Monday, 25 February 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Territories (Mr Scholes) is unwell. During Mr Scholes's absence the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) will be Acting Minister for Territories. Mr DOBIE(Cook) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: (1) That a Joint Standing Committee, to be known as the Joint Standing Committee for the Rehabilitation of the Disabled, be appointed to review: (a) Commonwealth legislation with a view to updating the administrative practices of Commonwealth Departments and instrumentalities insofar as they relate to the employment, education and welfare of the physically and intellectually disabled, and (b) the reports of commissions and other inquiries with a view to making recommendations for the enactment of laws that may be made by the Parliament concerning the rehabilitation and welfare of the physically and intellectually disabled. (2) That details in respect of the composition, powers and proceedings of the committee be the subject of a subsequent resolution. (3) That a message be sent to the Senate acquainting it of this resolution and requesting that it concur and take action accordingly. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) will second: That this House- (1) expresses its deep concern and disappointment at the breakdown of talks in January between President Kyprianou of Cyprus and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Denktash, which were aimed at seeking a solution to the continuing partition of the Republic of Cyprus; (2) condemns the continued occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkish troops as a flagrant violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus; (3) calls for the immediate implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 550 of 11 May 1984; and (4) urges President Kyprianou and Mr Denktash to persist with the evident goodwill which they brought to the recent negotiations so that a just solution to the partition can be found which recognises, respects and promotes the identity of Cyprus as one island, one nation, one people. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the comment made by the Hawke Government-appointed Ambassador for Disarmament, Mr R. Butler, that deterrence is necessary so there is no nuclear war; (2) recognises that the MX missile is essential for the United States to maintain effective deterrence and thus ensure there is no nuclear war, and (3) calls on the Government to explain how the back-down on the MX missile tests can further the cause of deterrence when Ambassador Butler obviously believes otherwise. Mr HAWKER(Wannon) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) will second: That this House- (1) notes that on 22 February 1985, the Government reaffirmed its commitments to the ANZUS Alliance and in particular the strength of relationship between the United States and Australia arising from that relationship, and (2) calls on the Government to guarantee that all visiting United States naval vessels will have full access to Australian ports, including the use of repair and maintenance facilities, irrespective of the stated views of individual trade unions and State Premiers. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell) —I give notice that, on General Business Thursday No. 2, I shall move: That this House- (1) deeply regrets that no backbench Member of the Australian Labor Party would sign a statement of National Policy supporting ANZUS; and (2) endorses the statement of support for ANZUS and the American alliance made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 5 February 1985. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) will second: That this House calls on the Government to expedite work on upgrading the Bruce Highway to 4 lanes from Brisbane to at least as far north as the Kenilworth turnoff, to alleviate delays, congestion and dangers to motorists, many of whom are residents of the Electoral Division of Fisher. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) notes the failure of the Government in administering the assets test to the extent that hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent in time on telephone calls to remind pensioners to return their forms, and (2) calls on the Government to admit that the assets test will now cost more to implement over 3 years than it will save and to abolish it forthwith. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White) will second: That this House condemns the Prime Minister for his shameful mishandling of the national security of Australia and for his disgraceful action in capitulating to the pro-communist left of the ALP. Mr COWAN(Lyne) — I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) Affirms that the establishment of an additional RAAF Base in northern Australia is essential to Australia's defence, and (2) requires- (a) the Base be used for Australia's in-depth northern defence and intensified coastal surveillance, and (b) the location of this Base be in the vicinity of the Gulf of Carpentaria filling the gap between the new Tindall Base and Townsville. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) condemns the detention, under house arrest, of the South Korean Opposition leader Kim Dae Jung, and (2) calls on the Government of South Korea to release Mr Kim forthwith and begin meaningful discussions with him amd other opposition leaders, in order to establish a truly representative government in that country. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) congratulates the honourable Member for Hawker on his distinguished service as a member of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence; (2) expresses its concern that the honourable Member was not re-elected by Caucus as a Government nominee to that committee; (3) condemns the Parliamentary Labor Party for this manifestation of the growth of factions within the Australian Labor Party, and (4) expresses its sympathy to the honourable Member for Hawker on being placed on the ALP scrap-heap. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move, and the honourable member for Hinkler (Mr Conquest) will second: That this House condemns the Government for its failure- (1) to support publicly the retention of the Australian national flag, and (2) to support the work of the Australian National Flag Association of Queensland which is fighting to maintain the Australian flag for future generations. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) deplores the cavalier disregard by the Minister for Primary Industry and the Victorian Government, of the crisis facing the dairying industry which is affecting every Australian State, and (2) calls on the Government to immediately 'bite the bullet' and implement the national dairy industry plan. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House expresses its concern- (1) at the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs' failure to consider the suggestion of Mr Ray Robinson, a National Aboriginal Conference member, that the Government hand Ayers Rock to the whole Australian community, and (2) at the Government's obsession with uniform land rights at the expense of any other point of view. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House condemns the Prime Minister- (1) for reneging upon a solemn pledge to the United States of America, and (2) for undermining and sabotaging the principal elements of the ANZUS treaty. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House- (1) expresses its concern at the Government's handling of the proposed Bill of Rights; (2) acknowledges the irony that the latest draft of the Bill of Rights was only obtained under Freedom of Information legislation, and (3) calls on the Government to indicate exactly which parts of the latest proposed Bill of Rights it supports and which parts it opposes. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That this House congratulates the 26 unions in the Hunter Valley which have come together in a spirit of consensus to create a consultative body to provide early consideration of disputes which might escalate to interrupt the passage of Hunter Valley coal from the mines to the port of Newcastle. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact that any benefit to the competitive positions of Australian industries from the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar will be irretrievably lost if resultant cost increases are passed on by means of full wage indexation? Will the Government therefore argue at future national wage case hearings before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission that increases should be discounted to take into account the effect of that depreciation on the consumer price index? Mr HAWKE —I am indebted to the honourable member for his question. He raised a matter of importance and I want to treat it with the seriousness which it deserves. I am glad that contained in the question is the acknowledgement that any sensible understanding of what has been happening to the level of the Australian dollar has to recognise that there are some minuses and some pluses. The honourable member's question acknowledges that, with the decline in the value of the dollar, there are some advantages in terms of increased competitiveness. It is a valid question for the honourable member to ask what is the relationship between that and the approach that the wage fixing authorities will take. I simply want to say to the honourable member that the Government is yet to finalise its position in these matters. I do not believe that in this case it is appropriate that we should potentially undermine the very substantial adherence that there has been to the prices and incomes accord. I know that there are differences between the honourable member and this side of the House as to the efficacy of the prices and incomes accord. At the start of this Parliament, I simply want to put firmly on record again our belief that the prices and incomes accord and the substantial adherence to that accord by the overwhelming majority of the trade union movement in this country have been centrally important in the significant economic recovery that has been made. So when one looks at a question such as this, which has been raised by the honourable member and which may have some superficial attraction about it-I accept the way in which the honourable member puts it-nevertheless, one has to put against that the importance, in our judgment, of ensuring adherence to the accord. We are not going to do anything to jeopardise that. We will, in drawing up our final position for the Commission, take those things into account. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —Is the Minister for Health aware of statements made over the weekend by the Opposition, supporting the stand taken by militant surgeons in the New South Wales hospitals dispute? Will the Minister advise the House whether the Government supports the stand taken by militant surgeons? Does the Government support conciliation and negotiation as the surest way of settling this tragic dispute to end the suffering of the sick, injured and poor in the New South Wales public hospital system caused by the selfish actions of these militant surgeons? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for Stirling for his question. It has been clear for some time who the shepherd is in this dispute. Over the weekend it became clear who the sheep are, that is, members of Her Majesty's Opposition. Members of the Opposition have been herded into that pen, not by their Leader, not by the shadow Minister for Health, but by the shadow, shadow Minister for Health, the honourable member for Mackellar. The statement of the honourable member for Mackellar on this issue was the most irresponsible and inflammatory statement made in a difficult industrial situation that I can remember in my time as a member of this Parliament. That statement was designed to support the militant surgeons. The honourable member for Mackellar did his best to torpedo and sabotage the efforts at a conciliated settlement in the difficult New South Wales hospitals dispute. I notice, unfortunately, that the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party of Australia has added his support to those efforts to sabotage conciliation. I will look at what the Australian Medical Association asked for and what these people are repudiating. Dr Thompson said: The standing and welfare of the medical profession depends on two basic principles stated in the Code of Ethics adopted by the Association. 'I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity.' 'The health of my patient will be my first consideration.' These principles are in jeopardy. Yet the honourable member for Mackellar and all other members of the Opposition support the rejection of that call by Dr Thompson. In fact, they support the undermining of those principles to which he has drawn attention. Dr Thompson went on to say: Nevertheless I believe with the strongest conviction that the path down which the profession has been proceeding-- now with the support of the honourable member for Mackellar and most members of the Liberal Opposition- will lead to disaster. The only rational course of action for sensible men and women is to negotiate to establish a firm basis to ensure the viability of private practice. That statement and that effort of conciliation, in what is a difficult situation, has been challenged and undermined by people such as the honourable member for Mackellar. This Government has had real conflict with the AMA. One just needs to look at the record to see that there has been dispute and difference with the AMA over Medicare, something which in many ways was to be expected. But this statement is an honest effort by the leaders of the AMA to seek a negotiated settlement in this dispute-it has proved impossible-with the representatives of other organisations. It is not simply a decision of the AMA itself. Most of the senior colleges have supported the call for a moratorium on resignations and an effort to secure a negotiated settlement. Today I received a telex from the Association of University Clinical Professors of Australia. Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —Of course, Opposition members are prepared to disparage every statement made by any responsible member of the medical profession except the militant surgeons in New South Wales. The telex states: The Association of University Clinical Professors of Australia strongly supports the action taken by the AMA, the Commonwealth Government and the Government of New South Wales in entering into immediate negotiation to resolve the crisis in the provision of medical services in New South Wales hospitals. Support has also come from other senior colleges. In this dispute the Prime Minister, the members of the New South Wales Government and I have negotiated exhaustively with the procedural specialists in New South Wales to try to establish the basis for a settlement. But it has become increasingly clear, as the Prime Minister has said, that those specialists simply want to tear up Medicare. Indeed, from the very outset, they have never given Medicare a chance in New South Wales. From the very beginning their efforts have been to dismantle and to destroy it. This Government stands for rational and sensible negotiations and such negotiations will proceed tomorrow with the Australian Medical Association. We are confronted with a group of militant surgeons in New South Wales who have made it clear-they are on the record on this-that in pursuit of their own interests they are prepared to destroy the public hospital system in New South Wales and to ensure that this Government is forced to bow to their dictation by their making people in New South Wales suffer. The Federal Opposition has now underwritten that position with support for that militant group. Finally, I say to the Leader of the Opposition that, if he does not repudiate his shadow Minister, he will achieve a double standard in these industrial issues in this country. Every ordinary working man who takes action to improve his position is condemned by the Opposition as militant and disruptive. Honourable members know how the Opposition treats any effort at conciliation there; of course, it supports it. But there is a double standard. Ordinary working people and trade unionists are simply attacked as militants and denigrated by this Opposition. But for militant surgeons, for those in the wealthy sections of the community, there is another standard. In contrast to how the Opposition treats ordinary trade unionists and their actions, it will support wealthy militant surgeons in their bringing the hospital system to its knees. Let it be clear that, if the Leader of the Opposition does not repudiate that double standard in these forms of industrial relations, neither the community nor, in fact ultimately, the medical profession will have any respect for him. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Will the Minister confirm that he was advised by American officials, while he was visiting the United States of America, that his Government had approved Australia's co-operation in the MX missile tests in July of 1983? Will he confirm that he subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister in October 1983 protesting against the decision? Mr HAYDEN —Any contact involving the Prime Minister, the Minister for Defence and myself on the subject of the MX missile test would be a classified matter. However, to relieve the anxiety of the Leader of the Opposition, I draw his attention to the statement made on Friday by the Prime Minister in this Parliament in which, I believe, he made it unambiguously clear that there had been no such agreement. He pointed out that if there had been such an agreement how would critics like the Leader of the Opposition explain away the fact that State Department and Defense Department officials of the United States came to Australia in October 1983 to inquire as to whether an agreement could be concluded. Mr MAHER —My question is to the Minister for Health. Can the Minister inform the House whether he has received the report of the clinical committee on the possible establishment of a national liver transplant unit? Can the Minister also advise the House as to the recommendation of that Committee on where that unit should be located? Dr BLEWETT —The report of the clinical committee on the possible establishment of a national liver transplant unit was delivered to me in December. I thought that certain supplementary questions required answering before a decision was made. I received that supplementary report this month. This committee was made up of clinical and scientific experts from all mainland States. It concluded that a human liver transplantation unit should commence in Australia as a pilot program with transplantation, initially, being offered to adults and children at the same centre. Six hospitals made proposals in relation to this liver transplant unit, three from New South Wales and one each from Victoria, Queensland and South Australia. The committee reported that all proposals were of a high standard and that ultimately each could develop liver transplantation centres in the future when a need for additional centres is demonstrated. However, the committee was of the opinion that the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital combined with the Royal Alexandra Hospital for Children in Sydney was closest to the ideal model for a national liver transplantation centre and that it had the greatest potential for development as a centre of excellence. The committee has therefore recommended to the Government that, providing certain conditions are met, a pilot program be established in those hospitals. If that pilot program is successful, it would lead to the designation of those hospitals as a national centre, followed by centres in other States as the need was demonstrated. I endorse the decision by the committee and we will be holding discussions with the New South Wales Government about the establishment of that pilot unit. One final point I would like to stress is that this is to be a national unit and so will cater for patients from across Australia. Therefore, we hope that each State government will co-operate with the recommendations of the clinical committee, that there be an assessment panel in each State and that there be a register of those patients so that this facility will be open not just to the people of New South Wales, but to people throughout Australia. The Government will accept its obligations in relation to that. Mr SINCLAIR —Will the Minister for Defence advise the House whether any sensors pursuant to the MX missile test were laid within Australia's 200-mile fishing zone? Mr BEAZLEY —Not to my knowledge. Mr GEAR —My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce. I refer the Minister to the problems that many small businesses have in obtaining satisfactory lease arrangements for retail space in shopping centres. Is the Minister aware that some small businesses feel at the mercy of landlords who control shopping centres? Is the Government taking any action to assist small businesses in this area? Mr BARRY JONES —I am aware that some small businesses on an individual basis have complained of the situation they find themselves in with regard to leases. I am aware that a number of the States have examined the question of model legislation for small business leases on a State basis, but the results of those examinations are not all available yet. However, it is clear that, in at least one instance I am aware of, small business operators have experienced difficulties with leases because of actions by their landlords. Some tenants of the Carnarvon shopping centre in Western Australia have been seeking leases for their retail spaces for some time. However, the landlord has been refusing their leases as it appears he was hoping to entice a major supermarket chain to redevelop the shopping centre. It now appears that the supermarket chain will build its own retail centre, to the considerable annoyance of the landlord of the Carnarvon shopping arcade. What has the landlord done in these circumstances? He has written to his tenants offering them leases straightaway, doubtless realising that unless they take them up they may lose their retail spaces. They then may have to wait a considerable period before the supermarket chain builds its own centre. Honourable members may wonder about the ethic of such a landlord. They may even wonder when they realise who the landlord is. I table a letter dated 3 January 1985 to the tenants of the Carnarvon shopping centre from the proprietor. The letter is signed 'Wilson Tuckey, M.P.', the honourable member for O'Connor and currently the Opposition spokesman on small business. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statement contained in his letter of 25 January to Mr Lange that accepting visits from nuclear-powered and possibly nuclear-armed ships is central to the ANZUS alliance and the fact that at least one State has declared itself nuclear free, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that visits by such ships will be welcomed in every State of Australia? Mr HAWKE —One could not expect much more from a question which has its premise wrong. The letter was not dated 25 January; as I recall it was dated 10 January. As far as the position of Australia is concerned in regard to the access of visiting warships from the United States, there is complete amity between ourselves and the United States Government. Mr HAND —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and concerns youth unemployment. What are the Government's plans for implementing the recommendations of the report of the Kirby Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs? What benefits will occur, particularly for Victoria? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his question. The Government announced last month that it endorsed the central recommendation of the Kirby report for a system of traineeships for young people. We believe that is an imaginative response to the problems young people face in getting broad experience, acquiring training and life skills. Under the leadership of my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations the Government is holding extensive consultations with employers, the trade unions, the States and the educational authorities on the implementation of the report. We hope to have more detailed proposals for implementation of this scheme as soon as possible. I hope that the Opposition shares our belief that the Kirby report is, indeed, outstanding. It certainly covers the field very well and, I believe, makes a number of very sensible suggestions, the most outstanding one being, I think, the traineeship recommendation. We are indebted to the Premier of Victoria for having made available Mr Kirby to undertake this investigation for the Government and the people of Australia. It is appropriate that it should come from Victoria because the Victorian Government has an excellent record on unemployment matters. In January, Victoria's unemployment rate was 7.8 per cent, easily the lowest of any State. Victoria's youth unemployment rate was also the lowest of any State. It is from that basis that the Premier has been able to offer the youth guarantee scheme, which is an unprecedented guarantee that the Victorian Government, in its next term, will provide some combination of work, education or training for all young people between the ages of 15 and 18. I would only conclude that that very substantial and realistic proposal of the youth guarantee scheme stands in total contrast to the gimmickry of the Liberal Opposition's youth employment scheme, a scheme which would only slash wages for young people through half-price jobs and would do no more than simply change the profile of unemployment and transfer it to older people. Mr McVEIGH —My question is directed to the Minister for Trade. Is the Government's export uranium policy consistent with the Euratom agreement? Has the Government ever sought a review of that agreement? What are the facts on the resale of uranium to France under the Euratom agreement? Mr DAWKINS —I thank the honourable member for his question, although not for his rather hysterical outburst last week when he tried to take advantage of a particular development which occurred whereby a German company, Urangesellschaft, was trying to exploit a political situation for its own commercial advantage. In relation to the particular matter which is at the heart of this question, the situation is that the German company, which has a contract with the Ranger partners-Energy Resources of Australia-to purchase uranium has always had uranium excess to its own requirements involved in that contract. On this occasion, the company went to extraordinary lengths to indicate to the Government and to ERA that it was intending to on-sell some of that excess uranium to a French firm. We had to ensure that, whatever the intermediary arrangements in relation to that French firm, there was no end user of that uranium in France. We have been able to establish that beyond any doubt at all, not only from the sole authorised French user of Australian uranium, if it were not for the ban in France, but also from the central agency in France which is responsible for the control of the movement and use of uranium within that country. It is perfectly clear from all those sources that the end use of this uranium will not be in France and, therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn, that is, that this was a ruse and a ploy which the German company was trying to employ in order to get out of its legitimate contract with ERA. We will not allow such legitimate transactions to be exploited by foreign companies. Therefore, I am rather surprised and a little disappointed that the honourable member for Groom and one of his colleagues in the Senate should automatically take the side of a foreign firm, a German firm, which was in fact trying to seriously disadvantage an Australian company. What we have done is perfectly proper, that is, ensure that the ban in relation to the use of uranium in France remains intact. That, I am absolutely convinced, will be the case. Dr KLUGMAN —My question is directed to the Minister for Health. The Minister is, of course, aware of the call made by the Australian Medical Association for procedural specialists in New South Wales to resume services to patients in the public hospital system. I ask him whether he noted that the Sydney Morning Herald censored the part of Dr Thompson's statement which said: It would not be productive to invite Dr Bruce Shepherd and Dr Michael Aroney to join the negotiating team. Their belligerent and divisive posturing and unrealistic demands have failed to achieve a resolution of the dispute. I assume that the Sydney Morning Herald would have published this had it been the result of an illegal phone tap, rather than an authorised statement. But more importantly-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Prospect should come to the point of his question. Dr KLUGMAN —Can the Minister inform the House as to the approach that the Federal and New South Wales governments will take in their negotiations with the Australian Medical Association this week? Will this approach be based on the fact that there has been a significant shift in hospitals from fee-for-service to the lower sessional payment method over the last three years, that is, even before the introduction of Medicare? Dr BLEWETT —It is not for me to comment on feuds within the medical profession. In answer to the specific points of the honourable member's question, yes, it is true that over the last three years there has been a shift in status within the public hospitals from private status to public status, and this has been accelerated by Medicare. We have indicated clearly to the profession, in all our negotiations with it, that we and the New South Wales Government were perfectly prepared to make adjustments both to the number of sessions provided and to the sessional fee to compensate for these shifts. In addition, from the outset of negotiations we have made it clear that we were perfectly prepared to consider proposals to ensure that privately insured patients were treated as private patients, unless, of course, they opted to be treated as public patients, which is a freedom we believe they should possess. Mr SHACK —I refer the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations to the 10 January 1985 statement of the Australian Public Service Full Bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, wherein the Commission concluded: We have come to the conclusion that the history of the market relied on by the applicants does not support the claims. Against the background of that very clear statement on the merits of the Public Service wage claim, I ask the Minister: How on earth can he now claim that the case has not been decided on its merits, and how can he explain his blatant undermining of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission in the Public Service dispute? Mr WILLIS —The honourable member failed to mention the next sentence in the Commission's decision, which said that, against that history, it could not find that the case was special and isolated, and therefore it did not get up under the anomalies principle. That gets to the essence of the issue. What the Commission decided in that case was that this was not a special and isolated case, as it must be under the anomalies principle, because it was concerned, looking at the history of wage fixation in the Public Service area, that, every time there had been an increase in APS wages over the last decade or so, there had been a cycle of movements which had gone on in the rest of the public sector and the APS, although moved up against other groups, had then finished up back where it started. Against that history of movement, flow on and interaction, the Commission decided that this could not be seen as a special and isolated case. What that indicates is that clearly what the Commission was motivated by in deciding that this case should be dismissed was a concern about flow on. It was not dealing with the merits of the case per se in a situation in which flow on would not exist. That gets to the absolute essence of the issue, and this will be the subject of debate after Question Time. I shall take up the matter further with the honourable member then. Mr STAPLES —Will the Minister for Foreign Affairs assure the House that this Government will not intervene in the current independence struggle in New Caledonia by the deployment of Australian troops? Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member's question refers to commentary that took place in New Caledonia, mainly from the middle to the end of last month, along the lines that there was a belief that there was an elite force of 1,000 Australian military personnel trained, deployed, ready for movement to New Caledonia and military intervention. We inquired as to the cause of this report, which received fairly extensive publication, including in mainland France, and we discovered that on 14 January, on the radio program AM, I mentioned in passing that my Department had established a task force on the situation in New Caledonia. This had been freely interpreted in New Caledonia as force de frappe, which, of course, means a military strike force; hence, the rather feverish, hallucinatory commentary that developed. Australia has absolutely no military interest in intervening in any part of the region. We will do all we can to avoid conflict. We want to see the avoidance of bloodshed and tension. To the extent we can make contributions in that respect, we will do so. In the case of New Caledonia, we have expressed our support of the Pisani proposals as the best practicable in all the circumstances and therefore deserving support from all sides to the differences evident in New Caledonia. Mr HUNT —My question is directed to the Minister for Primary Industry. Is the Minister concerned about the milk blockades in Victoria and threatened blockades in the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia and the prospect of an interstate milk war? What does the Minister expect to achieve at the meeting of agriculture Ministers on Thursday of this week to end this crisis? Does the Minister agree that the blame for the current crisis in the dairy industry lies upon the shoulders of the Victorian Labor Government and to a lesser extent upon his own shoulders for having failed to achieve agreement on the modified national dairy plan? Mr KERIN —The first thing I must say to the honourable gentleman is, of course, that the blockade is purely politically motivated by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia because there is an election on. This action is a totally negative action. The demands by these Leongatha militants would cost the Commonwealth Government $190m per annum, and that is how absurd the requests are becoming. They also want another 6.6c per litre from the State Government, and that is a matter for the State Government. The Premier of Victoria, the Victorian Minister and the Victorian Government have been acting for and with the Victorian industry. The problem with the dairy industry of this country is that there are six dairy industries. Apart from the States, the honourable member for the Northern Territory has 300 cows and then there is the Australian Capital Territory. The problem is that one cannot get the States to agree, and that has gone on for about 50 years in the dairy industry. No man has fought harder for his dairy industry than the Minister for Agriculture, Mr Kent, during the period of negotiation over the past year, because of the problems in the dairy industry. The reason he opposed the Australian Dairy Industry Conference plan was that the adjustment would fall most heavily on Victoria; the levy being proposed would not have given the Victorian dairy farmers enough money. That is simply because the Victorian dairy farmers produce about 57 to 60 per cent of Australia's milk. The blockade is a purely political stunt. Of course, we ought to look at what the Victorian Leader of the Opposition has to say about these things. This is the fellow who blames the Victorian Government for the collapse of the Australian currency, and cats and dogs not being safe. That is about the level of his performance. I have here the Australian Dairy Farmers Federation pamphlet sent to its members. It tells of a meeting that took place on 13 February and states: After the Premier of Victoria and the president of the ADFF had spoken to the meeting the Victorian Opposition Leader Mr J. Kennett, leapt uninvited onto the platform. For two or three minutes UDV President Bill Pyle and Kennett squabbled over the microphone, cheered on by an appreciative audience. This is politics Liberal style. It continues: Eventually Bill Pyle won the first round but not before Kennett alleged that Pyle or the UDV had 'done a (secret) deal' with the Victorian Government. Kennett, with Tom Austin, Opposition Spokesman on Agriculture in tow, then left the hall only to return five minutes later. Following a resolution from the meeting that he be heard, Mr Kennett told the audience that if elected his Government would: 1. Move milk interstate. 2. Deregulate market milk prices- that would be just marvellous- (does this mean Mr Kennett has 'done a deal' with the supermarkets for cheap milk?) That is what is coming from the Liberal Opposition Leader in Victoria. Of course, it was the Liberal Party in government in Victoria for so many years that kept on pushing up dairy production in that State. The Liberal Government pushed it up and pushed it up. The market for Australian milk is about 4.3 billion litres; the profitable market is about 4.6 billion litres. Today we are producing 5.9 billion litres, and that is the problem; too much supply and disastrous international prices, neither of which is controlled by this Government or any government particularly. The militants are attacking the only profitable markets. They will achieve nothing if they attempt to blockade the Australian Capital Territory because the Territory will get milk from New South Wales. I imagine that if they blockade the South Australian and Victorian markets ways and means will be found to get around that as well. This is a purely politically motivated blockade. I notice that the Opposition is supporting this industrial action, as it supports the militant doctors. I have received a series of demands totalling around $190m. That is simply nonsense, particularly with the Liberal Party of Australia and other parties represented in this place talking about keeping the Budget deficit down. Let us reflect on the existing mechanism, which is covered by ongoing legislation. No agreement was reached in 1977; so we have the ridiculous situation of no producer producing prescribed products ever receiving the real price for his product and no manufacturer getting the real price, due to the complicated system of export pooling, equalisation, allowances and an export levy. This genius of a scheme, concocted by the previous Government back in 1977 because no agreement was reached, also has a system of domestic value for levy purposes, whereby three times a year the Commonwealth Government is supposed, acting under 10 criteria-- Mr Cadman —I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some history is necessary to answer a question effectively but the Minister is going over the same story time and again. It ought to be drawn to a conclusion. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the National Party asked a detailed question. The Minister has not been repetitious, although I wish he would draw his answer to a close. Mr KERIN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have all the information here; I was expecting the question. I am trying to educate the Opposition in some way but it is hard. I am talking about the genius of the existing situation and the ongoing legislation that we have now. The problem is that the previous Government put up the DVLPs by 27 per cent in 18 months. The message was: 'All right boys, produce, produce, produce'. That is the problem. New South Wales increased production by 22 per cent, Queensland by 22 per cent and Victoria by 7 per cent, and overall production has gone up in the last three or four years by some 14 per cent. If the Deputy Leader of the National Party wants to do something responsible-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest to the Minister that after seven minutes perhaps he should start winding up. Mr KERIN —I have been waiting for this part, Mr Speaker: If the Deputy Leader of the National Party wants to do something responsible he should get the honourable members for Page, Lyne, Cowper and Gilmore to agree with the honourable members for Murray, Gippsland, Corangamite and Flinders; then get them to agree with the honourable members for Fairfax, Fisher, Hinkler and Moncrieff; and at the end of the day get them to agree with the honourable members for Braddon, Lyons and Bass, throwing in the honourable members for Barker and Forrest. If he can do that he will have achieved a lot. Mr O'KEEFE —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations confirm that the community employment program has contributed to the successful attack on the level of unemployment in Victoria? Further, will his recent announcement of a further 622 jobs result in a further reduction in unemployment in Victoria, and has the rate at which persons are finding continuing employment after finishing a period of work on the CEP exceeded his expectations? Mr WILLIS —It is a fact that the CEP has made a very important contribution to employment growth, but it is by no means the only factor generating the strong employment growth occurring under this Government. In the course of our period in office employment has grown by just under 300,000 jobs and about 10 per cent of that growth can be attributed to the community employment program. Of course various jobs created in the early stages have now finished; so we do not have all of them on the go at present. Overall, some 60,000 jobs have been created under the CEP. As I say, some of those jobs would now have ended. So it has made a very important contribution, particularly given the fact that it has been aimed at those who are least likely to get a job in the context of economic recovery-the people who have been out of work for a long time and other disadvantaged people, such as Aborigines, non-English speaking migrants and women, who generally have much more difficulty getting jobs in the labour market than the rest of the work force. The CEP has made a very important contribution to employment growth throughout the country, especially in Victoria. The CEP had as its predecessor there the job creation scheme initiated by the Victorian Government, the employment initiatives program, which was the forerunner of the wage pause program which came in before the community employment program. Victorians, therefore, have had a long experience of job creation programs under the Cain Government. In each of the three programs that have been run the Victorians have been able to achieve a substantial success. We have found from the employment initiatives program initiated by the Cain Government that there has been a great amount of success in terms of the people who have been through those jobs getting permanent jobs in the work force. Of course, the idea of the job creation program is to get these people a permanent job-not a permanent job in the sense of that particular job in the job creation program, but to get them out of unemployment, give them a chance to show that they can hold down a job, improve their employability in their own eyes and in the eyes of employers and, therefore, give them a much better chance of getting a job in the work force generally. The Victorian Government is to be congratulated on recommencing in this country the concept of job creation which conservative governments had lampooned and forsaken. Its initiative was emulated in a sort of last gasp effort by the Fraser Government with the wage pause program, a hastily conceived program which has been greatly improved upon under the CEP. I am sure that everyone in this chamber recognises the enormous importance of job creation programs. I think we should thank the Victorian Government for setting the example in that regard. Mr HOWARD —I wonder whether the Treasurer could give the House some idea of when the interest rate reductions that he and the Prime Minister promised during the election campaign are likely to occur. Mr KEATING —I am quite prepared to stand precisely by what I said in the election campaign. I said on that occasion that I accepted the view of most market commentators that there was a further interest rate step fall ahead of us, particularly after we get through the tax rundown period. I stand by that. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition well knows, the upward adjustment of interest rates that has occurred in recent times has been part and parcel of the general liquidity conditions in the rundown of the second half of the year. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Commission's report No. 8 entitled 'Deportation and the Family: A Report on the Complaints of Mrs M. Roth and Mr C. J. Booker', together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Sinclair) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 47 of the High Court of Australia Act 1979, I present the High Court of Australia annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 (1) of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983, I present the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions annual report for 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on my motion by Mr N. A Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 58 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, I present the Administrative Review Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present the Attorney-General's Department and Office of Parliamentary Counsel annual report for 1983-84. The annual report of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel is tabled pursuant to section 16A of the Parliamentary Counsel Act. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 22 of the Public Service Act 1922, I present the Public Service Board annual report for 1983-84. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —On behalf of the Prime Minister and pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present the Australian Science and Technology Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 125 of the Insurance Act 1973, I present the Insurance Commissioner annual report for 1983-84. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 (1) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the Primary Industry Bank annual report for 1984. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 (2) of the Primary Industry Bank Act 1977, I present the report of the operation of Part II of the Act to 25 October 1984. The report was made available to honourable members on 25 October 1984. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 25 of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Act 1973, I present the Commonwealth Grants Commission 51st report for 1984. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research Act 1982, I present the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of the House, I present the Department of Trade annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 88 of the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation Act 1974, I present the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Honey Industry Act 1962, I present the Australian Honey Board annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Pork Promotion Act 1975, I present the Pig Meat Promotion Committee annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 38 (3) of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, I present the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Again the report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 36 (1) of the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Dried Fruits Corporation annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 28 of the Oilseeds Levy Collection and Research Act 1977, I present the Oilseeds Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Tobacco Industry Act 1955, I present the Tobacco Industry Trust Account annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to clause 11 of the Sugar Agreement 1979, I present the Fruit Industry Sugar Concession Committee annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN —(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)-Pursuant to section 18 of the Dried Fruits Research Act 1971, I present the Dried Fruits Research Committee annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 49 of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Act 1977, I present the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation annual report for 1983-84. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 23 of the Egg Export Control Act 1947, I present the Australian Egg Board annual report for 1983-84, together with a text of a statement relating to the report. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —For the information of honourable members, I present a document agreeing to an amendment to a fisheries agreement with KKFC Pty Ltd. The agreement is between the Commonwealth and KKFC Pty Ltd, an Australian company. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Defence Support annual report for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr Mackellar) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs for the financial year 1983-84, which also includes a report on the operation of the adult migrant education program, which is required under the Immigration (Equation) Act of 1971. The report was made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 49 (4) of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs Act 1979, I present the AIMA annual report for 1983-84, which was also made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Transport annual report for 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian National Railways Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 35 of the Australian Shipping Commission Act 1956, I present the Australian National Line annual report for 1984. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —Pursuant to section 27 of the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Trust Act 1982, I present the Australian Bicentennial Road Development Program annual report for 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 29 of the Air Navigation Act 1920, I present the Department of Aviation annual report for 1983-84. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —For the information of honourable members I present a report of the Independent Inquiry into Aviation Cost Recovery. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Aviation) —Pursuant to section 40 of the Australian National Airlines Act 1945, I present the Trans Australia Airlines annual report for 1983-84. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —For the information of honourable members I present the annual report for 1983-84 of the Director-General of Health. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 9 of the Medical Research Endowment Act 1937, I present the annual report of the National Health and Medical Research Council for 1983. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 42 of the Health Insurance Commission Act 1973, I present the Health Insurance Commission annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Act 1961, I present the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories Commission's annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Environment Protection (Alligator Rivers Region) Act 1978, I present the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 60 of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, I present the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 27 of the National Library Act 1960, I present the National Library of Australia annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 68 of the Archives Act 1983, I present the Australian Archives first annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Museum of Australia Act 1980, I present the Museum of Australia annual report for 1983-84. The report was posted to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 51 (1) of the National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, I present the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Biological Resources Study annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 38 of the Australia Council Act 1975, I present the Australia Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 68 of the Archives Act 1983, I present the Advisory Council on Australian Archives first annual report for 1983-84. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer) —by leave-I wish to inform the House that the Government has decided that the next census of population and housing will be conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1986, in accordance with provisions of the Census and Statistics Act 1905. The date of the census will be 30 June 1986. At the conclusion of this statement I will table regulations specifying the topics to be included in the census and an explanatory statement. In order that the Parliament and the general public should be fully informed on the questions to be asked in the census, I will also table a paper entitled 'The 1986 Census of Population and Housing: Content and Procedures' which gives a description of the topics to be included, the proposed questions and the methods of conducting the census. The census is the most wide-ranging collection undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as it involves contact with every household in the country. It provides a considerable amount of information used extensively by government bodies for policy formulation and monitoring. It provides a statistical profile of the whole population in terms of number, age and geographical distribution, and in terms of a range of demographic and social characteristics. Users include government agencies at the Federal, State and local level; welfare and social service organisations; research institutions; bodies undertaking regional; manpower and educational studies; demographies; business organisations and private individuals. The Government has decided that the census will seek a total of 46 responses from households, which is a very small increase from the 43 responses required in 1981. The inclusion of many additional topics was requested by users, but the topics selected by the Government are considered to represent a reasonable balance between the need for information, the appropriateness of the census as a means of collecting particular kinds of data, the difficulty with some topics of formulating questions likely to get accurate and consistent answers, and the desire that completing the forms should not impose too great a task on the public. The conduct of the census will require the expenditure over the next four years of an additional $59m in current prices from the budgets of the Bureau of Statistics and associated service departments. The Government recognises that asking questions of householders in order to obtain statistical information involves a degree of intrusiveness and places a burden on the community. The Government has aimed to minimise both burden and intrusion but nevertheless accepts that some degree of each is a necessary requirement for the collection of statistical data. For the first time, the 1986 census will include questions on each person's ancestry and on language, other than English spoken at home. These questions will greatly improve census data collected on the ethnic composition of Australia's population and provide data for planning and evaluating services to migrants and ethnic communities. A number of improvements to census data on families are planned for the 1986 census. Firstly, the inclusion of a question on usual residents temporarily absent will allow family members temporarily absent on census night to be included in the coding of family structures. This will overcome the problem created by absent spouses in previous censuses leading to overstatement of the number of single parent families and understatement of the number of families with both partners normally resident in a household. Secondly, a change in the question on relationships within a household will make it possible to produce statistics on de facto living arrangements and children in blended families. Thirdly, in response to many user requests, statistics will be produced for the first time on the family structure of persons residing in caravans or mobile homes in caravan parks. At the request of educational authorities, an additional question for those attending an educational institution will enable comprehensive statistics to be produced on characteristics of people attending various types of institution. A question on the material of the outer walls of dwellings has been included in previous censuses. This question is no longer considered to be a satisfactory indicator of housing conditions, and the Government has decided not to include it in the 1986 census. A number of other census questions have been simplified in order to reduce the number of responses required, without detracting from the data collected. The 1986 census will be the first to include Australia's external territories. This will be different from past practice in which separate censuses have been conducted in each of Cocos (Keeling), Christmas and Norfolk Islands. Public understanding and acceptance of the census is essential for statistics of a high quality to be produced. For this reason a substantial public awareness campaign will be conducted prior to the census. The aims will be to make known the availability of assistance for those who may, for language or other reasons, experience difficulty in completing the form, to explain the measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided and to explain the uses made of the statistics obtained from the Census. Mr Donald Cameron —Are you going to give them envelopes? Mr HURFORD —A number of organisations and individuals have requested that information on identified persons and households not be destroyed, but be transferred in some form to archives, with access for most purposes forbidden for many years. The Government rejects this request. Mr Donald Cameron —What about envelopes? Mr HURFORD —The purpose of the census is to gather statistical information and the legal obligation on people to answer census questions, except one relating to religion, is accompanied by strict measures to ensure the confidentiality of the information provided. The Government believes that it would be inconsistent with that purpose and with that guarantee of confidentiality to retain information on identified persons or households; including envelopes. Consequently the present practice of destroying all records, including envelopes, of names and addresses and of not entering such names and addresses into the computer record will be continued. The Government places great significance on the census as a means of collecting important social and economic data which is of primary concern to a wide range of users. It is recognised that, to be of maximum utility, such data must be both accurate and timely. Consequently, the Government has decided that all forms collected at the 1986 census will be processed fully and without delay so that detailed information is available to users as soon as possible. The Australian Statistics Advisory Council has given a considerable amount of time to considering plans for the 1986 census and its conclusions have been of great assistance to the Government in reaching its decisions. I now table the following papers: 1986 Census of Population and Housing-Ministerial Statement, 25 February 1985. The 1986 Census of Population and Housing: Content and Procedures. Census Regulations. Motion (by Mr Kerin) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(3.19) —I hope I am not opening up a minefield for the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) in raising discussion on this subject. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the statement and the outline of content and procedures of the 1986 census of population and housing. The Minister has revealed that the cost of undertaking the census is something of the order of $59m. That is a quite large amount of money. Honourable members need to know that the undertaking of this sort of enterprise is worthwhile. It is important that the Minister outline, as he has, the reasons for undertaking a census of this order and magnitude and some of the reasons for the information being required. Requirements in a large number of Acts of Parliament depend upon population estimates being obtained on a regular basis. This is perhaps the most substantial and overriding reason for the fact that since 1961 the census has been carried out on a regular basis-that is, every five years-and why it is required again in 1986. These population estimates are required for the determination of the number of seats in the House of Representatives for each State, the allocation of funds for each State under the States (Tax Sharing and Health Grants) Act 1981 and the funding of local government authorities. While many of us might doubt the efficacy of some of the material produced from time to time by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, particularly in the area of national accounts and labour force statistics, in this instance the whole of the population is to be surveyed. So one certainly hopes that, for the large amount of money that is to be spent on undertaking this enterprise, we will have an accurate picture of the Australian population and that Government programs in so many areas, as outlined by the Minister, will be enhanced by having that information available. I notice that in this census the Government, conscious of the need for public understanding of the necessity for the census, is to embark upon a substantial public awareness campaign prior to the census being undertaken. Having regard to the real concerns that exist in the community about the way in which information might be able to be used and the linking of it with other decisions of the Government-I have in mind in this instance the assets test in regard to which people have been concerned about the sort of information that might be obtained-I think there is very good and substantial reason for ensuring that people are aware of the way in which this census is to be handled. The Minister has mentioned the intrusiveness that some people feel is involved when a census is undertaken. The number of questions, of course, is important in judging the extent to which people might feel that a census is intrusive. The Minister recounts in his address that some 43 responses from households were required in 1981. He tells us now that a total of 46 responses is to be required. He might care at a later time to clarify for me why the discussion paper itself refers to 48 responses. Mr Hurford —Two are subsidiaries to other major questions. Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the Minister for his answer. It is, of course, the extent to which information is sought that many people feel is intrusive. For that reason I believe that it is important that the Minister ensures that the public is aware of the need for the census. However, I hasten to caution that there is a very considerable cynicism about public relations campaigns, particularly in New South Wales, and the way they have been used. The amount of money of the total allocated for ensuring public awareness is a matter one might critically review. However, I believe that the most important statements are contained at the end of the document. They concern the request that census information be made more generally available and particularly that the original information taken from the people interviewed be kept as part of our archival record. I think there would have been very real concern were that information to have been retained. I am sure that I speak on behalf of members of the Opposition when I welcome the Government's decision to ensure that when the statistical information is collected-including the names and addresses-it is destroyed immediately after the information is entered in the computer record and the confirmation that the names and addresses from which the information is to be obtained will not form part of the computer record. That was a very important and welcome decision. In relation to the interjection earlier of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), a section of the booklet he will no doubt receive indicates very clearly that it is the intention in this census to ensure that an envelope is made available for the people who are unduly concerned about privacy, who perhaps may be concerned that the person who carries out the interview might be known to the interviewee or might remember information. An envelope will be provided in which information can be placed and given, sealed, to the collector. The envelope is not to be opened by the collector but is passed on to the group leader who will later check it for completeness and initiate any other action that might be required as a result. Mr Hurford —And the envelope will be destroyed, too. Mr RUDDOCK —The Minister mentions that the envelope will be destroyed as well. Finally, in the area of the Minister's involvement and my own, I welcome the questions on ethnicity. It is important to have information available to us, particularly relating, as the document the Minister has circulated demonstrates, to the way in which our community is made up, culturally and ethnically. Of course, it is made clear that information will be sought on birth place, birth place of parents, year of arrival, citizenship, ancestry and whether people are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Island origin. The more welcome questions involve the use of language at home and proficiency in English. A large number of programs are very much dependent upon this information being available. I know of the very widespread concern in ethnic communities that we have information available to assist in planning programs for the aged and for ethnic young people and to enable us to respond, particularly in the area of child care, where the extent to which people use a language other than English might be an important factor in determining the way in which child care needs can be met. I believe this information will be important for developing programs in the area of ethnic affairs. Having regard to my own responsibility in that area, I welcome the fact that that information will be available to us in future. Debate (on motion by Mr Griffiths) adjourned. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Today the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) tabled a letter of a purely commercial nature which has no effect on the operation or revenue of the Government, nor is it subject to any of its legislation. I have not seen the letter but I am aware of correspondence of that nature passing between me and a group of tenants of a property of which a company I represent is the owner. In tabling this information the Minister has exposed the business activities of those eight tenants into the bargain. The world is now aware of the rent that they pay and other issues and I presume he is quite happy about that. However, by way of explanation, I say that I do not need to justify that particular activity. Suffice to say that the correspondence carried my signature and, unlike the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), I have not relied on my lawyers and then claimed ignorance-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must stick to the point of his personal explanation. Mr TUCKEY — My final comment is that I conduct my business openly and consequently, for the information of the Press and all members of the House, as soon as the file available on that matter can be sent to me here in Canberra, I will notify the House and the Press so that they can all come round to my office and read about the horrible rent goings on of eight poor little tenants in Carnarvon. I assure the House that those rents compare at any time with those charged in other constituencies and if other members have any honesty at all they will tell me whether they are excessive. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens 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 advent 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 Cunningham,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr Barry Jones,Mr Kent,Mr McArthur and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth- that the Australian flag reflects Australia's membership of the Commonwealth of Nations, her position in the southern hemisphere, and her federation of original colonies, recognizes that the flag as a symbol of pride for most Australians, such that several organisations, including the ALP, incorporated the flag in their motifs. