments-I stress the word 'particular'-there have been very significant decreases in the level of subsidy. This applies particularly at the Government Aircraft Factories where there would be something like an 11.5 per cent real decrease if one excludes Nomad, and particularly to the two ordnance factories, Ordnance Factory, Bendigo and Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong. At Ordnance Factory, Maribyrnong the decrease in the level of subsidy is of the order of 14.8 per cent. Of course, in other establishments, particularly in the explosives factories, there has been an increase in the level of subsidy. I believe that much greater attention needs to be given to the area of explosives factories. It is an area about which many governments have talked about establishing reform, but it is not one in which reform is either easy or cheap. Nevertheless, that area has a very high priority in the current year. I wish very briefly to refer to a number of what I regard as indicative achievements. For example, in the munitions area-this is one of the difficulties in that significant improvements can be seen in relation to particular products- at Ammunition Factory, Footscray, the introduction of lower cost packaging for small arms ammunition is estimated to have saved $660,000 per annum and we have also produced a number of products under target which achieved savings at that factory to maintenance of production capabilities of half a million dollars. The time of delivery performances in the Munitions Division has been appalling. We have seen some improvement this year with 50 per cent of total orders being delivered on time, compared with 20 per cent in the previous year. In shipbuilding we have achieved, I believe, a very significant improvement in productivity. For example, the Ryde support craft repair facility, which is an offshoot of Garden Island Dockyard, has retained its workforce at 150 but has doubled its work output. That is a very successful facility. While there has been a reduction in the work force at Garden Island, the work load is very much what it has been over the last few years, so there are improvements there. HMAS Canberra's refit was completed on 17 April 1984 on time and within budget. While that may not seem very much, that has not been the pattern in recent years. Labour relations have improved quite dramatically. I take the example of Williamstown Naval Dockyard where 95,000 man hours were lost in 1981-82 and 34, 000 were lost in 1982-83. That figure was down to 7,000 man hours in 1983-84, representing a quite massive reduction. At Garden Island we have seen some reduction, from 152,000 man hours in 1982-82 to 94,000 man hours in 1983-84, but I think that indicates that we have not given anything like the attention to Garden Island that we have given to Williamstown Dockyard. In the Aerospace Division we have seen some improvements. For example, in the area of store stock inventory, which is clearly quite crucial, we have been able to reduce the inventory significantly, with an improvement in costs and efficiency. Total man hours lost at the Government Aircraft Factories has been reduced from 4,000 in 1982-83 to 750 in 1983-84, but I do not think that indicates the level of improvement in the Government Aircraft Factories in terms of industrial relations which are measured perhaps in other ways than in days lost. We have achieved the first phase of relocation of staff from Fishermen's Bend to Avalon through a 'voluntary counselling' process. We are going through a very big program of relocation which will significantly improve the indirect- direct ratio of staff at the Government Aircraft Factories. So there have been significant improvements. I turn very quickly to the questions that were raised in terms of capital. I think the fact that the figures look to be down is slightly illusory. The figure of $30m was mentioned in relation to the introduction of trust and commercial accounting at Williamstown Dockyard. It is also true that capital expenditure is very lumpy and there is a decrease from about $30m in capital on the new tactical fighter program from last year to $11.7m this year, and that clearly makes a significant difference to the Budget figures. Investment in capital, in fact, overall, is increased by $11.5m for the Department of Defence Support, a real increase of 21 per cent. That is very significant. Expenditure on machinery and plant overall is certainly up. The honourable member for North Sydney raised a point about Winnin. While it is true that there is only a small amount of money in the Budget, there is a very significant work load at the Government Aircraft Factories for Winnin this year. It is paid for under contractural arrangements, which mean that the figures would show in the Department of Defence Estimates, and, of course, there is a significant amount of research and development work done within defence laboratories, which again would show in the defence budget. I agree entirely with the honourable member that Winnin is an extremely important project. It is just the kind of project where Australia ought to be showing that we can effectively produce high technology defence systems. Certainly I shall do everything that I can in the current year to ensure that we reach the stage-a stage that we often have not reached in the past-at which we have got Winnin to the production stage and not only into service with the Australian defence forces but also into international markets, because it could be a very successful project. Honourable members may have noticed that we are also moving to update Ikara in co-operation with Oto Melara in Italy. Again, one of the great failings has been that we have very often not updated very good systems. Ikara has been very successful. We are now tackling that problem, and I believe that there is a very good chance of being able to market Ikara in co-operation with Oto Melara to the Italian navy and, more broadly, to other navies of European and other countries. Staffing has been held constant. We shall have exactly the same level of staffing as we had 12 months ago; but, of course, the distribution of staff will change somewhat. But certainly it is an objective not to add to our overheads, which are already too high, given the output of our factories. On industry assistance, it has been mentioned that the figure in this year's Budget shows no significant increase. I can only make the point, that industry assistance reflects defence guidance. With respect to marketing, that is an area which I take very seriously. We have been extremely unsuccessful in the past. We are reorganising the marketing section of the Department and developing marketing strategies. We could provide the Parliament with further information when those plans are a little further developed. I shall check on what happened to the earlier estimates. In relation to offsets, that is an area which I have pursued very aggresively. We are making some practical progress in picking up outstanding offsets, but the policy is under review. Any changes will wait until that review is made at the end of the year. In respect of the matters raised on the question of the Auditor-General's report, I would refer the Committee to the Senate discussion of the Estimates in relation to that matter. However, we have got commercial accounting into the Williamstown Naval Dockyard. There has been a major review of accounting practices at the Government Aircraft Factories. Very significant progress has been made in that area. We have a model, I think, for commercial accounting that can be applied progressively throughout the Department. Finally, I make a very brief reference to the suggestion made by the honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell). It is the Government's policy that we should achieve greater self-reliance and independence, not only generally in relation to defence but also in the area of the defence industry. I share some of the honourable member's concerns about over-dependence on the United States as a too preponderant source of supply for capital equipment. There is a great deal to be said for seeking a greater diversity of sources of equipment. I believe that we could do a lot more in Australia ourselves. Collaborative arrangements are one of the ways in which we can ensure transfer of technology and the opportunity not only to manufacture in Australia for the Australian forces but also to export. I think that we need to get past the dependence on licences. So much has been produced in Australia under licence, which means that we are never able to export that to a third country. That policy has been misguided. I hope to see us move to a situation in which the Oto Melara co- operation becomes much more of the model than the model of simply manufacturing under licence without rights of sale to third countries. Proposed expenditures agreed to. The CHAIRMAN —Before we continue, could I point out to the honourable member for McPherson that he continues to interject, which is bad enough, but he continues to interject from outside his own seat. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $250,124,000. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $124,425,000. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(8.47) —I believe that any honourable member who has considered the appropriations for the Department of Trade contained in this Budget would be concerned, particularly if he had also read a report of the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research, which was recently released. It indicates that the percentage of exports paid on foreign debt has risen from 4.9 per cent in 1979-80 to 16.3 per cent in 1983-84. Mr Braithwaite —Four times more. Mr BLUNT —Yes. Put another way, in 1979-80 we owed 4.6 per cent of our gross domestic product to foreigners, but in 1983-84 we owed 25.6 per cent. This obviously indicates that Australia's trade performance is declining, but the Government appears to be ignoring this in its appropriations for the Department this year. I find that attitude absolutely in contrast with its attitude to borrowing overseas. The interest and capital repayments to which this Government has committed Australia represent 35 per cent of the annual value of our exports . That compares to about 18 per cent in 1981-82 and about 10 per cent in the 1970s. It is clear that as a nation we are borrowing beyond our capacity to service these long term repayments adequately. Again, I must say that the appropriations for the Department of Trade contained in this Budget will not do anything to reverse the situation. The principal cause of this problem is the high rate of interest that arises from the demand for public and government sector borrowings. The total public sector borrowing requirements are approaching $15 billion, compared to only $6 billion in 1981-82. The huge rises in the Hawke Government's spending will result in a lift in the Government's total interest bill to $9.2 billion. That is, 64c of every dollar that governments in Australia will borrow will go to meeting the mounting interest bill. Indeed, public debt now represents nearly 41 per cent of GDP. As I said, our declining trade performance is quite serious, taken in the context of our external borrowing position. The inescapable truth is that Australia's trade growth prospects are grim. The world surplus of oil supplies has reduced greatly our capacity to exploit vast energy resources, and our declining competitiveness is threatening our agricultural, mining and manufacturing industries. In spite of our record wheat crop last year, we shall finish up with a small trade surplus of less than $300m, the first in five years . As to the high cost of invisibles, we shall have a current account deficit of $6,697m, which is expected to rise to $8,000m this financial year. It seems incredible that the Government should have increased the funds available to the export market development scheme by only $10m when eligible claims for 1983-84 will increase by $23m. Obviously Australia has to increase its export orientation if it is to survive as a viable trading nation in the world. Mr Robert Brown —Or reduce the number of imports. Mr BLUNT —I am interested that the honourable member suggests that we should reduce imports. Obviously that is the philosophy of the Government. It seems to forget that the basic rule of economic life is that one cannot survive by taking in one's own washing. Some honourable members on the other side of the House would build a tariff barrier round Australia which would totally exclude international trade and have us producing everything for ourselves. That is a bit like a person adopting a subsistence way of life which is fine if we want to suffer a continuing decline in our standard of living. We on this side of the House believe that Australia is a trading nation-that our future lies in trade-and that it is the Government's responsibility to do everything possible to promote and foster trade and to ensure that Australia takes an active role in ensuring that trade not only between Australia and the other nations but also between all the nations of the world continues. When we do not have a high degree of trade among nations we will suffer a decline in economic activity. The consequences of that have been demonstrated several times in the history of the modern economic system, for example, the 1930s, the 1890s and several times before. Certain aspects of our trade concern me specifically. One of these in particular is the export of beef to many of our traditional markets around the world. It concerns me that the four-year agreement between Australia and Japan signed in 1979 expired in March 1983 and to date we still have no renewal of that agreement. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has visited Japan. As a result of that visit he said: We have had discussions with leaders of Government and industry to ensure that Australia maintains its share in the traditional areas of supply which, of course, includes mineral products and primary products-particularly beef. I have secured, I believe, in the discussions with Mr Nakasone and others, an understanding that provided Australia remains a competitive and reliable supplier-which we will-then the share that Australia's enjoyed in these traditional markets will be maintained. That statement was made in February 1984 and we still have no definitive agreement with Japan. I am told that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) will be making a statement on this agreement in the next couple of days. Mr Braithwaite —He should have gone there himself. Mr BLUNT —I think he should have gone there himself some time ago. If he had we would perhaps have had a definitive agreement some months earlier. I am sure the action the Deputy Prime Minister is about to announce is the result only of a certain amount of prodding and prompting from the Deputy Leader of the National Party and honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt). This seems to have caused some reaction from the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope it is not a feeling of guilt. I briefly want to record the actions of the honourable member for Gwydir on behalf of the beef producers of Australia. On 13 February the honourable member for Gwydir called for Mr Hawke to return immediately to clear up personally uncertainty which had arisen as a result of his assurances on our beef exports. On 2 March the honourable member for Gwydir introduced a matter of public importance for debate by the Parliament. That matter of public importance concerned: The confusion and concern caused by the Prime Minister's actions and statements in Japan and China about beef and steel exports. The honourable member for Gwydir has been tireless in his efforts on behalf of the beef industry; unlike the Government which has persisted with a system of export inspection charges which in the words of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) have done nothing to facilitate the export of beef. I wonder how strongly the Minister for Trade argued against the export inspection charges if he had a genuine commitment to promoting Australia's exports-particularly beef-on the world scene. Obviously the Australian beef industry is suffering in markets other than Japan because of those export charges. Our market position in Singapore is under challenge. Our competitiveness on the United States market is declining, as it is in Canada. We are under pressure from New Zealand and several other beef producing nations because this Government fails to realise the basic economics of exports-that is, that we must be competitive in a world market. Government's cannot simply raise revenue from an industry which it believes has the capacity to pay. We must always recognise that the basic guidelines and parameters affecting the viability of our industry are not some artificial guidelines established by a trade union official or a public servant in Canberra . They are in fact, the results of pressure that operate on the world market. They are pressures which arise from the costs of production in other nations, in countries which compete with Australia for the supply of those goods and services which we seek to export. That applies to the beef industry as much as it applies to our mineral and coal industries. That is something else that this Government seems to forget. It is necessary for us not only to be a reliable supplier of goods to overseas markets but also we must be price competitive. We cannot be price competitive if this Government persists in imposing charges and taxes which operate to the detriment of the export industries and which fail to produce an economic climate in Australia which allows the producers of those goods to produce at a price which enables export to world markets. I raise one final matter that goes to the inconsistent statement made by the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh) and the Minister for Trade. Last week Senator Walsh said that Australia would not allow the October uranium shipment to France. The Minister for Trade accepted that. However, today the Minister said that Australia will not be breaking uranium contracts with France on the basis of banning uranium sales to France. With that sort of inconsistent attitude how does Australia have a trading future? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLLIS(Macarthur)(8.58) —I am pleased to join in the debate in the Committee stage on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 and the appropriations for the Department of Trade and the Department of Resources and Energy. As we all know Australia has always lived by trade. For this reason Australia welcomes the strengthening in international economic activity which emerged initially in the United States late in 1982 and which later intensified and became more widely spread during the first half of 1984. For Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development countries as a group some slowing is expected in the second half of 1984 and in 1985, mainly from an expected reduction in growth in the United States economy. My comments in this discussion mainly will be directed to coal and other minerals. Recently Australia has been selling record levels of coal-during the past year, 66 million tonnes. Of course, the big problem facing the Government is over-production of coal. The previous Government believed its own rhetoric about resource booms. It permitted mines to be developed which now are coming on stream in an already over-supplied market. All this was done in a totally unplanned and unco-ordinated manner. We are now paying the price in terms of unemployment and also cut-throat price competition by the Australian producers. I think I have said in about three debates in this House that it is a constant source of embarrassment to see the Australian coal producers lined up and traded off one against another by a centralised Japanese buying authority. The Government through its export controls has attempted to minimise that problem with exports. Nowhere is this problem of the coal industry more apparent than in my own electorate where during the past two years over 2,000 jobs have been lost . This is a result of unco-ordinated competition between States and because Australia has no national energy plan. I appreciate that the market is difficult for hard coking coal as opposed to soft coking coal and steaming coal. We cannot let this resource be wasted. It is interesting to note that more coal has been wasted in Australia than has ever been mined. It has been wasted through bad mining techniques in the early days which led to fires in mines, cave-ins et cetera. As I said before more coal has been lost in this country than we have ever produced. On the southern coal fields, those of the Illawara, we cannot, and will not, allow more of this natural Australian resource to be wasted. The fluctuating fortunes of the mineral industry have sparked intense debate in public policy formation throughout Australia's history. The resources boom mirage has now evaporated. We are confronted with an entirely different set of parameters. The world mining industry is now beset with excess capacity and commodity prices which are at historically low levels. Despite some recent evidence of a revival in world demand for some minerals, for example, our iron ore and coal exports to Japan have recently picked up, there is widespread concern about whether demand for other minerals will revive to pre-recession levels. The modern development of Australia's mining industry can be traced to the early 1960s when the Australian mining sector began its intimate relationship with the industrial development of Japan. Over the two decades between 1960-61 and 1980-81 the mining sector's share of gross national product rose from 1.9 per cent to 4.4 per cent. The mining sector's share of total Australian exports has also risen strongly, from 6.1 per cent of total Australian exports in 1960- 61 to 38 per cent in 1983-84. These figures understate the relative importance of the minerals sector to Australia's exports. To a very large extent Australian exports of base metals, which are classified in international trade statistics as 'manufactured products', are derived from domestically sourced raw materials. If this element of Australian exports is included the share of total Australian exports accounted for by the minerals sector rises to over 46 per cent in 1983- 84. In world terms Australia is a middle-ranking trading nation, ranking nineteenth in 1983. However, looking at trade in such aggregate terms tends to mask the extremely important position Australia holds as a supplier of certain commodities, many of which are minerals and metals. Australia is estimated to be the world's largest exporter of alumina, refined lead and mineral sands and is amongst the top suppliers of coal, iron ore, bauxite and nickel. The key issue which I believe deserves mention is the special position of Japan as our principal market for mineral exports and the developments in that market which have implications for our minerals trade. Japan emerged as Australia's major export market in 1966-67 and continued to increase in importance during the first half of the 1970s, peaking at 34 per cent in 1976-77. The major contributing factor to this growth was the rapid increase in Australia's exports of minerals and metals to Japan. Indeed, much of the rapid expansion in Australia's mining industry over the last two decades was due to the establishment of operations specifically to supply the raw material needs of Japanese industry. These demands reflected Japan's economic development path of concentrating on heavy industry in the 1960s and early 1970s. However, Japanese industry has since developed in the direction of producing knowledge-intensive, as opposed to materials-intensive, goods leading to a slowing demand for the minerals and other raw materials which Australia has traditionally supplied. Since its peak in 1976-77 Japan's share of Australia's total exports has declined to 27 per cent in 1982-83. Between 1970-71 Australia's share of the Japanese import market declined from 8 per cent to 5 per cent. By 1982-83 Japan was taking over 40 per cent of Australia's total exports of minerals, fuels and metals compared to 50 per cent in 1971-72. Despite these overall falls, Japan remains vitally important as a market for Australian exports of minerals and other raw materials. The importance of Japan is even greater in the case of certain minerals with Japan accounting for around 70 per cent of Australia's iron ore exports and around 60 per cent of our total coal exports. However, the overall result of the maturing of the Japanese economy and the structural adjustments which are taking place is that the composition of Japanese import demand is changing. The developments have had an adverse impact on the present and prospective demand for many of Australia's mineral resource commodities. Although there are new prospects for expansion and further diversification of Australia's mineral exports one needs to question whether other markets, particularly the newly industrialising countries, will assume the mantle held by Japan. In this regard we should be under no illusions about the highly competitive environment in which we are working. Many of the newly industrialising countries, for example, Brazil and China, are not as dependent on imports of raw materials as is Japan. In addition, prospective growth in new Asian markets where Australia has not established a firm position is as attractive to our trading competitors as it is to us. We hear a lot from members of the Opposition about Australia's trading position in regard to exports. The previous Government left this country in a mess in regard to the production and export of our mineral resources. Nowhere is this more abundantly clear, nowhere are we paying a greater price, than in the coal industry, especially in the southern underground fields. I blame this totally on the unco-ordinated policies of the previous Government which believed its own rhetoric about a resources boom and just allowed open slather when it came to the development of new mines. We must have a co-ordinated approach to coal mining in this country. I firmly believe that we must have a national energy plan. I am confident that many of the problems will be overcome by the realistic approach of the Hawke Labor Government. No one, least of all I, should underestimate the task. I believe that the Hawke Government is truly up to this task. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(9.06) —A number of speakers in the debate tonight have referred to our trading position. I would prefer to talk about the Department of Resources and Energy. Just before I do so I mention that it has been a bit amusing to hear some speakers. I heard the honourable member for Isaacs (Mr Charles) and, more recently, the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis), telling us what were the faults of the previous Government. They seemed to be very selective. It benefits members of this Government, when describing all the problems they have now and the things they do not appear to be doing well, to blame it on the previous Government. But of course when they start to talk about the improved economy that is not in any way the fault of the previous Government ; that is all to the credit of the present Government. That makes a joke of the situation. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Honourable members opposite can either wake up and say that good things were done by the previous Government and bad things were done by this Government, or vice versa. But it is an Australian Labor Party Government at the moment. As such, honourable members opposite must wear all the problems of this country. We did not ask this government in 1980 to carry the burden of our mistakes. As I have said, tonight I wish to talk on the matter of the Department of Resources and Energy. I received a letter in my office the other day advising me that, for the purposes of assisting in the development of Australian water resources, the 1984-85 Budget appropriation would be $64.3m. When I see some of the one-line allocations and I see that our debt servicing charges are $5.6 billion this year, it seems to me to be a very small investment in our future resources. Of that amount some $10.36m has been allocated to one-third of the Australian continent, namely, Western Australia, one of the drier parts of the continent in the bargain, and $6.650m has been allocated to the Harding River Dam. Honourable members can see that practically nothing has been allocated for anything else. The Harding River Dam project was almost an embarrassment to the Government the other day. Under its new heritage legislation a determined attempt was made to stop its completion. The Government has already invested about $10m in that project. That just highlights another ridiculous situation that has come on the scene; the sort of situation where a Federal government can invest in such a huge resource project and then turn round and bring in another legislation that might stop it. This matter was completely out of the Government 's hands; it was just a bit lucky. All in all, my concern is that this is not enough money. It is interesting to read the opening remarks of the 'Prospective on Australia's Water Resources to the Year 2000' report, which is also mentioned in the letter I received from the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh). It states: Concern has been increasing in recent years as to whether adequate water supplies of suitable quality will be available to meet requirements over the next 20 years for an increasing urban population, for agricultural production and for in-stream uses, as well as for new major energy and energy-related projects. When we consider those opening remarks and the fact that people can talk of problems 20 years down the track we just have to ask ourselves: 'What price water in Australia?' As far as I am concerned the conservation of water for the use of the population just cannot be measured. It is acknowledged that this major continent is extremely short of water. Water development just has to be given a higher priority. We cannot put a price on it. It is quite useless to adopt some of the approaches found in a particular study, the 'North Eastern Agricultural Water Supply (Agaton Project)' in Western Australia, to which I wish to refer. This has been rejected by two governments on the grounds that it will not pay. With that position being taken by governments over the years, God save us. We are into so much expenditure that will not pay that it is unbelievable, yet when we are faced with an opportunity to do something that could greatly enhance Australia's growth-this is confirmed by the report entitled 'Water 2000'-we seem to take a very low profile. As I said, I am not heaping the blame on this Government; I could not convince the previous Government, of which I was a member, that we have to look at water resources in a different way, we have to be prepared to spend money. In the five minutes left to me I want to put forward some arguments on behalf of the Agaton water scheme. The report states: The Project has been designed to provide a reticulated public water supply to 664 000 hectares of farmland in the North Eastern Agricultural Area immediately to the north of the present boundary of the Goldfields and Agricultural Areas Water Supply. This area- this is a proposition put by the State Government to the Commonwealth- was selected by the State as that having the highest priority for the development of a reticulated public water supply following consideration of its identified water needs, as well as its engineering and economic aspects. The proposal also provides for an area of 334 000 hectares and a number of towns within the Goldfields and Agricultural Areas Water Supply boundary to be transferred to the new Supply and utilise water from Agaton instead of the present Mundaring Weir source. The Agaton source of water is a huge underground source of water that was partly within the old O'Connor electorate and is now completely within the redistributed O'Connor electorate. It is a great source of water. By making it available to the people in the region mentioned huge benefits could accrue. They will not accrue by selling the people the water. It is clearly understood that the capital costs involved would make it unprofitable for government. On the other hand, it is my honest belief that it would make a great profit for the nation because all of this country at the moment practically exists on the production of wheat. That area's potential to produce meat, sheep and wool is completely limited because there is no reliable water supply. There has been great pressure on farmers to put in on-farm dam supplies. The fact is that the soils leak. Even though we are currently enjoying a good season in that region after many bad ones, the catchments provided were designed for much lower rainfalls and the minute we received good rainfalls these catchments were badly eroded and proved useless. These are all the problems we face in this area if we try traditional methods. Only a reticulation scheme will work. Such a scheme at present would cost about $60m. That equals the total Commonwealth expenditure on such projects within Australia and, clearly, this is only one of the schemes that could be supported by the Australian Government. I