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will resist moves to change the Australian flag, or if change is contemplated that the question be put to the Australian people by referendum to seek their views. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Drummond. 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 Cadman. 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 Ewen Cameron. 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 resolved 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 petitions most humbly pray that: (1) No new Uranium mines 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 certain citizens of Australia shows- That, with the exception of the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, all State Parliaments have enacted chiropractic legislation. That chiropractors provide a safe, effective and economical health care service that is complementary to medicine. That the introduction of a Federally funded health care system restricted to the services provided almost exclusively by the medical profession restricts the freedom to select the health care practitioner of one's choice and does nothing to reduce the high cost of health care in Australia. That a financial disadvantage will be incurred by those citizens utilizing chiropractic care, many of whom find that their health complaints do not respond satisfactorily to traditional approaches. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled ensures that chiropractic services are included in Medicare when it is introduced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cadman. 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 Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of inquiry. 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 Cadman. 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 requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. 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. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's great farm potential is being shackled by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of agriculture to compete on world markets, are increasing food costs for Australian families and creating widespread unemployment in both the country and cities. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian farmers to unlock farm potential so the nation as a whole can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia and Electors of the Division of Maranoa shows- That the requirement by the Commonwealth Government that open tenders be called for all work pursuant to work to be performed on Road Development projects under the auspices of the Australian Bi-centenial Authority is detrimental to the outback and other areas of Australia and in particular to the Murweh Shire, Booringa Shire, Bungil Shire, Paroo Shire, and Murilla Shire and the Maranoa electoral district generally for the following reasons: (1) Open tenders tend to result in contractors outside of the areas where the work is to be performed being awarded the contract and thereafter using their own work force who are generally only temporary residents of that area. (2) Whilst this may appear initially attractive to the Government on economic grounds, local contractors established with local employees and plant overheads are being deprived of these contracts causing or being likely to cause lay-offs of men, cessation of plant use and the payment of crippling repayments on idle plant, a lessening of spending in the community, loss of security of tenure of the contractors and their families and in cases the departure from the district of local contractors to seek work elsewhere. (3) An increase in the trend for country dwellers to move to the cities depriving Queensland of the benefit of its decentralised areas, and being apparently inconsistent with the policy of the Federal Government in that regard. (4) Preliminary figures tend to show that there are approximately 120 local contractors and employees in the above areas and together with their families they represent a large number of people whose departure or lessened standard of income is likely to affect the local and business communities of many of the small towns in outback Australia. (5) The local contractors should receive favourable consideration because of their preparedness to live, work and have their children educated in these areas in sometimes adverse conditions and being deprived of those more favourable conditions prevailing closer to the coastal regions. Your petitioners therefore pray that the requirement that open tenders be called for the Australian Bicentennial Road Authority projects be removed by the Commonwealth Parliament legislation and that in lieu thereof tenders be offered to local contractors. by Mr Ian Cameron. 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 Cowan. To the Honourable Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia show our concern at the proposals made by the FLNKS regarding the sovereignty of New Caledonia, in particular minority Kanak rule. This involves the subsequent denial of the democratic right to self determination for the majority of white and mixed race New Caledonians. Your petitioners therefore pray that our government will show its support for the democratic decision of the majority of New Caledonians. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that by the creation of aircraft free zone extending from the new runway at Brisbane Airport across Bramble Bay to Woody Point and over to the radio towers at Bald Hills, the families and aged who live in the bayside suburbs of Brighton, Bracken Ridge, Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Boondall, Nudgee Beach and Nudgee will be protected from the potential noise nuisance associated with the new runway. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government creates an aircraft free zone. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that we the undersigned do hereby protest against the intended use of vacant land by the Army Department for housing. The land is bordered by Kelyndar Street, Alkeeba Street and Tufnell Road, in the suburb of Banyo, City of Brisbane. This land is presently used by citizens of the area as parkland and playing fields due to the lack of same in the area. We feel that the Army Department should resite its housing project because if the land is built upon it is lost to the citizens forever. Your petitioners therefore pray the Federal Government zone this land as general parkland for use by all citizens of Queensland. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of Australia respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, are horrified at the prospect that the Personal Care Workers Study in Northcote, Victoria may cease for lack of funding. Such an action would cause severe disruption to the lives of disabled people using the scheme, would prematurely sack the workers involved and waste the research being undertaken. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives will ensure that funding for the Personal Care Workers Study is continued without interruption. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. 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 totally disapprove of the legislation before the House concerning ''X'' classification of video cassettes, etc., and that it will do huge harm not only to the citizens of Australia but to the young and future generations. We the undersigned, therefore, request the Government to abandon its 1983 decision to alter the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr McVeigh. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that. 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ''the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. the Hawke Government's retirement incomes policies are piecemeal, inequitable, and discriminate against people who save towards achieving reasonable self-reliance in their retirement and 2. the Government's assets test legislation is particularly inequitable and its effects are especially discriminatory against farmers. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, will call upon the Government to: 1. repeal the assets test legislation; 2. institute a broad inquiry into Australia's retirement income and taxation systems; and 3. following the receipt of the report of such an inquiry implement a retirement incomes policy which is fair and equitable, encourages self-provision and will be non-discriminatory in its operation and impact. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan inquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned showeth: We electors of South Australia ask that the Federal Government recognise God in our National Anthem by replacing the word ''Advance'' in the last line with ''God Bless'' reading ''God Bless Australia Fair.'' in the last line of each verse because- (1) seeing the words of Advance Australia Fair are being changed for our National Anthem, it would be desirable to include Recognition of God; (2) a recent survey showed that 89% of Australian people believe there is a God. This is a large majority; (3) if we ask God to bless us, He will; and (4) God has promised, if people turn from evil to Him, He will reward them. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will urge the Government to make this alteration and recognise God in our National Anthem. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Andrew. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Tasmania shows: 1. Although Australia is endowed with vast quantities of natural gas, Tasmanians are denied reasonably priced access to those resources. It should be shared equally between all Australians. 2. The Tasmanian householder using liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) pays $35.40 for an average household cylinder. In Melbourne, the same cylinder can be purchased for as little as $23.77. 3. A Tasmanian family on reticulated gas supply pays double the price paid by a Melbourne family on natural gas. 4. Tasmanian commercial and industrial users, paying high prices for their gas, are penalised. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government gas subsidy of $20-31 per tonne should be increased to Tasmania to compensate for Bass Strait freight charges. The subsidy should be raised so that Tasmanian users pay no more than the average of Australian users. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Miles. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Waikerie and surrounds in the State of South Australia showeth: 1. Your petitioners are burdened in manner as follows. 2. Your petitioners reside in that region of the State of South Australia commonly known as the Riverland, the several towns therein having a common economic interest largely dependent upon the vine, citrus and fruit growing industry. 3. Your petitioners are subject to a discretion in that they are required to pay trunk line rates when they telephone the major towns in the Riverland region situated as they are in the central and eastern areas. 4. Your petitioners are further burdened in that the town of Berri has lately been established as the centre for a number of Federal and State Government offices to service the whole Riverland region. Certain government offices formerly situated at Waikerie have been closed and others have had their services reduced, resulting in aggravation of the above imposition. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will prevail upon Telecom to fix uniform telephone charge rates throughout the whole of the Riverland region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The extraordinary conduct of the Government in its handling of the Public Service dispute. 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 SHACK(Tangney)(3.33) —I rise to draw attention to a matter of vital public importance. It is a matter which has caused Australia's economy to suffer in strategically important ways, which has caused massive disruption in the private sector to employers and employees who have been completely innocent of any involvement in this debacle, and which has caused a loss of confidence in the Government's ability to handle its own industrial relations responsibilities, a loss of confidence which, I submit, is so total that the Government is unlikely to ever recover its credibility. I speak about the Government's extraordinary conduct, in fact the Government's appalling mismanagement, of the Commonwealth Public Service dispute. If the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government have betrayed the Australian people on security matters, and they have, they have certainly also betrayed the Australian people in respect of responsibility for industrial relations matters in their handling of the Public Service dispute. For five weeks this Government presided over Public Service industrial action which severely affected productive business, small business in particular, and Australian taxpayers at large. The unwillingness of this Government to debate that matter last week is indicative of its embarrassment. The damage that has resulted from the Government's ineptness, its weakness in this dispute, cannot be understated. The evidence abounds-a sinking dollar, capital markets flooded with money that should be in the Commonwealth Treasury, wharves choked with goods, and workers everywhere in the private sector wondering whether they might be, or whether they could have been, stood down because of the Government's chronic inaction. This situation was allowed to fester for five weeks. An amount of $900m in government revenue was held up in January alone as a result of Public Service union bans, at a cost of $18m in interest charges to Australian taxpayers. One might as well double those figures if one takes into account the month of February as well. Who knows what further cost is yet to come? The dispute is not yet over. The Government is not yet out of the woods. Of course, everybody is breathing a sigh of relief at the temporary truce, but no one has mistaken it for a real and lasting solution. For five weeks the Government was impotent. For three of those weeks the Government stood before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and said: 'Please, may we have the power to stand down striking public servants who are sabotaging our vital government revenue and collection services'? Why did the Government have to do this? Why did it have to waste three of those weeks, standing in front of the Commission saying 'Please' in respect of its own employees? The Government did so because it had repealed a reasonable piece of legislation, which was introduced, passed and proclaimed by the former coalition Government and which was a valuable and effective tool of deterrence-the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act. The Government is having trouble not only with nuclear deterrence; it is having trouble with industrial relations deterrence as well. Why did the Government repeal the CE (EP) Act in the first place? It did so because that was what the Public Service unions wanted. That was the price the the Government was willing to pay for the prices and incomes accord and for substantial donations to Australian Labor Party coffers from Public Service unions. That is the sort of Government we have, one which is totally beholden-beholden to Caucus on matters of national security and beholden to the Public Service in respect of government activity. This is supposedly the special relationship that this Government has with the trade union movement, a special relationship that puts union interests ahead of Australian taxpayers' interests. Because the Government repealed the CE (EP) legislation, sections of our economy were plunged into chaos and we had the incredible situation where, in effect, militant Public Service unionists were denying an elected government Supply. That is the incredible situation that we witnessed during those five weeks. While Public Service unionists were refusing to work as directed, while they gathered around safes, while they hid cheques to prevent loyal public servants from getting access to Commonwealth money, the Government went cap in hand to the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and said: 'Please, may we chastise our errant public servants?' When at long last the Government received temporary stand-down provisions, just over 100 public servants Australia-wide were subject to those provisions. In January alone the cost to Australian taxpayers was $18m resulting from this Government's inaction. But what is the total cost throughout the community during those months and what is to be the total cost to the community before this dispute is finally resolved-$30m, $40m, $50m? Who knows? What sort of government is it that relinquishes reasonable Commonwealth powers at the behest of unions and then gets caught with its pants down, absolutely powerless, by those very same unions during an industrial dispute? It is not only an ineffectual, weak and incompetent government, but it is a very stupid and naive government. It is not surprising in a government of this calibre that we find the responsible Minister supporting a wage increase absolutely and completely outside the bounds of the Government's own wage fixing guidelines. For the benefit of honourable members, I quote from that sacred document, the so-called accord: Both parties recognise that if the essential conditions of the centralised system are met there shall be no extra claims except where special and extraordinary circumstances exist. Let me now quote from the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decision of 10 January 1985, when it threw completely out of court the spurious case of the Public Service: We have come to the conclusion that the history of the market relied on by the applicants does not support the claims. Against that history we reject the submissions that the circumstances in which the claims were brought are of a special and isolated nature. We hold that there is no anomaly requiring rectification. The Minister will note that I have quoted in full the conclusion of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission judgment. If he reads it on its merits he will note that the beginning of that conclusion dealt with the merits of the case, and the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said: We have come to the conclusion that the history of the market relied on by the applicants does not support the claims. Finally, he will note that in the last sentence of that judgment it dealt with the flow-on consequences of the case. It is spurious for the Minister to argue that it dealt with only flow-ons, because it did not; it dealt with both the merits of the case and the flow-on consequences. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission made a clear and unequivocal decision in this case. It delivered a sweeping dismissal. Yet we now find the Government whimpering back to the Commission in the face of union action and pressure, breaking its own wage fixation principles with a 2 per cent across the board offer, in order to seek a politically expedient solution to the dispute, to get the Government off the hook. The Minister is leaning on the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, and he knows it. He is prepared to lean on the Commission, to undermine its decisions, in order to get him and the Government out of trouble on this issue. His statement that the Commission's concerns about flow-ons prevented an examination of the merits of the case is false. One only has to look at the decision of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission of 20 February, if the Minister is not prepared to read the decision of 10 January properly, where it says: However, we are constrained to say that on our reading of the decision, contrary to Mr Kelty's submission- that is, Mr Kelty's submission for the Australian Council of Trade Unions- the Public Service Full Bench did consider in detail the problem which '. . . arises from the interaction of wage and salary rates within the public sectors Federal and State and between the public and private sectors'. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission examined both the merits of the case and, indeed, the flow-on consequences. The Commission found: At almost every point of comparison of minimum salaries within the clerical and administrative structure, that is, at both the base and above base levels, the survey results for the private sector are markedly less than those for the public sector. The Commission unequivocally rejected the Public Service unions' goal of the fixation of rates in close proximity to the Victorian public sector rates and ahead of all other public sector rates, noting that to rule in its favour would place public servants in a pace-setting position once again, breaching the position taken by the Government in the communique of the National Economic Summit Conference, that is: Governments have a responsibility to their own employees and consequently accept that their overall wages and conditions should be commensurate with recognised general standards while they should not be used as pace-setters. The Public Service unions argued for the setting of salaries ahead of those for comparable work in the private sector and ahead of those enjoyed by all public servants in every State except Victoria. The Commission clearly rejected their case on its merits. It is a nonsense for the Minister now to argue, and write letters to the Sydney Morning Herald as he did, saying that it was otherwise. The reality is that the Government is now pursuing a politically expedient course, which involves undermining the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in order to get it off the hook in this dispute. It is true that the Commission was concerned about flow ons; I have never denied that. That is to be found in its 10 January decision. I also am concerned about flow ons, as indeed the Minister is and should be. The possibility of another damaging wage round flowing from any wage rise over and above that awarded in the national wage case is all too real. A non-CPI linked rise for public servants would be a signal to all and sundry that the Government is weak, that it can be leant on and that it will go to the Commission and seek exemption after exemption from its own wage fixing guidelines, for this union and for that union, until wage restraint under our present centralised system is a dead letter. If that is to happen-because it is one of the consequences of this Government's response to the Public Service wage claim-indeed the Government's own beloved centralised wage fixing principles will be lying in tatters around its feet. The Minister must realise that the Government cannot have its cake and eat it too. The Government cannot support a centralised wage fixation system and then, in the face of an umpire's decision that one of the supplicants to the Commission does not agree with, turn around behind the Commission's back and seek to bring in under some exemption or another, under some reading or another which suits the Minister's own purposes, grounds for a rehearing of this case. If the Minister is about to embark on that dangerous political course he must realise that staring him squarely in the face is the death of the present centralised wage fixation system and wage restraint, of which he and his Government are so proud. It is pathetic and most contemptible that the Minister should attempt to mislead the public about the Commission's position in this case. The Commission did consider the Public Service case on its merits; any other reading of that judgment that comes to any other conclusion is simply self-serving for political interests. It considered both merits and flow-ons. It has made a courageous decision in the face of the Public Service application, and the Minister is embarking indeed on a very dangerous course if he now continues with the action proposed. What should have been said by the Government to the Public Service unions is that they should go away and reconsider the entire question of public sector remuneration in the context of the August-September consideration of the wage fixation principles themselves. The Government, if it continues with this course, faces no alternative-there can be no other conclusion -to realising that it is heralding a wage round outside indexation which is going to have very severe employment consequences indeed. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations)(3.48) -The Government totally refutes the charges that have been made and the many epithets that have been thrown at me by the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack). The fact is that he is engaging in massive misrepresentation of the Government's position and showing a gross misunderstanding of the circumstances in which this dispute is being conducted and even about the way in which this claim comes forward. It is pointless and stupid to quote the no extra claims provision as though any claim apart from that is outside the principles. The honourable member for Tangney apparently does not even know that this wage claim was brought within the principles. One can argue about the amount of the claim-indeed, about whether any amount should have been brought-but one cannot argue that it has not been properly brought under the anomalies principles. There is a right under the principles for people to bring claims for an equitable base, on the basis that there is not at the start of the indexation system an equitable base. That was built into the system, and claims based on that are not outside the guidelines. The honourable member for Tangney shows a gross ignorance of the whole wage principles if he does not understand that point. He says that any increase that would flow on that basis would be outside the principles and would destroy the wage fixation and the wage indexation systems. That is absolute, total nonsense. The fact is that this Government has strongly defended the national wage principles in everything it has done since the principles were adopted. The Government has not at any time had any intention to destroy those principles, nor indeed to undermine the Commission, as was alleged many times by the honourable member for Tangney. Of course we support the national wage principles. We were instrumental in getting them adopted, in that we strongly argued to the Commission that it should introduce those wage principles. Indeed, we supported them fully. It has also been part of our purpose in addressing this dispute to do justice to the Public Service anomalies claims. I said that it is properly brought under the principles, but it has also been our purpose in addressing that claim to ensure that the claim did not result in a wage increase which would create problems. It has also been our purpose to do all in our power to protect the public interest from the damaging effects of any industrial action which was taken in respect of this claim, such as the action which was begun in January. That has been the course on which we have embarked and, in accordance with that approach, we supported an increase of 2 per cent because we believed that such an increase was all that was justified. That is much less than the 8.3 per cent claimed. We believed that there was a case for some small increase. It is a fact that Commonwealth public servants are paid less than any State public servants and that they are near the bottom of the public sector market. On the available evidence, they are also a little behind the private sector market. However, it seemed to us that an increase of 2 per cent properly addressed the situation in respect of trying to find a balance in the overall market, public and private. We in no way believe that in supporting that 2 per cent increase we are doing anything to undermine the national wage principles. On the contrary, we are ensuring the strength of those principles by providing an equitable base upon which everyone could be satisfied with indexation. When the claim was rejected by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and union bans were imposed, we immediately informed the unions that stand-down action would be taken. I said that on the same day as the bans were announced. We also said that the bans would have no influence on the Government. We said that there would be no deals outside the Arbitration Commission, and there have not been and will not be any deals outside the Commission. To enter into such deals obviously would be an open invitation to employers and unions everywhere to negotiate outside the Commission and so destroy the wage fixing principles. From the very outset we have made it clear to the Public Service unions that, whatever their bans, they would have no effect on the Government in terms of getting the Government to agree to anything outside the Commission; that no deals would be done outside the Commission and any redress would have to come from within the Commission. We said that the bans were pointless and the unions had only themselves to blame for the dismissal of the case because they did not address seriously the flow-on issue-a factor which we addressed with great concern before the Commission-and that the unions' only further recourse, if any, was to address the flow-on issue seriously and try to get some guarantees so they could go back to the Commission and seek a re-opening of the case. Why was a re-opening of the case possible? In our view it was possible because the decision dismissed the claim because of concern over consequential claims, based on the previous history of Australian Public Service pay rises. The honourable member for Tangney has referred to the decision. Let me say to him that I do not agree with his interpretation of the words he read to the House. I go back to them. The Commission looked at the ranking schedule of some 26 employing areas-public and private but mostly public-which had been used in Public Service pay cases since 1966. It said: 'Looking at that, we do not accept that the Public Service has a right to be at any particular level of that schedule, as the unions argued'. Neither does the Government, and that is what we argued in the case. The Commission said: 'History shows that following public sector pay increases we get movement, a series of consequential claims and increases, and the Australian public servants finish back where they started'. It said that movement and not stability was the norm. We agree with that. Then, at the end of page 16 of the decision, it said: We have come to the conclusion that the history of the market relied on by the applicants does not support the claims. Against that history we reject the submissions that the circumstances in which the claims were brought are of a special and isolated nature. The Commission was saying that, if we look at history, we will see that when there is an increase there are consequential moves; therefore, in the circumstances of an equitable base claim, which under the principles has to be special and isolated-we cannot say that this is a special and isolated claim because, based on the history of wage fixation in this area, there will be consequential movements which breach the principle-the Commission cannot find that there is a rectifiable anomaly. The Commission went on to say: We hold that there is no anomaly requiring rectification. Our finding makes it unnecessary to consider the other issues which were debated during the proceedings. Of course a whole lot of other issues were debated during the proceedings. The honourable member for Bradfield sits wobbling his head as though he has achieved something. Mr Connolly —You are agreeing with me. Mr WILLIS —I am not agreeing at all; I am saying the unions have not addressed the merits of the issue and that a whole lot of issues apart from flow-ons are involved in addressing the matter of an equitable base. If the flow-on issue is put to one side and stabilised so there are no flow-ons, the establishment of an equitable base on the basis of deciding in the face of the market where is the appropriate level for the Australian Public Service can be undertaken. There would be a rectifiable anomaly in those circumstances because it would be special and isolated. That is the whole point of our argument, the whole point in saying that there is a case to take back to the Commission on those grounds. That is an extremely important part of the Opposition's case. Members of the Opposition say, having read too much of the Sydney Morning Herald, that the merits have been addressed and that the Commission has dismissed the issue on that basis. Obviously it has not. Therefore this case is capable of being re-opened. Once the flow-on issue has been addressed and set aside-assuming that can be done; it is by no means certain at this stage-it will be possible to analyse the matter on its merits. The Commission has said that it supports the Government's decision. After listening to the honourable member for Tangney saying that we are undermining the Commission, one would think that the Commission opposed what we were doing. The fact is that the Commission has supported what the Government is saying in the sense that it has said 'Yes, this case can be re-opened'. It has looked at the same evidence as the honourable member for Tangney, the Opposition and the Sydney Morning Herald and said that this matter can be re-opened. It said it could be re-opened because of the way in which the decision was made on 10 January. The fact is that the re-opening will not be an appeal; it will be a further hearing of an issue based on other material which will seek to overcome the basis on which the original decision was made; that is, to assure the Commission that there will not be a flow-on. Such an assurance would enable a hearing on the merits of the matter. That is the kind of issue we have before us. When the Commission addressed this issue following a request from the Australian Council of Trade Unions during the national wage case last week, it said: On the material before us we do not regard a relisting of the matter as being inconsistent with either the traditional practice of the Commission or the current Principles . . . Nor should such relisting be seen as being at variance with the decision of the Public Service Full Bench. Indeed, this decision was accepted as correct by all those who made submissions on the ACTU's application and its correctness was