am here to represent the people of my district in that regard. Mr Robert Brown —What would be the return on the $60m? Mr TUCKEY —The return on $60m in dollar terms would be probably only $1m a year by selling the water. It is my view that the many thousands of sheep that would be turned off would probably repay that amount of money in a very short period. That is the difference. Nevertheless, if we are going to go down that track many huge investments in social security and other matters absorb nearly half the Federal Budget and nobody expects to get a return from them. I will probably be given the answer that it is a social necessity to make those investments. There are many hundreds of housewives out in that area who practically have to do their laundry in muddy water in a bucket. They could tell honourable members about social necessity. That is the other side of the story. All in all what annoys me is that in recent times the State Government, under Premier Brian Burke, has decided that buying into diamond mines is good business . Having expended some $50m of what could be called public money on a diamond mine it found the share value was only $19m. The Western Australian Government called in some pretty smart tax operators from that part of the country and put together a package. Let us admit, there are a few of them over there now, employed by the Burke Govern- ment-names such as Horgan. They managed to sell the $19m worth of shares for $60m by guaranteeing a trust arrangement and a return. I do not know who the institutional investors are, but from my reading of it they have paid $9m into a reserve fund to guarantee themselves the interest that they are promised in the original years. I am pleased to say that the Government has got its $60m back. If it was prepared to invest it in the future of Western Australia it would just match the present day cost of this scheme. I have already written to the Premier urging him to get out of the business arena. Having burnt his fingers and having had to resort to the smartest businessman in Western Australia to get him out of trouble, I suggest he might invest in something that will carry the Western Australian economy on for many years. I refer to the Agaton water scheme. I hope if he is not listening to me today he might be listening to me tomorrow. I urge him to consider this because his record in the business arena is pretty poor. He could do a lot of good for us in Australia. On the other hand, I hope that the Federal government is prepared in its future budgets, whatever government it is, to invest a lot more in water because it is most important to our country. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(9.16) —Tonight honourable members have an opportunity in the estimates debates to deal for a few minutes with enormous sums of money that have been expended by various government departments. At present we are considering the allocation of $250m this financial year to the Department of Trade and other moneys to the Department of Resourses and Energy. I thought I would say a few words of praise, particularly for the work of our Trade Commissioner Service. Many members of this House and of this Parliament have travelled and met these officers, often working on difficult assignments and in unpleasant countries, putting their families and their own lives at risk in some of the more dangerous postings. They do a great job for Australia and promote our interests. I am sure they keep the Minister for Trade (Mr Lionel Bowen) and the departmental officers fully informed. It was in this vein that I thought I would mention my private visit recently to Brazil, which is one of our chief competitors in the commodities we export. I was most concerned to note the developments in iron ore in that country, which is very good for Brazil but very difficult for Australia in the long term. We export about 86 million tonnes or iron ore a year and Brazil, by about 1988, will be producing at least half that quantity and will be out to sell its iron ore because it is government owned. Iron ore is not privately owned as it is in this country, where we have three or four big firms marketing this mineral. This worries me greatly because I feel that on the depressed world market the Brazilian iron ore will cause great panic and a lot of trouble. Our economy is strongly based on sales of iron ore and other minerals around the world. I am sure the Minister is aware of this problem; his advisers would keep him posted. He will know of the difficult problem looming in Brazil. Other matters I want briefly to touch upon are the estimates for the Department of Resources and Energy, which administers the Atomic Energy Act, and also the Joint Coal Board, which administers the Coal Industry Act 1946. I trust that the Government will be doing something in the near future to approve a medical cyclatron for our nation. Only two continents in the world do not have a cyclatron; Australia is one and the Antarctic is the other. This would make the other half of the periodic table of radioisotopes available in Australia. I encourage the Government to act quickly on this matter. It is my hope too, having visited the coal fields in Queensland earlier this year with members of the Australian Government Caucus Committee on Economic Policy that the Government can do more to stimulate research on coal and overcoming the problems of acid rain in coal-fired generators because we have so much coal in this country and, as other speakers have said, we must do everything possible to promote its sale. I will not delay the House further. I trust the Minister will take on board my comments on the medical cyclatron and the sales of iron ore from Brazil. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(9.20) —I would like to say a few words concerning the need for greater water resources in Australia. The matter has been touched upon tonight by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). It disturbs me that, as the years go by, all the governments of the continent are not paying greater attention to the overall need for water resources within Australia. I accept the fact that basically water resources are the responsibility of the States. However, I do not know why the Commonwealth could not adopt a scheme such as the bicentennial road funding program for water resources generally throughout Australia. I think that if a lead were to come from the Commonwealth it would receive the strong support of the State governments concerned. We have to appreciate the fact that Australia has very varied conditions of weather. We are a dry continent and, in certain areas, a wet continent. We are a particularly large continent with very little snow water indeed. If we are to encourage primary production, we must ensure that we have a well set-down program for water resources. I believe that, as the years go on, the people of the world who need food will look to Australia to produce it. There is a responsibility for us to buckle down , to appreciate the weather conditions throughout Australia and to do something practical to tackle the problem. I do not see it as being the total responsibility of government. I believe that we have a responsibility to encourage the land owner to conserve the water on his farm by way of taxation measures or even by making a State subsidy available. We have to encourage the private enterprise plan. If one looks at the United States of America one finds that quite a number of the major water resource programs there have been built by private enterprise simply because the United States Congress could not afford to undertake the expenditure. We are an up and coming nation and I believe that if we are to grow in the way we want to grow there must be a different attitude. It concerns me that in the Budget we are debating at the moment our attention is focused on the expenditure on education, on Medicare and on other fields. I do not condemn that in any way. However, we are not looking at the real things that will develop Australia. Employment, particularly in the rural parts of Australia, can be created by undertaking water storage schemes. As our costs upon the farm rise we will find that the only way we are able to compete on the markets of the world for primary production will be to assist our farmers to produce at a lower cost than they are doing at the moment. If one looks at the grain, beef, fruit and dairy industries of Australia one finds that most of those products come from dry farming areas. If we are to stabilise these industries, keep people in them and supply the food, which we are out to do, we must focus attention and expenditure on our water resources. I am sure that we as a government and as a Parliament-I am not condemning the Government at all, as the honourable member for O'Connor did-have been to blame for not focusing attention and expenditure on and exerting ourselves to build the water resources of Australia. When one travels around the coastline, no matter where one is, but particularly on the eastern coast of Australia, one sees millions of tonnes of lovely water every day going off to sea that could be used not only for the irrigation of farm lands but also for domestic and other purposes. We should be looking to solutions much more than we are. I appeal to the Government to lead the way because I am sure that it would get much credit indeed so far as the people of Australia are concerned. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(9.25) —I wish to express my thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) for allowing me to contribute very briefly to this debate on the estimates for the Department of Trade. Being one of the newer members of parliament, I am often asked what my most overwhelming impression of public office is. That is a very easy question to answer. The answer is simply that Australians are living in a fool's paradise, so much so that it is my belief that within 10 years we will have a significantly lower standard of living than we enjoy at present. The reason for that is the declining position of Australian trade in the international market. As the Minister for Trade, who is at the table, would be so well aware, our position has significantly dropped over a period by an amount which, admittedly, may only be percentage points; from approximately 1.8 per cent-the share of international trade we used to hold about 20 years ago-to 1.3 per cent or 1.4 per cent which it is at present. That is only a few percentage points but in terms of monetary value it amounts to billions of dollars. Mr Barry Jones —But proportionately it is enormous. Mr McGAURAN —As the Minister for Science and Technology points out, proportionately it is enormous. There are a number of reasons for it. Nothing contributes to it more that the fact that over the last 20 years our growth rate , as against the growth rates of other Western industrialised nations and South East Asia, has been nothing short of disastrous. Since 1961 our economic growth rate has averaged 2.5 per cent. Some 13 Western industralised nations have averaged a better growth rate. Of course, that is not taking into account the dynamic economies of our South East Asian neighbours, the most glaring example being, of course, Japan, which averaged a 6 per cent growth rate over that period. Of course, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan and even Indonesia also have far greater growth rates than we have. Another major contributing factor to my conviction that within 10 years, if not by the end of the decade, Australia will have a significantly lower standard of living, is our declining competitiveness on international markets. I do not have time to examine the reasons for that but certainly there is no question in my mind that the fact that we are locked into a centralised wage fixing system which does not take into account the individual capacity of industries to pay is a major contributor. Australians are extremely complacent because in real terms our standard of living has increased over the last 20 years. But I think that is a short term view of our economic well-being in the future, given that, relatively speaking, our position has declined. Australians are somewhat myopic. It is almost impossible to stress strongly enough that this country relies largely on agricultural, mining and metal exports to maintain our share of international trade. The simple fact is that, in relation to all of those exports, extracts as well as primary produce, a declining volume is required and prices are depressed. The Japanese, for instance, are sick and tired of telling Australians that they have less and less need for our iron ore and coal, that they wish to diversify their markets, and that they wish in some instances to diversify to a more reliable supplier. Mr Cunningham —You are not knocking Australia now, Peter, are you? Mr McGAURAN —Interjections of honourable members such as the honourable member for McMillan represent the myopic single vision that is restricting this country from realising its problems and taking steps to address them. Japan advises us that its economy is changing, that it is becoming more sophisticated, if you like. It has told us very plainly that either we change with it or we will be left with more coal and iron ore by the end of the decade than we can possibly export to it. Of course, that is complicated by the fact that countries such as South Africa and Brazil, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, and Canada are in many instances able to trade more competitively. Simply, the challenge is before us. It is an enormous challenge for the Government. I am not satisfied that there is anywhere near enough the restructuring of our economy required to deal with the realities of the international market. I am pleased to note that there has been a substantial increase in trade promotion that will give us the possibility of searching out new markets. But it simply comes back to the fact that the world economies are changing; we must change with them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Minister for Trade)(9.30) —I thank honourable members for their contributions. Let me briefly advert to those matters which were addressed to me; my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) will reply in respect of other matters. I particularly thank the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) for his thoughtful contribution because he addressed his mind to the fact that our trade situation has been serious for a long period. The significant point is that last year was the first year in five years that we have had a trade surplus. It is interesting to look at how that surplus was achieved. We had a 12 per cent growth rate. The Government is not claiming credit for it just because it happened. However, it does require a fair bit of effort in trade promotion and ascertaining new markets. Honourable members will see that the 12 per cent growth rate was evenly divided. There was a rural growth of 12 per cent; minerals, 10 per cent; manufactures, 13 per cent; and what is called elaborately transformed manufacturers, 14 per cent. The significant point is that the fastest growing area of world trade is in elaborately transformed manufactures. That is no indictment of our primary producers or our mineral producers. But the difficulty they face is the subsidies that are given to producers in other countries. I thank the honourable member for recognising that we are efficient producers but at the same time we are up against government subsidies in other nations. For example, at present we still have not sold all of last year's record wheat crop and will have available about 16 million tonnes; we are now having to sell on three-year terms, no deposit. I mentioned this today. The taxpayer, naturally, will give national interest cover for about 85 per cent of that. That runs into about $900m over and above what we already have to cover. We will do it, but it is worth recognising how the world currency scene has changed. Government to government trade, about which at times the honourable member was critical of me, has reached 30 per cent. From the cables which come across my desk, I see that all nations are talking about trade in terms of: 'I will buy from you but what will you buy from us?'