not challenged by the ACTU. It is on that basis that any further hearing must proceed. The Commission is saying that this is not some appeal against that decision; it is a further hearing starting from the point at which everyone accepts that the decision was right in the sense that it dismissed the claim because of this flow-on problem but, if arguments can be found which set that concern aside, the matter can be considered on its merits. That is what the Bench was saying in its decision in the national wage case last week. That totally confounds the argument of the Opposition, which would have the country believe we are doing something to undermine or destroy totally the Arbitration Commission. The Commission is agreeing with the Government on this issue; it says the matter can be re-opened. Mr Hodgman —Because you have stood over them. Mr WILLIS —It is absurd to say we have stood over the Commission, and the honourable member knows it. This case is one in which the Government supported the ACTU application for a re-opening, with provisos. We said we would support a re-opening only if the bans were lifted and if satisfactory flow-on guarantees were obtained. Of course, that is the hurdle that has to be overcome. The ACTU is seeking to get evidence to that effect. If it can do so, perhaps it can provide a basis on which an increase can be granted, if the Commission deems that appropriate. It certainly will not be able to do that unless it can get some sort of guarantee and overcome the concerns rightly and properly expressed by the Commission in its decision to dismiss this claim. It is also absurd to describe this as a victory for union militancy, as some have. This is not a victory for union militancy because the course I have suggested was open to the unions from day one. They could have taken that course without undertaking any of these stupid bans, which have just created an enormous amount of trouble for the nation without in any way enhancing the case of the Public Service unions, without changing the Government's mind in any way. Certainly they cannot be seen logically by anyone as a victory for union militancy. As I stated earlier, we told the unions at the outset that the bans would have no effect on the Government's position and they have not. We have gone through the stand-down procedure. We said that there would be stand-downs if they went ahead with the bans. Those stand-downs occurred; 363 people were stood down and of those 363, approximately 100 had come back to work by the time the bans were lifted. We sought the right to stand down people through the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It is true that that did take a little time. It did not take three weeks as the honourable member for Tangney said because, from the time that the bans were announced, there was quite some time before they were effectively implemented and before they were starting to have any effect. So it was not until that time that we were able to go to the Commission. We would not have been able to apply any stand-downs, even with management initiated 'no work as directed, no pay' provisions, until the bans were actually having some effect. We were able to go to the Commission, obtain those powers and stand down several hundred people. The effectiveness of the stand-down orders was reasonably substantial. We were able to get the money flowing again through the taxation area. We did have problems in the Customs area that related to standing down people who have a discretion as to how they work and as to what goods need investigation. They suddenly decided that all goods needed investigation and that created a problem in applying stand-down orders which we overcame in the last few days of the bans being applied. The Opposition claims that if the Government had not repealed the management initiated 'no work as directed, no pay' provisions under the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act, it could have prevented industrial action much more effectively. We completely and utterly reject the suggestion that repeal of these measures was ill advised. They were provocative, confrontationist, authoritarian measures typical of the Fraser Government which we will not have a bar of. They provided the Commonwealth with rights to stand down far in excess of those applying to private employers who have to go to the Commission to get these rights. There was no right of appeal. They prevented the Commission making awards to give such rights and the CE(EP) Act had even been condemned by the International Labour Organisation's Freedom of Association Committee for those reasons. The granting of powers by the Commission was delayed somewhat by legal argument but the Commission has now declared that there is a right for the Commonwealth to get these powers and that legal argument will not hold water in the future. Problems in the Customs area would have occurred with or without management initiated retirement and we will overcome those in the future. Nevertheless, we will be analysing the processes to ensure that we are able more effectively to deal with this in the future, particularly bearing in mind that this was the first time stand downs had been sought since the Public Service Arbitrator's jurisdiction had been abolished and everything brought under the Commission. There were some initial problems which will not be there on a subsequent occasion. The Government believes that its actions, far from being extraordinary, are totally satisfactory in the circumstances. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(4.04) —On hearing the alleged defence of the Government's actions in relation to the Public Service dispute it becomes quite clear that the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) failed to read on the blue business sheet the exact terminology of this matter of public importance. For his benefit I read it into the record. It states: The extraordinary conduct of the Government in its handling of the Public Service dispute. This subject can probably be best subdivided into two quite distinct sections: Firstly, the Government's handling of the dispute before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission; and, secondly, the Government's handling of the industrial disputation which resulted from it. I hope that the Minister is aware of the fact that, prior to the Public Service dispute, the Government made its position quite clear when it accepted the national wage decision of 23 December 1983 that the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission should introduce a system of wage indexation. It set down eleven principles which were also accepted by the majority of unions, including the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association and the Australian Public Service Association. In proceedings before the Academic Salaries Tribunal, however, the Government submitted: . . . the metal industries standard is the basis for adjustments to establishing an equitable basis for pay rate awards. It must be noted, therefore, that the metal industries standard has been sacrosanct for many years in Australian industrial relations as a basis for basic wage adjustments and national wage cases. The metal industries standard was qualified in this case by the Commonwealth in the medical officers case when it set a figure of 15.17 per cent. In the same case, the Australian Council of Trade Unions set the figure at 14.2 per cent. On that occasion the Government argued that, if the total post-indexation increase exceeded the metal industry standard regardless of the basis on which increases were made, no equitable base for any increase would be justified. It should be remembered that the total base indexation salary movement for the ACOA and the APSA was approximately 16 per cent at the base grade with more for higher grades. Therefore, if the Government intended to remain consistent with its earlier case, it should have refused to support before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission any increase for the ACOA and APSA members on an across the board basis. The Government's attitude towards salary increases in the public sector has always been ambivalent. When addressing the National Council of the ACOA on 4 March 1984 the then Minister for Finance (Mr Dawkins) said: When comparing the position of Commonwealth public servants to other public servants, it is extremely unfair to Commonwealth public servants. He was referring to the position of base grade clerical staff but is it any wonder that the unions at that time took it as a nod and a wink from the Government that they would be able to go before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission with an across the board claim of 8.3 per cent? It is quite clear, therefore, that at the base of this entire argument is the fact that at the first election of the Hawke Government, and since then, this Government has claimed that it has a special relationship with the trade union movement-a relationship it has also claimed to have with both the ACOA and the APSA. What has been demonstrated in recent weeks, however, is that there is no special relationship whatsoever. The dangers of the Government's actions in this field were emphasised by the Australian Financial Review on 13 May last year. It stated: For Mr Willis, the problem is that any wage increase for the Public Service, which of all the sections of the workforce is the one most directly under the Government's control, would inevitably be the occasion for a new discontent and flow-on demands from other unions. That was a clear and unequivocal warning to the Minister in May 1983. The case before the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and its decision was perfectly clear-cut. The Government was simply facing the situation of how to get out of a very difficult position. On the one hand, it had encouraged the unions to expect a wage increase and, on the other hand, it was facing very significant difficulties in supporting the principle of the accord and maintaining relationships with its employees. The Minister has claimed that the Fraser Government legislation which he rejected, 'would be an important step in improving industrial relations in the public sector'. He said that in this House on 20 October 1983. We have now seen what it means because this Minister, above all people in the Government, is well aware of the fact that it takes two sides to reach a settlement. Quite clearly, the unions in this case were determined to go against the decision of the arbitrator and decided, therefore, that industrial disruption was the only solution to their problem. This union dispute was created at a time when the unions said publicly that their objective was to smash the very essence of the Budget which this Parliament formulated. Yet the Minister claims a special relationship with the trade union movement. Is that why the Government took away the only effective teeth in the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and the 'no work as directed, no pay' provision put in place by the previous Government specifically to give Governments the ability at a time such as this when Conciliation and Arbitration Commission decisions are not accepted by the unions as in this case? I was intrigued when I read the statement made by the Minister on 23 October 1983 in this House. He said: This Government rejects such a confrontationist approach towards its own employees. The existence of legislation of this kind has acted against the development of improved industrial relations in the Commonwealth sector. Rather than encouraging a sound working relationship, such punitive legislation and action has actually led to a marked deterioration in employer-employee relations. He went on to say: . . . legislation enacted by the previous Government would not create a more rational industrial relations atmosphere in the public sector. Very few people in Australia today believe that relations, in the public sector in particular, are in any sense rational. I quote from the bete noire of the Minister, the Sydney Morning Herald, dated 9 February this year. It stated: Up to the end of office hours yesterday, only one person in Sydney, a manager in the cashier's department of the Taxation Office, had been stood down, although many of his colleagues are understood to have escaped by being hard to find when the stand-down orders were being handed out. We had another interesting case in Perth where senior officers tried to collect funds from a safe but it was surrounded by clerical officers who refused to move. I ask the Minister: Was any attempt made to stand down the people who refused to move, who refused to prevent their senior officers from carrying out their lawful duties? We did not hear a word about that. The simple fact of the matter is that the Government has set a situation in place now where it is no longer respected. It lacks the discipline to carry out its own policies in relation to its own employees. Yet the Minister comes into this chamber and attempts, in a very ham-fisted manner indeed, to try to explain that in fact what the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission said was not contrary to government policy. I ask the Minister this clear question: Why have you supported even a 2 per cent across the board flow on? If there is a case for a change in structure at the lower clerical grades-if that can be demonstrated before the Commission, and to date it has not-I would suggest that the Minister has, as I said earlier, simply encouraged the unions to believe that an across the board salary increase was a very real probability. The Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, in its judgment, made the other important point that it was very worried about a flow on; it was very worried about the leap-frogging effect of any determination which would give an increase. It is worth noting that a few days ago ACOA asked various unions to make public statements supporting the ACOA and APSA claims. For the benefit of this House, the important point which must be remembered is this: Not one word from any of those unions suggested that they rejected any increase as the basis of a flow on through the State conciliation and arbitration commissions. The historical evidence is clear-it was referred to the determination made by the Commission-that time after time, whenever there is an increase in the relativities between Federal Public Service salaries and those of State public servants, inevitably we see the flow on through to the State Public Service and the private sector, with the result that relativities are ultimately restored. My colleague the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) has made the point that in a few months time we will see this Government attempting to renegotiate the accord. I wish it well. That is all I can say on the basis of what it has done in this particular case. But, surely, it was in that context that the Public Service unions should have been renegotiating this case with particular emphasis on those clerical grades at the bottom who, as I said, may have a case. But I think it is a horrendous situation when we have a government of this country that aids and abets its own employees into expecting salary increases across the board when it has no basis in fact to grant those increases and when in fact it has gone against the determination of the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission which is, above all, the arbiter for fixing wage determinations in this country. If the Government is not going to support the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission, all we can expect in the future is a considerable degree of industrial difficulties. Mrs KELLY(Canberra)(4.15) —As an ex-school teacher, my colleagues will forgive me if I make some assessment of the speech just made by the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly). It was in the terms of a lecture to a classroom. Over the last 10 minutes we have heard a lecture delivered to this House on industrial relations. I rate the presentation of the honourable member for Bradfield reasonably highly. For presentation I give him at least five out of 10, but I am afraid on content I give him nought out of 10. The honourable member for Bradfield has failed to understand the position that the Government has taken consistently during this dispute. Members of the Government have not condoned the action taken by the Public Service in this dispute, and certainly have not done so by way of a public statement. What we have done is continually urge the Public Service unions to go back to arbitration. In a moment I want to go through the steps that we have taken in this dispute to show that, indeed, our handling of this issue is not extraordinary at all; it is very ordinary. In fact, we have fitted in totally with the industrial relations principles that we have consistently espoused since we came to office. The honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) blamed the union dispute for everything, including the devaluation of the dollar. I thought that, though this House obviously welcomes his renewed presence, he might find his time more usefully spent going to the United Kingdom to advise Mrs Thatcher on how to deal with the devaluation of the pound. I am sure that the same sorts of solutions will