. For example, one of the things the Chinese are talking about at present-China is a burgeoning new market-is why cannot we take its oil as that would improve its ability to trade with Australia . I emphasise that the scene has changed in terms of where the market opportunities are. For example, last year our trade to Hong Kong increased by 75 per cent; to the Federal Republic of Germany, 31 per cent; to Singapore, 30 per cent; and to the United States of America, 21 per cent. I pay tribute to my Department for the efforts that it makes in trade promotion and to the Trade Commissioner Service for identifying markets where we can get an opportunity to trade. I am very sympathetic with our rural producers because they are the best in the world but they are up against the toughest competition. I make the point that whether one talks about sugar or wheat one has this problem. The world, despite the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, has got away from the real issue. Agricultural products are excluded from GATT. In the 1950s the United States got a waiver on the basis that it would be only temporary. I am about to go to a conference in Brazil where world trade Ministers will sit around the table to discuss what is wrong with world trade. Every one of them must say: 'Yes, I am interested in bilateral trade. I must have a protective device because of the political consequences that I would face if I lowered the level of protection'. It is a bit counterproductive for a number of people in this country all the time to be berating fellow Australians that they are too protective. They ought to look at the rest of the world and see whether they could penetrate the Japanese market, the United States market or the European Economic Community market-markets where one will not be let in. We do not get that chance. I think the contribution of the honourable member was first class from that point of view, but he then talked about an issue which is obviously very close to his heart. He blames the situation on a centralised wage fixing authority which I do not think is the issue. If we did not have a centralised wage fixing authority we would have all sorts of disparities. As honourable members will see from the brief period we have been in government we have stabilised wages; we have reduced the rate of inflation; we have reduced interest rates. All of these things have helped the economy and those who are dealing with the escalation of costs. It is not the escalation of costs that is causing us some difficulties; it is the fact that we are up against unfair competition. I make that point to the honourable member and I would like him to understand that in our view whilst we can make some progress in the areas of agricultural production and commodity trade we are up against a lot of unfair competition. From the point of view of our society, with its higher education and its ability to get into manufactures, we have also to concentrate in that area. New technology is an area in which, as my colleague the Minister for Science and Technology is very well aware, the opportunities are. We are a small market of 15 million people and one cannot run one's manufacturing base on such a low population. One must have export potential, and that again is very hard to come by. My colleague the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) quite fairly raised the issue of the coal industry. He and others thought that perhaps we should have been aware of the competition. We open coal mines on the express understanding that an undertaking is given by the Japanese that they will need that coal for their power supply. They have postponed their power operating development and accordingly mines are now in production and we have no markets. As a matter of interest, and to show honourable members the capacity of the Japanese, they are now paying the same price for our iron ore and coal as they did in the 1960s. So they are not suffering, but we are in dire trouble because new mines particularly in Queensland have come into operation to meet that market. We find that the competition between the open cut mines in Queensland and the underground mines in New South Wales will result in many miners in New South Wales facing the sack for no reasons at all. Coal production in this country increased by 20 per cent last year. We sold that extra 20 per cent. Looking at it from the point of the employers, they produced more than ever; we sold more than ever. Yet we got less in market prices. The obligation is on us to get out and find new markets for coal which basically are there if we can stop the subsidies against us in Europe, for example. We can produce coal and sell it in Europe for about a third of the cost that those countries pay. But if one talks to the West Germans about that they will clearly indicate that it is a political situation. The German miners will not be out of a job and if they were out of a job the Government would be out of office. One sees the subsidy situation going right through. I can understand that in political terms, but often we berate ourselves as Australians as to what is wrong with us. We ought to look at how tough it is from the point of view of how effective we are as producers. I make those points to the honourable member because I think he understands them and it is important that that message is conveyed. The honourable member for Richmond (Mr Blunt), who is a new member, came here full of enthusiasm. He said 'What is wrong with this Government?' and forgot to talk about the Government which had been in office for a long time before he became a member. Let me make it very clear. He seemed to think that we were responsible for the extraordinary debt that we inherited. He should look at page 8 of the Government Securities on Issue pamphlet, which is Budget Paper No. 8. Australia's public interest debt in the main is not payable overseas. Of the total public debt interest of $5.1 billion only $612m is payable overseas. It also ought to be made very clear that most of Australia's foreign debt is private debt, not government debt. I leave that comment with him. He can address his mind to it. I refer to a matter which is dear to the heart of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), that is, the beef trade with Japan. I will not go over an issue that was raised previously, but we have faced the fact that the Japanese outmanoeuvred the previous Government when they had inserted into their beef agreement that they could have an escalation of what is called high quality beef quota from 14,000 to 30,000 tonnes. They took that escalation figure out of the global quota. Therefore Australia's beef exports to Japan kept going down. I make the point that in 1979 we were able to export 106,000 tonnes of beef and in 1982, 90,000 tonnes. The Japanese are very shrewd about diaphragm beef, which is beef imports outside the quota. In 1976, Australia had 42 per cent of that market and the United States of America had 35 per cent; in 1982 we had 11 per cent of the market and the Americans had 78.3 per cent. The Americans won a four-year contract, while Australia won a three-year contract. We have been hanging on to that contract and have objected on the basis that we wanted to get into the high quality beef market because that was deemed to be a global market. It is very clear that when the Japanese call something 'global' they make arrangements with the United States to make the high quality beef market bilateral. We face the mathematical result that although we expect to improve our export tonnage, we cannot improve our market share while the United States is increasing its share of the high quality beef market. I do not think that a cattle producer is interested in the mathematics of production as much as in the tonnage that he would like to export. We have put pressure on the Japanese to return to the agreement and look at our position. It was made clear to Mr Anthony that the Japanese would give the United States a high quality beef quota of 30,000 tonnes. In fairness to Mr Anthony, I must point out that it is a matter of record that he immediately tried to get an additional quota of 30,000 tonnes in the manufacturing beef market, and he did not succeed. I can understand that it is good politics to tell the cattle producers that the Government is not trying very hard, but I can think of no government that has tried harder. We face a set of rules that we should not have accepted. We say that those rules are discriminatory. That is the reason why we are still arguing with the Japanese. I am not confident about the present position. Questions have been asked in the House about why we have not entered into the agreement. The Japanese would be delighted to know that that is what the Liberal Party is now saying. We have never at any stage given ground on this issue. We face the fact that the precedent that was set gives us no room to move. It is wrong and unfair to suggest that the Government has let down the beef producers. There are problems in the beef market, including the fact that the cattle herd has decreased to about five million. There is not a great deal of beef coming into production. Any beef that is coming into the market is perhaps at a price higher than the market can stand, and that is another significant factor. Abattoirs are closing, probably because beef producers are building up their herds. This year we did not meet our quota in many places, particularly in the United States, because we could not produce sufficient beef. Let us get rid of the politic and talk about what we can do. That means that we must use the skills of the people in the Trade Commissioner Service to develop new ideas and concepts, particularly with trade promotion. One of the most effective ways of promoting trade would be by having the physical presence of what we want to sell. I am anxious for the Australian private sector to invest in that market. I should dearly like Australia to have trade centres in Singapore, Hong Kong, Los Angeles and Saudi Arabia. The buyers could then see what we have to offer, and that would be very helpful. I hope we can do much in that regard. I thank honourable members for their contributions. I refer to the export market development grants, which I omitted to refer to earlier. That issue is under review. Development grants are given under legislation that talks only of expenditure and not performance. That is not a fair test of the use of taxpayers ' money. People, who are not exporting anything, could be given substantial sums of money. Such people have a three-year dream run and only in the fourth year do they have to export $20,000. I do not think we are about exporting live eels and things of that nature; we are about promoting small people in the export market. We have a committee which will look at that legislation. I believe that we should relate the grants to performance and that anybody who performs is entitled to the export incentive. The system is counterproductive. It is understandable that when making budgetary bids people will say: 'Where is the performance?' It is ridiculous in some cases to give hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who have never made a profit. The taxpayer is entitled to say: 'Listen, you are a trustee for my money, and you have wasted it in that instance '. We are examining that problem, which will not be solved until next year. Those grants will continue, and I leave the matter at that. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science and Technology)(9.45) —On behalf of my colleague the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Walsh), I want to respond to some matters raised in this debate on the estimates for his Department. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) referred to the water supply. That is common ground, and nobody will disagree with him about the importance of the provision of an adequate water supply. The honourable member raised the Agaton project in particular which he said was responsible for providing water for 660,000 hectares in the area north of the gold fields. That was a matter for detailed negotiation with the States, and the Harding Dam received a high priority. With the very severe constraints in the current Budget , assistance to the States had basically to be limited to on-going projects. The Harding Dam project is an on-going project, which could not just be left, whereas the Agaton project is a new project. The distressing thing-perhaps the only one-about making the transition from opposition to government is the realisation that one must make agonising choices not between good and bad projects-that is easy-but between good and good projects, when one of two rival projects, both of which have considerable merits , must be postponed. The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) referred to the medical cyclatron. The honourable member made a very broad ranging speech in which the affairs of his electorate were not mentioned. The honourable member is very widely travelled, travelling not just between Concorde, the airport and Canberra. There is considerable interest in the prospect of having a medical cyclatron. A feasibility study is to be undertaken, involving the Australian Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Health, some other departments and, perhaps, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. The important thing about the medical cyclatron is that it produces products that are used in nuclear medicine-isotopes which have a very short life before they decay. If a patient is to be treated it is not as though one can get the isotopes, pack them and then fly them off to some part. The patient must be right next to the cyclatron to get the benefit or, because of the decay in radioactivity the isotope will not have the same beneficial effect on the patient. That project is being considered. It is not something that can be rushed into. The point has been well and correctly taken that the only continents that do not have a cyclatron of that nature are Australia and the Antarctic. The remarks made by the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Hollis) have been essentially dealt with by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen). I wanted, however, to take up a matter that related to a point made by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). The honourable member is not in the chamber at the moment. We must recognise that there is a changing concept of what we mean by resource. Australians have a long tradition of thinking of resources as essentially things that are dug up and shipped out in huge volumes. The point that was made correctly by the honourable member for Gippsland and acknowledged by the Deputy Prime Minister is that there has been a fundamental shift in international trading patterns. The kinds of things that we are good producing in high volumes are now in oversupply and there is a diversification of suppliers. The greatest expansion in international trade has occurred in those products that we are not very good at producing-at least, not yet. I give as an example my Japanese watch, which is now aging. I think I bought it in the company of the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). On looking at such a watch, one finds that there is probably a quite significant Australian contribution to the physical resources used in its making. After all, the watch consists of iron ore, sand, quartz, copper and some trace elements, but it would probably be a gross overestimate to say that the value of the raw materials is 5c. Let us say that the watch is worth $100. If the value of the raw materials we provide is 5c but the finished product is worth $100, of course there is a differentiation of 2000:1. The Japanese put in the design skills, the software, the engineering and the micro-electronics, and we pay for it. Even if they say: 'We will not charge you for the 5c contribution you make by way of raw material' , there is still an enormous discrepancy between the value of what they put into it, the skills, and what we put into it. The result is that we really need to put much more emphasis on developing the little grey cells. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Transport Proposed expenditure. $198,234,000. Department of Aviation Proposed expenditure, $441,256,000. Mr LUSHER(Hume)(9.52) —The estimate for the Department of Transport, which we are discussing at the moment, is to my way of thinking a particularly interesting estimate, because here we see two things: Firstly, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) has been done again in the Budget formation process and, secondly, a series of things which have taken place in the formulation of this year's Budget indicate the bankruptcy of the Government's policy, particularly in relation to some of the transport statutory authorities. I note that the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Robert Brown) is agreeing with me. Mr Robert Brown —No, indeed not. The honourable member for Hunter is doing no such thing. Mr LUSHER —I am sorry. I misinterpreted his acknowledging nod. Perhaps it was unreasonable of me to have done that. I thank the honourable member for his encouragement in any event. The important aspects of the Transport portfolio vote are obviously the roads budget, that which is going to the Australian National Line and that which is going to the Australian National Railways operation. If we look at those three areas we find out a lot about the Minister, about the Government and about their priorities. The first thing is that in the roads area the Minister has been done again in the Budget formulation. We will remember that last year the Minister was saddled with a change in the procedures that occur in that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) indexed all the excises, including the levy for the Australian bicentennial roads program. The Minister did not even know that it had happened. After the Budget came in and we had been debating it for a while, it suddenly came to the Minister's notice that this levy had been indexed but that the amount had been snaffled off for Consolidated Revenue and had not made it into the road fund. Over the last 12 months or so the Minister has come under extreme pressure from all those concerned with the roads program in Australia to channel that levy increase back into the road fund. When one understands that something like $500m is involved, the interest that people have is understandable. But the Minister of course has failed and we have come through this Budget without the indexation element being paid into the road fund. That is something which I think the Minister ought to be accountable for. He has allowed a situation to develop in which road allocations in this Budget actually represent a real reduction. That is a very interesting proposition, because since the last Budget, as a result of an initiative of the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), the Minister for Transport in the coalition Government-that initiative being the bicentennial road program, and that program having been set in place and the levy collected- there has been a windup period. As a result of a combination of bureaucracy and a range of other things, the money was not paid out in a hurry at the beginning of the program. Last year the Minister was able to point to an increase of 43 per cent or something of that order in the funds flowing to roads as a result of the windup of that program which, as I said, had been instituted by the former Government. It was no thanks to the Minister and no credit to this Government that that had taken place. It was just money being paid into a trust fund of which the Government paid out more than one year's supply in a year. Of course, this year as that program has come to some sort of plateau and now relies on increased sales of fuel for increased funding to go into the trust fund, we see that there are no more increases. In fact the amount of money being paid out of the bicentennial road fund this year is estimated to be marginally less than last year. Of course that represents a real reduction of at least 5 per cent when we take into account the anticipated inflation rate for the year. It needs to be understood that the combination of the fiddle that the Minister was quite happy to go along with last year and the fact that this $500m over the life of the program will go into Consolidated Revenue rather than into the bicentennial road fund has caught the Minister out. The Minister turned up at a conference of New South Wales local government and shire representatives last week. As a result, he was clearly seeking to have it both ways. What did the Minister do? For 20 minutes or so he stood before this crowd of respected local government delegates and officers and said: 'It is all about you giving me help. I need your help to try to convince other people out there that a greater priority needs to be given to roads'. Mr Blunt —Barry Jones's argument. Mr LUSHER —It is the same sort of argument that the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr Barry Jones) has been putting. Mr Fisher —And the Minister for Primary Industry too. Mr LUSHER —And the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), as my other colleague points out. What a fascinating situation. A couple of hundred people had come along to impress upon the Minister their concern with what was happening with roads in this country, and all the Minister could say was: 'I cannot do anything about this. In effect I have failed you. Not only have I not been able to get the bicentennial levy indexation amount across to the road fund because it has been snaffled by the Treasurer for Consolidated Revenue purposes but I also have no real increase in road funds for you this year. In fact I have a real decline of 5 per cent this year, and on top of that there is going to be a renegotiation of the Roads Grants Act, fellows, and I cannot give you any guarantees about whether we will get any money for you as a result of the renegotiation of that Act'. As I hear it around the traps of the bureaucracy in Canberra, because the Minister has been taking enormous credit and giving great play to the fact that he has had increases in road funds of 43 per cent and 46 per cent over the last two years as a result of the program of the former Government, which he does not acknowledge, there is not too much sympathy in Treasury quarters and amongst his colleagues for an increase in road funds over and above that. It will be very interesting to see how the Minister fares when it comes to the renegotiation of the Roads Grants Act arrangement and whether he is able to convince his colleagues in the Government that there is a real priority to be given to roads, as we argue there should be. I think it is very important that this be laid bare , that the Minister is taken to task about it and made accountable. The performance of this Government on the subject of roads has been a disaster. It has not taken an initiative. The only action that has been taken has been to snaffle $500m that should have gone to the roads fund from the levy indexation. In fact, it is going to Consolidated Revenue. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is prepared to stand up here and say, on the one hand, that over a two year period he has 46 per cent, but he is not prepared to talk about a one year arrangement because on a one-year view he has a real deduction of 5 per cent for roads. People in local government and others concerned about roads are aware of that fact. I wish to say a few brief words about the problems of the Australian National Line and the Australian National Railways. The Australian National Railways give all honourable members great cause for concern. A sum of $90m, if my memory is correct, has been paid out, or under these estimates will be paid out, to the ANR. I do not know what the Minister seeks to do about the ANR. Legislation has been passed which was supposed to make the railways more commercial and competitive, yet the losses are of similar order to last year's losses. Serious action needs to be taken in regard to Australian National to bring the situation under control. It is apparent that the Minister has failed in that task and continues to haemorrhage cash from the taxpayer into the locomotives of ANR. It is clear that situation cannot be allowed to continue. I express serious concern about Australian National in the way in which it continues to be such a substantial drain on taxpayers. It think the Minister owes Parliament an explanation as to what is going on in that regard. The Australian National Line is obviously a cause for concern also. I have publicly acknowledged that, although I agree the new arrangements should have been entered into and I support them, as I support the appointment of the new management which the Minister has made, I bear in mind that almost without exception those arrangements were originally introduced by the former Government . They were not passed before the election but they were picked up by the present Minister in his imaginative way-which is again a tribute to his predecessor. It needs to be understood that the Australian National Line is undergoing a major management overhaul. Obviously there will be another huge loss this year as matters are brought to account and as write-downs occur. There will be disposals of large numbers of ships in the ANL fleet. It is about time the Minister made clear whether he intends to continue to fund the line as it comes to him for a greater injection of funds to enable a re-equipment program to be carried out or whether he will not do so. Again, I think that he will find himself in difficulty with the Treasury when he comes along with a program to try to re-equip the line with ships. This year the Australian Government must put $34m into that line to enable it to repay its loan to the Government. This is indicative of the serious nature of the problems facing yet another of the Australian transport authorities. I think we must seriously examine whether these are appropriate functions in which the Australian Government should be concerned. It is certainly one of the critical questions that must be answered in considering these Transport estimates. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(10.04) —The honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) spoke of the Government's priorities on roads. I wish to take up this point, particularly as it refers to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). Obviously roads are constructed in order to get vehicles expeditiously from one point to another , but it is most important to bear in mind the overall problem of road safety. I acknowledge that money spent on roads plays an important part in keeping down the road toll. Road casualties cost the Australian community some $3 billion each year, which is 2 per cent of the gross national product. Therefore, it is most important that we have a Government that looks at priorities and puts money not only into road building but into research and other aspects relating to road safety. Although that element may be a small amount in terms of overall expenditure, if the money is spent in the right places it will have a good effect on overall road safety in Australia. In this instance the Government and the Minister have shown their keen interest in the subject of road safety. They have displayed this interest specifically through these estimates, especially when one bears in mind that expenditure on road safety is 20 per cent greater than it was last year. This is particularly impressive in view of the fact that the 1983-84 Budget allocated a sum of $6.1m to road safety, which in turn was an increase of 56 per cent on the previous Budget. It is an on-going story that shows the Government's commitment to road safety. Mr Robert Brown —And the effectiveness of you and your Committee. Mrs DARLING —I thank the honourable member for that remark. I am pleased to see these emphases in the Budget. The emphasis is on research to improve motor vehicle design, road standards, better driving attitudes and improvement of licensing and training standards. The activity is due to a great extent to the dedication of the Federal Minister. A key element of the 1984-85 promotion and research program will be the national road safety symposium-and this is a first- in Canberra at the end of October. This symposium is aimed at making people more aware of road safety issues and will bring together interested people and experts to focus on and define road safety priorities for governments in the immediate future. This development of priorities is essential to make best use of the research and promotion dollar. That is an important element. Safer vehicles are also part of the road safety strategy announced by the Minister for Transport. Vehicle standards will be enhanced by new safety certification arrangements to be implemented fully in 1984-85. These will give greater assurance that vehicles comply with safety standards. Expenditure on certification will be of the order of $2.4m, but it is money well spent and much of it will be recovered through the sale of compliance plates. These initiatives are part of the Government's continuing attack on the road toll. Figures to the end of August this year compiled by the Federal Office of Road Safety, which has also been supported and is carrying out an excellent job, show that the number of deaths so far this year was 1,780, 24 fewer than for the same period last year. This is particularly reassuring when it is considered that last year's road fatalities were well down on those for previous years due to a number of factors, particularly random breath testing. It is most encouraging to see early indications of an even lower road toll in 1984, especially after some fears earlier in the year that the situation was worsening . It should be noted that the attitude and behaviour of drivers has long been recognised as one of the most important factors in road crashes, but one of the most difficult to handle. The Minister is aware of this factor. Roads and vehicle design and construction are more readily improved than is human behaviour. Further research is necessary to allow these more complex causes of road accidents to be tackled. The increases provided in this Budget will help fund research. I am pleased, as are other members of the Standing Committee on Road Safety, to note that expenditure. I also commend the innovative and far sighted move to contribute $4.3m towards a $5.5m navigation aids program to mark Hydro- grapher' s Passage, a new deep draught shipping channel through the Great Barrier Reef north-east of Mackay. The channel will reduce by $7m the cost of transporting coal to world markets, which will of course enhance the competitive position of Queensland coal. Members from Queensland are particularly interested to see this excellent initiative. Given the real restraints of this Budget and the commitments which the Government had to meet, I am also pleased to see allocation of $258.8m, made up of $167.9m in road grants and $91m in Australian bicentennial road development programs. The amount of $111.7m is to be used for national roads, including the completion of a dual carriageway from Brisbane to Nambour. As a Queenslander I am very pleased to see that and to see the continued upgrading of the Bruce Highway, with building of a bypass around Ipswich and the upgrading of the highway to the New South Wales border. All are most important projects which will make the roads in Queensland safer and better to use. Also, $99.4m is to be paid for arterial roads, including an extension of the South East Freeway to Springwood, a new road between Dawson Parade and Settlement Road on the way to Samford and a reconstruction of the Brisbane to Woodford road. Also, $47.7m is to be used for local roads. I commend all those initiatives. Support of our aviation industry is also a most important component of our national development. The Government's continuing commitment to aviation is shown in the provision of $111.3m for building and works in the industry. This is an increase of 59.4 per cent on last year and it will provide major works at Brisbane, Darwin and Perth airports as well as work at the Townsville terminal. Brisbane Airport will receive $61m for its domestic terminal and aircraft pavement and the airport should be open by March 1988 in time for Expo. The airport is a major employment creating project and next year will employ 900 people on site and 1,000 people off site in the manufacture or supply of materials. I am particularly pleased that there is now an improved consultation process with emphasis on local involvement in the area of airport management. The National Airport Consultative Council, made up of a wide range of airport users and other affected groups, will be operative. A State airfield committee is a forum where all levels of government can discuss issues of mutual interest, including land use planning, Particularly because there are a number of committees in Queensland, within my own electorate and the electorates of the honourable members for Griffith, Brisbane, Bowman and Petrie, I am glad to see that airport committees for the major capital city airports with Commonwealth, State and local government involvement as well as involvement by the aviation industry and other airport users will be coming into force. In these committees residents on the ground, the people who have to put up with the disbenefits of good policy, such as noise, will be able actually to voice their opinions. This type of committee will deal with issues associated with local operations and absorb the functions of existing noise abatement committees. I must say on behalf of people within these committees that we are very pleased to see that there will now be a better planned process for our getting across our viewpoint and the viewpoints of people living in the vicinity of the airports. The old noise abatement committee was, frankly, seen to be a whitewash job. It was too soft. Issues were not taken up and were not viewed strongly. We feel that this new process will deal effectively with the complaints and the concerns of people on the ground. I am very pleased to see that this committee and this project have been taken up within the aviation budget. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.14) —I had hoped that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) would be present this evening because he is, after all, the Minister administering the Aviation portfolio. I understand that he is in Peking and I hope he enjoys the trip. I do not begrudge him the trip but it shows a lack of consensus that he did not invite me to join him. To be more serious, it shows somewhat of a lack of concern by this Government about the seriousness of these Budget Estimates that the Aviation estimate has not been postponed. We have before us in the chamber the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) who was, I understand, the architect of the Australian Labor Party's aviation and transport policies. I hope that he will be in a position to answer some of the questions that I put to him. I want to make some genuine inquiries of the Minister and to get some genuine and direct answers from him. First of all, there is the question of the second Sydney airport and, with that , the fate of the Kingsford-Smith Airport. There has been some doubt as to what will happen to Kingsford-Smith but, as I understand the present position of the Minister for Aviation and the Government, it will be maintained. One would think that there could be little doubt that that is so in the sense of maintaining it as a facility. Page 95 of the explanatory notes for the Department of Aviation, under the heading 'Estimates of Receipts and Expenditure', shows that there are a number of items for the upgrading of the Kingsford-Smith Airport, including taxiway augmentation estimated to cost $16m. In all these items come to about $ 17.73m. Presumably, therefore, the Government is very serious about the maintenance of Kingsford-Smith and about its long term position. This brings us to the question of site selection. It will be recalled that when this Government got into power the Minister for Aviation spoke of the need for a second airport site. I agree that a second airport site should be reserved. He also spoke of the need for speed and he made it plain that he would act with speed. But, of course, the Government has not acted with speed, and one wonders why. We know that any new airport will involve noise pollution of 360 degrees, and therefore the sooner one moves to reserve a site the better it is. We do not know what the functions of the new airport will be and nothing in the Budget Papers throws any light on that question. We do not know which classes of operations will be diverted to the new airport. We do not know which airports or which sites are on the short list. We do not know how large the airport will be. We know very little about the consultation which the Government has said it was going to undertake with interested parties and in particular local councils. I would be very glad if, when the Minister gets to his feet, he could say something about the functions of the new airport, about how large it will be, about a short list, if there is one, and about consultation. A few months ago I was talking to members of two of the councils in the Scheyville area. They had not heard of any attempt by the Government to consult on this question, which leads one to conclude that perhaps the Government is not anxious to make a decision on this subject this side of the next election, or at all. Going to the history of the second airport, we all know that there was an extensive inquiry called the Major Airport Needs of Sydney Inquiry. That was, I think, the sixth or seventh inquiry held over quite a few years into Sydney's present and projected Airport needs. That was meant to be the basis on which the new inquiry was to start. What do we see? We see at pages 57 and 58 of the explanatory notes items which relate to the second Sydney airport site selection studies. On page 57 it is stated: The 1983-84 provision under this heading- it is a general heading of 'Administrative'- was underspent primarily due to delays experienced in proceeding as quickly as expected on major consultancy tasks related to the Second Sydney airport site selection . . . It also mentioned other matters. Why the delay? In March or April 1983, if I recall correctly, the Minister was speaking about the Government's plans. In August of last year the Government had been at work for some time. Why the delay ? Let us look to the figures. The figures tell us a lot. We see that in 1983-84 the actual expenditure on the second Sydney airport site selection studies was $ 310,000 but we see that at 1984-85 proposed expenditure is to go up to $1,450, 000. We also see that in 1983-84 actual expenditure on the second Sydney airport public information program was $15,800, which would go a long distance towards advising people as to what is happening. But then, in 1984-85 the figure for that expenditure is to be $75,000. In short, roughly five times as much is to be spent this financial year as was spent last financial year on the second Sydney Airport site selection program. That leads to the pretty obvious conclusion that a great deal of work has been deferred and that the Government has deliberately failed to act promptly to secure a new site. By doing that, not only does it cause great problems to residents who may be affected, but it may well make the exercise very much more expensive for the taxpayer. So I should be very glad if the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) would tell us why we are to have the increases this year and what they will be for. Next, I turn to a different subject, that is, search and rescue. We have an aviation budget of $471m for 1984-85. In the last few months we had tabled in the House of Representatives the report of the Committee of Review into Civil Aviation Search and Rescue. That Committee was composed of three men, all reputed to be expert in the field. It made 14 fairly extensive recommendations calling for fairly considerable expenditure of money. Certainly a great deal would need to be done to implement those recommendations; for example, the recommendation that in areas where there is a high level of aviation activity and/or there is a history of relatively frequent or difficult search and rescue actions involving civil aircraft, operators of aircraft suitable for immediate search and rescue response be selected, equipped and trained to provide the services required. What I should be glad to know from the Minister for Transport is what money has been allocated to the implementation of the recommendations of this report, because the report showed that the Australian search and rescue services were in an antiquated and dangerous state of repair in many respects. It also showed that there are some outstanding organisations such as the National Safety Council of Australia, Victorian Division. It outlined the problems and it recommended action. Going to the Budget Papers, we see at pages 40 and 42 that there is an amount which is to be expended on the Search and Rescue School at Weston which the Minister opened last week or thereabouts. I was there. It is a step in the right direction. But the plain fact is that a great deal needs to be done. The Minister has talked about this report and has, as I understand it, accepted it, and he has accepted it as a very serious document. As a very serious document, its recommendations need to be implemented. If they are to be implemented, there must be expenditures which have been set aside for that purpose. Therefore, I should be very grateful if the Minister would point to the expenditures which have been set aside for that purpose so that we can be assured that the Government's concern for search and rescue is real, genuine and fundamental, and is not window-dressing. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.23) —I am pleased to speak in the Committee stage of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1984-85 because in the portfolios of aviation and transport we have made significant advances. That is due in no small part to the present two Ministers who administer the portfolios and, in particular, to the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley) who, in the short time that he has held that position, has demonstrated a capacity for handling that portfolio that has not been matched in recent years. I should like to look at some of the advances that we have made, with particular emphasis on my State of Western Australia. Looking at some of the things that we have done in the short time that we have been in office, we can look at the $3.2m that has been made available for the Perth Airport control tower. Construction of that will start shortly. It will be finished in September 1985. It will be 65 metres high, and fully self-contained. It will create employment for 55 people. Mr Tuckey —That was a Wal Fife decision. Mr GEAR —You never know, it might even do the honourable member some good one of these days. Another allocation in this Budget is $3m for a parallel taxiway at Perth Airport to increase the efficiency of aircraft movements to and from the terminal. But by far the most significant advance in this Budget is that made in regard to the new international terminal. An allocation of $13.24m for the construction of the terminal will ensure that the terminal opens in September 1986. As most honourable members will be aware, that is just in time for the America's Cup defence. Already a large number of overseas visitors come to Perth Airport. Anyone who has passed through it will agree with statements that it is a disgrace and that it does not give a very good impression or an impression that we we would want to give to anyone coming to Australia. The allocation of that sum in the Budget will go some way to correcting that image. Perth and Australia deserve a better image. In many instances the impression of a country that one gets from one's experiences on first reaching it are important. Perth Airport is a shambles. It has been neglected for years. However, with the present Minister looking after the portfolio, at least we have some action in that direction. A concern to my electorate and to the electorate for which I propose to stand is aircraft noise because Queens Park and Cannington lie right under the flight path, and some of my electorate adjoins the airport. We have made moves to improve the noise abatement procedures at Perth Airport. Some of these are to look at new aircraft operation procedures, additional radar equipment, and the construction of an earth mound at the southern end of the main runway. That will lead to a significant decrease in the noise that emanates from the airport. I suppose that the most significant contribution that the present Minister has made to his portfolio is his rescue of Trans Australia Airlines. As we all know, under conservative governments of past years, TAA was sacrificed and run down to a state in which it had great difficulty in maintaining a viable operation. We have heard many calls, and we are still hearing them, that we should sell off TAA to private enterprise. Mr Burr —Hear, hear! Mr GEAR —That is all right. I am fairly sure that most people do not agree with the honourable member. In fact, TAA's performance since we have been in power has shown a stunning turn-around. The $90m that we have injected into TAA has meant that the deficits that it suffered in 1981-82 and in 1982-83 of $6.6m and $16.9m respectively have been turned around, and we expect an operating profit for this year. So the starving of funds to TAA became a self-fulfilling prophesy . What was done was to starve TAA; it could not perform as well. Honourable members opposite pointed to the fact that it could not compete with Ansett Airlines of Australia. It just shows what will happen when the Government gets behind a public enterprise and gives it the facilities that it needs. Nowadays TAA has just pulled in front of Ansett as the carrier that carries the most domestic traffic. I am sure that the people of Australia are starting to vote with their feet and we shall see a dramatic turn-up in TAA's performance in future years. I turn now to the area of transport and, in particular, the area administered by the Minister at the table, the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris). He is that good a Minister that we could just about call him an honorary Western Australian. He is doing a tremendous job in transport. In my electorate of Tangney, in particular, I can speak with some empathy, because the Minister- Mr Tuckey —Why don't you stay there? What are you shifting electorates for? Mr GEAR —That is all right. I have made Tangney safe. Now I am going to Canning to make that safe too. The area of transport has been neglected in Tangney. The past honourable member for Tangney, who, I see, will be standing again, did not do a great deal concerning transport. When I got into the electorate, I saw that there was a great bottleneck at the Spencer/ Nicholson Road turnaround. I invited the Minister for Transport to look at that bottleneck. He agreed with me that attention was needed. I invited the Minister to speak to the local councils , and he did. Mr Peter Morris —I was persuaded. Mr GEAR —The Minister tells me that he was persuaded, but he came willingly, anyway. He listened to what the local councils had to say. What a refreshing change! The local councils found that a Labor Minister was prepared to come all the way from Canberra just to listen to them. The end result is that we received the $1.5m that we needed for the Nicholson Road Bridge. It has been 20 years overdue. It came just at the right time. Honourable members opposite who are really wondering why I am swapping electorates will be glad to know that one side of the bridge is in my old electorate and the other side is in my new electorate. It is symbolic in that way that we were able to come up with a bridge that satisfies both electorates. Consideration interrupted. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) -Order! The time being 10.30 p.m., I shall report progress. Progress reported. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Morris-Madam Deputy Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith and without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Consideration resumed. Mr GEAR(Tangney)(10.30) —In speaking of my electorate, I turn now to one of the areas which I think needs attention. I refer to the Roe Freeway. For too long the town planners in Western Australia at least have looked after the northern areas of the city very well. For example, the Mitchell freeway extensions are very significant and cost a lot of money. They are doing a great deal of good. I do not begrudge them for one minute. However, it is about time we turned our attention to the areas south of the river. Apart from one extension to the Kwinana freeway, to where it meets South Street, suburbs south of the river have been neglected in the provision of freeways. I have taken this matter up with the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) here and the Minister for Transport in Perth. I hope for a dramatic turnaround there. While I am talking about roads in local areas, it is interesting to look at the Opposition's policy on local roads. All we can say about it is that it is a disaster for any local government. What the Opposition in effect has said is that it is not prepared directly to fund local and arterial roads but would leave that to the States. What it will do is give an amount of money to the States and hope that the States will do the right thing. Mr Braithwaite —That is not what the policy says. Mr GEAR —That is what the policy says. It would mean that for every bypass bridge and, in fact, for every stretch of construction or maintenance local government would have to go to the State Government cap in hand and beg for the money to fund that project. The costs of constructing local roads are already beyond the resources of many councils. The Opposition's policy amounts to an abandonment at the time of their greatest need. They have left the local councils with no alternatives. Mr McGauran —You are misleading the Committee, deliberately. Mr GEAR —I will come to the honourable member opposite who is interjecting in a minute. The Opposition has acknowledged that local governments prefer direct and indentifiable road funding grants but still it has decided not to listen intending to pursue this callous policy instead. Now the honourable member opposite is starting to interject. He supported the magnificent notice of motion given on 7 September by the honourable member for Paterson (Mr O'Keefe) and it stated: I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House urges the Government- (1) to make substantial increases of funds for improvements to road systems direct to local government bodies; and- they would give it directly- (2) to by-pass State governments so that full benefit of these funds will be gained by local government councils who best know their own roads needs. We agree with the honourable members but in fact the Opposition policy does not. The Opposition's spokesman for transport does not say that at all. While they disagree with their own party's policy and want to pass funds directly to local government it is not constitutionally possible. By contrast the Hawke Government has done more for local roads that any other government. In 1982-83 the Federal Government spent in Western Australia $103.5m. The next year-the first year of our Government-$142.9m was made available. This year $152m will be made available. In the seven years of the Liberal-National Party Government the total Federal Budget for road building was reduced by 23 per cent. In less than two years we have increased that budget by 46 per cent. Opposition members-Ha, ha! Mr GEAR —I ask honourable members opposite to look at the Department's figures; they are not mine. Mr McGauran —You are making a fool of yourself. Mr GEAR —The honourable member for Gippsland is judging others by himself. Funds to local government for local roads have been increased by 60 per cent since we have been in government to a record level of $293m in 1984-85. It is no wonder Opposition members opposite are shouting. They are embarrassed. The figures really hurt. The figures show what an incompetent Government the Opposition was. As for the honourable member's electorate in Gippsland electors there will be pleased to know that he has sold them down the drain as far as local road policy is concerned. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BURR(Wilmot)(10.36) —Firstly, I make a couple of points congratulating the Government's provision of funds for the Department of Transport. The first is the provision of $29.3m for the continuation of the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. As I am sure all honourable members would be aware, that was a scheme introduced by the Fraser Government which has proved to be of great benefit to the economy of Tasmania. I thank the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Government for continuing that scheme in this Budget albeit that I am aware that a full review of the scheme is under way by the Inter-State Commission under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Everett. Despite the findings that Mr Justice Everett may bring down finally I urge the present Government to continue with the freight equalisation scheme because of the importance of that scheme to the economy of Tasmania. I am indebted to the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) and the Opposition parties for including a continuation of that scheme in the Opposition's transport policy. Also, I commend the Government for its decision to provide an amount of $26m for the replacement of the Empress of Australia in its passenger freight operations across Bass Strait. I think the Government has made a very wise decision in providing $26m for a ship that will be purchased by the Commonwealth Government but handed over to the Tasmanian State Government to maintain its operation. I consider that a very wise move indeed because I have much more confidence in the Tasmanian Government to operate a service that will provide service and efficiency to the Tasmanian people of a standard far greater than the service and efficiency provided by the Australian National Line. I have great confidence in the Gray Government to be able to provide the service. I am quite sure the Government will operate this vessel in a way that will provide for a very great expansion of the tourist industry in Tasmania. I congratulate the Government for providing that vote of $26m for the replacement vessel and also the confidence it has expressed in the Gray Government to operate that vessel. I make a brief comment on the efficiency of the ANL. As I am sure all honourable members are aware the Government earlier provided additional equity capital of $90m to the Australian National Line under the proviso that the Australian National Line become cost efficient and, in fact, justify its existence. Some $90m of taxpayers' money is a substantial amount for the Government to contribute to the Australian National Line. I just hope that the Australian National Line will bite the bullet and improve its efficiency so that in fact it can justify its existence. If it continues to require vast amounts of taxpayers' money to subsidise that operation I think it could not justify its existence. I support the Opposition's policy that if ANL cannot become cost efficient and can operate only with vast amounts of taxpayers' money to subsidise that service it should be sold off to allow efficient private operators to maintain the service. I remind the Minister that Budget Paper No. 1 stated: As an interim measure, the Government has indicated that it will give sympathetic consideration to providing an interest-bearing budget advance to ANL in 1984-85 to assist in refinancing an overseas loan which matures in June 1985, if ANL requires such assistance at the time. While I support the Government in maintaining the stance that the Australian National Line should become cost efficient that statement does not give me great confidence that in fact the Government is prepared to support the earlier claim. Obviously ANL relying on that guarantee will have no great incentive to improve present efficiency. One other matter I refer to comes under the heading of 'Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan'. I refer to Wynyard Airport in Tasmania. During the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) came to Tasmania with great pomp and ceremony announcing to all and sundry that a future Labor Government would have no hesitation in upgrading the Wynyard Airport to medium jet standard. Since then the Hawke Government repeatedly has continued to renege on that promise, and is still reneging. In Budget Paper No. 1 we find that, concurrently over the next three years, a total of $61.9m will be spent on the local ownership of aerodrome scheme. Wynyard is not one of those airports that will have Commonwealth money contributed to its upgrading. Mr McGauran —Shame. Mr BURR —I agree with my friend, the honourable member for Gippsland. It is a shame. It is a downright reneging by the Commonwealth Government on promises quite clearly given during the election campaign. The Budget Papers quite clearly state that the airports at Coffs Harbour, Tamworth, Broken Hill, Bundaberg, Kingscote, Armidale, Cooma and Casino will all have money contributed by the Commonwealth Government for their upgrading. But there is no mention of Wynyard Airport and no mention of the promises that were made by the Commonwealth Government and the Prime Minister during the election campaign. I commend my colleague, the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Groom), for the work and effect that he has put into that airport's upgrading and for the submissions he has made both to the earlier Fraser Government and to the present Government. I am quite certain that the people of Tasmania are of the view that they cannot trust promises that are made by the present Government during election campaigns . I compliment the Gray Government for its initiative in taking over the Wynyard Airport and for doing what it could to upgrade it to medium jet standard. I just feel that it is being burdened with a task that should be carried by the Commonwealth Government and would be carried by the Commonwealth Government if the present Labor Government had honoured the commitments it made during the election campaign. One other matter I would like to mention before concluding relates to the Australian National Railways Commission. Earlier we heard from my colleague, the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher). We heard his views on Australian National. We heard him say that he feels the railways of this country should be upgraded and should become cost efficient. I certainly support the views of the honourable member for Hume in that matter. I notice that provision is made in the Budget Papers in the following terms: The 1984-85 provision includes $18.1m to subsidise operating losses of the Tasmanian railway system. Why is that loss of $18.8m so high? Why should it be sustained? The only clear reason is that it is being sustained firstly because of the inefficiency of the management of Australian National, Tasmanian division and, secondly, because of the dominance of trade unions dictating how the railways in Tasmania should operate. Earlier this year I posed a question on notice to the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) which was dated 31 May 1984. In part I mentioned an inter-union dispute that had been in progress for some time between the Australian Railways Union and the National Union of Railwaymen. The Minister confirmed that that inter-union dispute had been going on for some time. I remind him that it has now been going on for a period of 18 months. I asked in part: Is this inter-union dispute affecting the revenue of the Tasmanian region of AN . The Minister replied: The Tasmanian region of AN has lost revenue because of this inter-union dispute . Unfortunately he did not say how much revenue had been lost. I will pursue that matter with him. I remind the Minister that there are still picket lines on the railways in Tasmania that are preventing the movement of much of the freight. This is still affecting the revenue of Australian National. While the Minister is providing $18.1m to subsidise the railways in Tasmania he is also providing taxpayers' money to subsidise a dispute between two unions in that State. I consider that a downright disgrace. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport)(10.45) —I promise to try to finish as quickly as I can but I do not want to be accused of not answering questions raised in the comments made by honourable members. Firstly, the story of the honourable member for Hume (Mr Lusher) about the indexation of the Australian bicentennial road development levy is the same story that we have heard ad nauseam from members of the Opposition. The simple fact is that it was the former Government's legislation. It provided for a target of $2,500m to be achieved by 31 December 1988. That legislation is being adhered to absolutely. No matter what claims are being made by the National Party of Australia they have no credence and no substance in fact. The other suggestion members of the National Party have made is that indexation would be of benefit to local roads this year. If indexation had been applied in the Budget it would make a grand total addition of $500,000 this financial year. If it is the view of the Opposition that the jobs on local roads scheme be abolished-it provides an additional $45m, which the Opposition does not want to recognise in any form whatsoever-it should have the courage to say so. To date it has not. If members of the Opposition want to substitute the half a million dollars from indexation that will be available for local roads this year for the $45m for JOLORS they should have the courage to say so. It should be remembered also in respect of the honourable member for Hume and the Opposition that these are the people who, in their seven disastrous years of government, quadrupled Federal fuel-related taxation, trebled the price of petrol and slashed in real terms Federal expenditure on roads by 23 per cent. So they should not come to me with their confessions; they should go back. Their record stands for itself. That is why they have been cast out by the people of this country and that is why they will stay where they are. The honourable member for Hume wants serious action taken on the taxpayers's cash haemorrhaging into Australian National Railways Commission locomotives. I suggest that what he is really saying is that a severe attack should be made upon Australian National . Again, if that is the view of the National Party of Australia, members of that Party should be more specific in their claims. I will not waste any more time on that matter now. The honourable member for Wilmot (Mr Burr) was very critical and stringent in his remarks in respect of Australian National's operations in Tasmania. The next item raised was the Australian National Line. The condition and the plight of the publicly-owned transport enterprises in this country is the result of the incompetence, mismangement and lack of leadership of those who now sit in Opposition. Members of the Opposition should not come into this chamber bemoaning their failures to the Government and to me. They are incompetents; they have shown that by the performance of those organisations. The fact that we are now moving to put those organisations on a proper business-like basis is something that must cause them pain. It is a responsibility that we will carry out for the people of this country. Australian National Line's loss and its bankruptcy when we came to office was as a result of the leadership of the Government that is now in opposition. The $34m provided in the Budget Papers to be paid to Australian National this year is obviously not understood by the honourable member for Hume. He does not understand the accounts. In fact, that is a self-cancelling item. There is an expenditure of $34m but there is also a receipt of $34m in the revenue side of the accounts which is the roll-over of a loan. In effect, the net result of the Budget is nil. Thirty-four million went in and $34m went out. Let me refer now to the road programs about which the honourable member for Hume had so much to say. It was also mentioned by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Gear) earlier in this debate. The policy announced by the National Party a few days ago is to abolish specific purpose funding for local roads to local government. That has been attacked by the honourable member for Paterson ( Mr O'Keefe) in his notice of motion on page 794 of Hansard and was seconded at the time of submission by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). Again, we see the split in the Opposition's ranks. Members of the Opposition do not know what their policy is. One lot goes one way and the other lot goes the other way. If their policy is implemented there would be no specific purpose funding for local government for local roads. That would mean absolute disaster for the 839 local government bodies in this country. We will not have a bar of it. It is quite obvious that there are those in the Opposition who also will not have a bar of it. The other matter that was raised by the National Party concerned attacks upon the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme and the money being provided for the replacement of the Empress of Australia ferry across Bass Strait. It is quite astonishing that we are providing money to give Tasmania the kind of passenger service across Bass Strait desired and needed for so long, on which previous conservative governments were never able to reach agreement with Tasmania. We were able to find a solution to that long and difficult problem. As the honourable member for Wilmot has properly acknowledged we provided $26m for the purchase of a replacement for the Empress of Australia. We have provided $29.3m for the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme. Yet both of those items have been attacked again by the National Party of Australia, by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite). He is saying that Tasmania is being favoured, that that depleted service is being continued. Again, I say to the Opposition: 'Those two items are priority items for this Government. They are deserving of Tasmania. We are providing the money. Again, the National Party and the Liberal Party ought to get their act together'. What is their policy? Why are they attacking? Why is it that nobody from the Liberal Party-it holds the five seats in Tasmania-has come to the defence of Tasmania on this matter, not one of them has combatted or answered the attacks made by the National Party? Mr Tuckey —He congratulated you. Mr PETER MORRIS —I accept his congratulations, but nobody has dealt with the National Party on this issue and it needs to be done. In respect of the Australian National Railways, the honourable member for Wilmot says that the railway should be cost efficient. He questioned the figure of $18.5m being provided to cover AN's losses in Tasmania. Let me say that during the period in which he was a member of the Government AN lost a lot of money in Tasmania. The losses generally ranged from about $1.40 to $1.50 for each dollar of revenue collected. It is not new. We are moving to remedy that situation with the new legislation which I remind the chamber had all party support at the time it went through this House. The $18.5m is to cover the anticipated loss on services in Tasmania. The problems of AN have not developed since March last year, they were there long before that and they are again problems that the previous Government and the honourable member for Wilmot and his colleagues were unable to deal with and unable again, to find a solution to. We make no apology for the moves we are making to reform, to restructure the Australian publicly owned transport enterprises. It is our determination that they will be put on a better business footing. We cannot go along with the proposition of the National Party that, on the one hand, ANL should be sold and, on the other hand, from another member of the National Party, the honourable member for Dawson, that ANL should be compelled to continue to operate heavy loss incurring services to North Queensland. Again, Opposition members should get their act together. They should not come here with one voice and go back to North Queensland with another voice. The days of operating slipshod operations are over. ANL, like any prudent business enterprise, has to pay its way. We are determined that it is going to do that. I apologise to the chamber for the absence of the Minister for Aviation (Mr Beazley). It is unavoidable. He is representing Australia in China on the inaugural flight of Qantas Airways Limited to that country. I know that the shadow Minister for Aviation is unhappy because he could not go, but that is beyond my control. I do not have anything to do with that. In response to the question on the Sydney airport site that the shadow Minister raised, the advice provided to me is that the program is now fully under way. Technical consultants have been appointed and they are proceeding with their assigned tasks. The Australian firm of Kinhill Stearns of Sydney, as a project manager of the consultancy in association with Greiner Engineering of the United States of America, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Colston and Budd Pty Ltd of Sydney, has appointed a public relations consultant to assist the Department and that firm is Dougherty and Associates Pty Ltd. It is proposed that the exhibition of the draft environmental impact statement for public comment will occur early in 1985. Appropriate consultative arrangements with the State bodies are in place and are working well, the State authorities providing input to ground access and land use planning and environmental studies. Consultative process with local government has been put in place with the assistance of the local government and shire associations of New South Wales. We have commenced a community access program and have opened an access centre in the State information office in Sydney. There is no doubt that the Minister for Aviation, were he here, would be pleased to receive from members of the Opposition, firstly, their endorsement of the site that they would like to see for the second Sydney airport and, secondly , their support in this difficult issue. If honourable members opposite want to play politics I simply say to them: In 1968 there was a conservative government. Honourable members opposite and their predecessors fiddled with this issue. They have made no progress since. They had seven more years to sort it out. They should not come in here with their confessions. We are doing something about the issue-a matter that they could not handle and refused to handle. The purpose of the taxiway augmentation is to bring the taxiway system into balance with the runways and to get the best use out of the existing facility at the best economic cost. That is common sense. It is something the previous Government could have done and it did not do. In respect of the recommendations in the report of the Committee of Review into Civil Aviation Search and Rescue on the search and rescue service, I think it is irresponsible and nonsense to claim that the report stated the aviation search and resuce service is in a dangerous and antiquated state. That just causes unnecessary anxiety and distress in the minds of air travellers. The fact is that the Department is taking these issues very seriously. A specialist has been tasked to examine the areas, to enhance the search and rescue service in a cost effective way following the report tabled in Parliament. The expenditures, as may be appropriate, will be reflected in the Department's expenditure and the expenditure for the actual search and rescue operations are shown in item 15 on page 61 of the explanatory notes. I will not go on because the shadow Minister for Aviation has obviously lost interest in these matters, their having been answered in the manner in which he raised them. I thank all members, particularly my colleagues the honourable member for Tangney and the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling), who participated in the debate. I recommend the estimates to the Parliament. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Peter Morris) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.58) —I wish to use the time available to me tonight to express my support and request the support of the Parliament for the retention of the present design of the Australian flag. It is a matter of great concern to me that various sectors of the community see this great tradition-the Australian flag-as something to be changed. I am deeply concerned because, in my view, the history of attacks on such tradition are always seen as a development in the process towards the installation of a totalitarian regime. It is a means whereby people are encouraged to forget their traditions, to believe that everything they have done in the past is wrong and in fact that there are better ways to do things. To attack the tradition of a nation's flag is, to my mind, an attack on the nation itself. We have to look at all sorts of things in this regard. The House is now well aware of the daily presentation of petitions from the people of Australia asking that a change in the design of the flag not be considered and that we retain the flag we have. I am now in receipt of some 1,500 signatures from people in my electorate making that request. Mr Braithwaite —Fifteen hundred? Mr TUCKEY —I have received 1,500 from my electorate alone. People forget some of the things the Australian flag has been through. Although it is a pity that one has to refer to the wars that Australia has participated in in this regard, there are still some things that must be recognised about a flag. While a flag of a nation is flying in a war it is a signal that that nation is still contesting and is still proud and undefeated. It is only when that flag is taken down that the army of that nation admits defeat. It is interesting that in years gone by, during World War I, nearly 60,000 people were killed-they went to fight to protect what that flag stood for-and 166,500 were wounded. In World War II nearly 34,000 people were killed and nearly 181,000 were wounded. In Korea the numbers were much fewer: A total of 281 people were killed and 1,257 were wounded. In Malaysia 36 people were killed, in Borneo 17 were killed and in Vietnam nearly 500 people were killed and 2,369-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 10 September 1984: Health Insurance Commission Act-Directions under sub-section 8J (1), dated 18 August, 1984. Proclamations by His Excellency the Governor-General fixing the dates on which the following Acts and sections of Acts shall come into operation: Merit Protection (Australian Government Employees) Act 1984-Sections 4 and 5 and Parts III and IV-9 September 1984. Weights and Measures (National Standards) Amendment Act 1984-7 September 1984. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1348) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 5 April 1984: (1) Will Telecom be charging an installation fee of $1,350 in 1983 prices when the Digital Radio Concentrator Service is introduced in the Daly River area of the Northern Territory in 1985-86. (2) Will this be a standard or a maximum charge for the installation of this equipment through the remote areas of Australia; if not, what will be the arrangement. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) and (2) Under the Rural and Remote Areas Program, which will employ a number of technologies including DRCS, Telecom will apply connection fees as follows: Where the customer is within 16 km of an automatic exchange the customer will be charged the basic connection fee of $150. Where the customer is situated between 16 km and 40km from an automatic exchange the customer's connection fee will be the basic fee ($150) plus $50 per kilometre beyond 16 km. This scale is graduated in 1/2 km steps between 16 km and 40 km. At 40 km the customer will pay a connection fee of $1,350 (1983-84 prices). Where the customer is situated more than 40 km radially from the exchange the connection fee is the maximum-plateau rate of $1,350. (Question No. 1367) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 1 May 1984: (1) What is the cost of the proposed transmitter to provide Australian Broadcasting Commission television to the people at Menindee, New South Wales, and at what stage is the proposal. (2) Is is a fact that this additional transmitter would have been unnecessary if the original transmitter had been correctly sited. (3) What arrangements are being made for commercial television reception in Menindee. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The township of Menindee, New South Wales, is currently served by an ABC television translator station located approximately 7 km north of the town. The station commenced operation in February 1977 and receives its input signal from the ABC station ABLN2, Broken Hill. (2) An additional translator was necessary to serve Menindee because the distance of 100 km between Broken Hill and Menindee was too great to permit suitable broadcast quality reception to both towns from the one site while keeping costs at a reasonable level. (3) A licence for a commercial television translator to serve Menindee expired on 31 March 1981 and the licensee did not apply for an extension. Since then no expression of interest in establishing a commercial translator has been lodged with my Department. As you will be aware the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal recently reported on its Inquiry into the Use of Satellite Program Services by Commercial Broadcasters. The Report included some recommendations in respect of provision of commercial services to remote areas. I expect to make a major statement on the report in the near future. (Question No. 1411) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 8 May 1984: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the many difficulties which confront handicapped people in the community when trying to use the public telephone system. (2) Is it a fact that the 3 main areas of concern to disabled people are (a) difficulties with coin insertion and retrieval by people with limited arm and hand use, (b) difficulty with dialling as opposed to the touch pad system and (c ) the need for a volume control amplifier on the body of the instrument; if so, has he approached Telecom with a view to considering basic changes in design of instruments and installation of public telephones; if not, will he consider such an approach. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question, based on advice from the Australian Telecommunications Commission, is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) (a), (b) and (c) Telecom is aware of the difficulties faced by the disabled in using public telephones. In selected locations, Telecom provides public telephone booths designed specially for the disabled and hearing aid couplers have been installed in many STD green public telephones. In addition, Telecom has modified, in a number of instances, public telephone instruments to assist disabled people in a particular location. Having regard to the varying modifications required to cater for specific handicaps and the susceptibility of public telephones to vandalism, Telecom is limited in the extent of the services it can provide and modifications it can make to public telephones to meet the needs of the disabled. Telecom has assured me, however, that it will continue to monitor developments in this area and in developing new generation equipment is taking the needs of the disabled into account. (Question No. 1629) Mr Ruddock asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 21 August 1984: (1) How many houses held, for any purpose, by the Minister's Department or any agency or statutory authority responsible to the Minister in the Australian Capital Territory were vacant on 18 June 1984. (2) Does the Minister's Department control any other premises in the Australian Capital Territory which are presently unused which could be occupied for residential purposes; if so, (a) where are these premises, (b) what were their previous uses, and (c) are there any plans for their future use. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The only statutory authority or agency in my portfolio with housing in the Australian Capital Territory is the Commonwealth Bank, which controls four residences. All residences were occupied on 18 June 1984 and all are occupied now. (Question No. 1655) Mr Blanchard asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 22 August 1984: (1) Does the Minister's Department maintain a Denunciation Register; if so, (a) when was it established, (b) what is its purpose and (c) what information is recorded. (2) How many social security recipients were recorded on the register in each State in 1983-84. (3) How many recipients had their pension or benefit (a) altered or (b) terminated as a consequence of having their name on the register. (4) Of those people whose name was recorded on the register in 1983-84, how many were registered on the basis of information from anonymous sources. Dr Blewett —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) There is no central 'Denunciation Register' kept by the Department, although various Regional offices maintain a record of allegations against departmental clients, in relation to their entitlement to departmental pensions, benefits or allowances. (a) Records of allegations were established variously between 1978 and 1982 depending on the administrative organisation within the individual regional offices at the time. (b) The purpose of the records is primarily to ensure that information received is followed up. (c) Generally, a summary of the complaint, name and address of the client, name and address of the information source (if known), outcome of investigation, etc. There is no set format for recording information, and local variations may occur in individual offices. (2) to (4) The decentralised nature of the records does not enable the information requested to be quantified. It must be stressed that a client's entitlement is not altered solely as a result of an allegation. All reviews and reassessments of entitlements are based on a thorough investigation of all pertinent facts. (Question No. 1675) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 24 August 1984: (1) Is the 1984-85 Budget statement that the Overseas Telecommunications Commission-OTC-is to pay a dividend of 10 per cent of total shareholder funds, an indication that the Government will be requiring a 10 per cent dividend of OTC irrespective of its operating surplus. (2) Is he able to say whether it would be fairer to require OTC to pay a percentage of its profit rather than a fixed dividend. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The actual dividend required from the Overseas Telecommunications Commission ( Australia) is determined on an annual basis after taking into consideration anticipated revenue and operating expenses, and the capital needs, of the Commission in that year. This is the most appropriate and equitable means of determining the dividend payable to the Commonwealth. In order to assist the Commission in planning its activities, the Government has agreed to an annual dividend target of 10 per cent of total shareholder funds for the period to 1987-88. This year's dividend requirement conforms with that target.