not be able to be put into effect in the United Kingdom. As I listened to the speeches from those two members of the Opposition I was interested to hear what solutions they would put up to solve the industrial dispute that this country has had to deal with over the last few weeks. We heard nothing new at all. Despite the fact that the honourable member for Tangney has been absent from this House during a period of opposition, he has come back with no new ideas. What solution would members of the Opposition apply to this dispute? Exactly the same as when they were in government. They would reinstate all the previous industrial relations legislation, such as the Commonwealth Employees (Employment Provisions) Act and put that into effect. They think that would resolve the industrial dispute. I, and this Government, do not believe that jack-boot industrial relations is a sensible approach. This Government has the achievements on the books in the field of industrial relations. Let me remind the House of the levels of industrial disputation over the years. Honourable members will see that with the approach the previous Government had and that the now Opposition still has, it did not stop industrial disputations; in fact, it added to them. For example, in 1981, 4.2 million working days were lost; in 1982, 2.2 million working days were lost; in 1983, 1.6 million working days were lost and in 1984 1.4 million working days were lost. The number of working days lost in 1984 was one-third of the 1981 figure. What is the policy of members of the Opposition on industrial relations? As I have said today, all we have heard is a recital of the views of the previous Government, the Fraser Government, about industrial relations. A new view has been put up by members of the back bench in dealing with the doctors dispute in New South Wales. There we have a case of right wing militants-as they are called by one of their own colleagues-withdrawing their services to the public with the Government, the community and their own peers asking them to return to work so that there can be sensible negotiations. What do members of the Opposition do? They condone that sort of action. If honourable members follow that to its logical conclusion, we will have industrial anarchy in this country. I cannot understand the position of members of the Opposition in their handling of industrial disputes at all. On the one hand they say: 'If they are Commonwealth employees, you hit them over the head and blame them for everything, including the devaluation of the dollar. However, if they belong to the private sector and if they are professionals, you handle them in a totally different way-you let them do whatever they like and you condone it'. If that is the alternative that members of the Opposition have to offer this country in terms of industrial relations, thank God that they did not get elected in the last election. They never will if they follow those sorts of policies. Members of the Opposition have accused the Government of extraordinary or unusual conduct in its handling of the Public Service pay dispute. Let me take the Opposition step by step through the role the Government took through the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). Firstly, a claim of an anomaly was first lodged by the public sector unions in December 1983. Secondly, at the initial hearing the Government supported the funding of an arguable case and co-operated with the unions by an agreement that the Public Service Board conduct the market survey of comparative wage rates. Thirdly, at the substantive hearing the Government supported the 2 per cent increase provided that the Commission was satisfied that the key provision of the anomalies provision, that anomaly increases be special and isolated and not give rise to general wage movements, was satisfied. The Commission was not satisfied that there would not be significant pressures for further wage increases as a result of any increased award, and, therefore, rejected the claim. So, in all this, the role of the Government has been to assist the unions with a survey of comparative wage rates, followed by supporting the principle for a 2 per cent increase provided key provisions of the anomalies principle are satisfied. Following intense industrial action by the unions involved, the Government applied to the Commission for the insertion of stand-down clauses in the relevant awards. The Commission accepted these applications. Late last week, as a result of an offer of resolution by this Government, industrial bans were lifted following agreement by unions to allow their revised anomaly pay claim to be reheard by a full bench of the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. What is so extraordinary about that simple process? At no stage has the Government condoned the unions imposing bans. In fact the Government took action through appropriate channels to ensure that stand-down clauses were inserted in the award. That is not extraordinary at all. I suspect the real motivation behind raising this matter of public importance today has been simply to ensure that the Public Service bashers, who are alive and well on the Opposition benches, are able to have a voice. The Opposition has raised this issue today not because it was so called, 'extraordinary' but just because it wanted to continue the theme that it pushed consistently when in government. What we see today are two alternatives. On the one hand, we see from the Opposition an approach to industrial relations which says: 'Get out the jack boots. Hit them hard. Sack them all. Don't listen to the wage claims at all, just apply the old harsh tactics in industrial relations that were offered to the community by the Fraser Government'. On the other hand, we have seen presented by the Government a sane, sensible approach which has been consistent over the whole of this industrial dispute. The Government said: 'Go back to the proper channels. Ask for a hearing, but lift your bans'. It is unfortunate that we had to impose stand-down clauses, but what was the alternative? The Opposition wants the CE(EP) Act to be reinstated in legislation so that it can be sure that public servants do not have the same rights as people employed in the private sector. To top off all that, members on the Opposition benches say: 'There are two standards. It does not matter about public servants. They should go back to work but not the people in the medical profession'. The medical profession's position is endorsed by members of the Opposition. If one follows that procedure and the philosophy of the Oppositions in terms of its industrial relations policy we will see industrial anarchy in this country. I think the Government should be congratulated on its handling of this dispute. It is unfortunate- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The debate is concluded. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(4.24) —I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meetingStanding order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m. Friday, at 10 a.m. and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, 10 a.m. Thursday, 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after the termination, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meetingStanding order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.15 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.15 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 3.45 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question will be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of businessStanding order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Presentation of papers. 3. Ministerial statements, by leave. 4. Presentation of petitions. 5. Matters of public importance. 6. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 1. Notices and orders of the day. 2. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday only). 3. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 4. Presentation of papers. 5. Ministerial statements, by leave. 6. Presentation of petitions. 7. Matter of public importance. 8. Notices and orders of the day. Question timeNew standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Friday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p.m: provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general businessStanding order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at approximately 12.45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debateStanding order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker 'that grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and, if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and, after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debateNew standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting 'for 2 hours after the meeting of the House' and substituting 'until 1.45 p.m.'. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting 'at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House' and substituting 'not later than 12 noon on each sitting day'. Notices of motionStanding orders 133, 135, 138 and 139 be amended to read- 133. Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by delivering a fair copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion which expresses a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity. 135. Subject to the provisions of standing orders 105, 133 and 211 the notices shall be entered by the Clerk on the Notice Paper, in priority of orders of the day, in the order in which they were received: Provided that- (a) general business notices received on the first day of meeting of a new session shall be entered on the Notice Paper in such an order that, as far as possible, priority shall alternate between Opposition and Government Members, and (b) 2 notices received from the same Member shall not be placed consecutively in priority of a notice received from another Member during the same sitting. 139. A Member who has given a notice of motion may alter its terms by notifying the Clerk in writing with such time as will enable the alteration to be made in the Notice Paper. Initiation of billsStanding order 211 be amended to read- 211. (a) A bill (unless received from the Senate) shall be initiated by a motion for leave to bring in a bill specifying its title, by an order of the House, on the calling on of a notice of presentation, or in accordance with the provisions of standing order 291. (b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a member by delivering a copy of its terms to the Clerk at the Table. (c) A notice of intention to present a bill shall specify its title and the day for presentation, and shall be signed by the Member and, at least, one other Member. (d) The standing orders shall, to the necessary extent, be applied and read as if a notice of presentation were a notice of motion. Divisions and quorums In all standing orders, except standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 3 minutes substituted. I will say a few words about the proposed change to the Sessional Orders and draw to the attention of the House the proposal which will come before it later in the week for the establishment of a procedures committee. It is very difficult to talk about the Sessional Orders as we are at the moment without drawing to the attention of honourable members that we are asking a joint committee to look at the procedures of this House, which may have some bearing on the decision which the Government has made today. That decision makes some minor alterations to the Sessional Orders in relation to the operation of this House. Hopefully the procedures committee will not see itself as a committee which must report back here in two or three years' time. However, there are some rather urgent matters which can be placed before it immediately and upon which the Government feels it could report to us expeditiously. We have had a major influx of new honourable members to the House. A lot of them will be amazed at the somewhat archaic traditional procedures that we continue to live with, particularly in this chamber, the procedures with which we are more acquainted than perhaps we are with those of the other place. We have to try to establish a balance between the importance of this institution-the Parliament-and the responsibility and work of the Executive and the time it must have available to it to carry out the duties and responsibilities which are thrust upon its shoulders. The timetable of the sitting hours of the Parliament has not changed much over the years. We have experimented with the sitting hours, as did the previous Government, and have made some slight alterations. The major change that took place last year was from a three-day sitting week, sitting three weeks and having a week off, to a four-day sitting week, sitting two weeks and having two weeks in the electorate. That move certainly has been applauded by members on this side of the House. Most honourable members seem to agree that this change gives them a better opportunity to do their work outside meeting their commitments in the Parliament. That is the system with which they want to continue and that is the system with which the Government has persevered in this motion today. Nevertheless, it was a major change. I know that at the end of the two weeks' sitting one is very tired. It is very exacting for members to be here eight working days straight. It means that a lot of honourable members who come from far distant areas-the north of Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory-have, on some occasions, stayed in Canberra over the weekend rather than make the long journey back to their electorates, which they did every weekend when we were sitting three consecutive weeks. It does, of course, change the pattern and obviously adds to the responsibility of finding time for Cabinet, Cabinet sub-committees and the work of the Executive. Mr Cadman —Forget the Cabinet; think about the Parliament. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member might forget about the Cabinet because it looks as though he has missed the bus, but to a lot of other people- Mr Hodgman —Don't worry about that; he will be all right. You are on your last term. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison says that we are on our last term. Irrespective of whether we are on our last term, I am now talking about the proper utilisation of time for all members-148 of them-and those people who are elected to carry out their responsibilities as Ministers. In addition there is the work of the Executive and the relationship it has with the Parliament. People should not underestimate that. I think we tend to do so before we serve in the Ministry. However, people who have had the experience of working in the Ministry will know that Ministers come into the chamber at the same time as delegations are waiting on them in their offices and they cannot tell the delegations at what time they will be able to see them. There are crucial matters to be discussed with people who visit the Parliament. Perhaps this has become a little more of a problem with the four-day sitting week than it was with the three-day sitting week. I think that is also a measure which ought to be studied by the procedures committee when it meets. I am sure back bench members will have some views that they wish to express about the matter. Some people have told me that they would prefer to go back to the old system of a three-day sitting week, but the majority seem to favour the change that was made last year, by which we are sticking. The point I make is that the procedures which have been put before the Parliament today would be subject to variation if we could be persuaded by the procedures committee that it would be in the interests of Parliament to change them as the committee brings its reports progressively before the Parliament. It is not an attempt to restrict, avoid or play down the role of any person in this Parliament; rather, it is an attempt to see that the time set aside for the sitting of Parliament is set aside for the conduct of business. Of course, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who has been attempting to interject, and other honourable members occasionally see an opportunity in the Standing Orders to take up a lot of the time of Parliament, not to conduct business but, they may argue, to exploit the opportunity given to back bench members under the Standing Orders to use that time in that way. Of course, if one makes too much of a good thing, one loses it. That is what has happened in the case of the objection which I suspect the honourable member for Moreton will make later about giving notice of motions. Mr Donald Cameron —The proper process. Mr YOUNG —It may have been a proper process but the process was abused. Twenty-seven Ministers were called in at Question Time and understood that questions would start at 2 o'clock and that their programs in the office for seeing people or meeting delegations could be started from 2.45 or 3 o'clock. Instead of that, during the last Parliament we had the spectacle of up to 27 minutes being taken up with notice being given of motions. On two occasions 27 minutes were taken up with notice being given of motions. There were hundreds of them; in the last Parliament, from 1982 to 1984, they trebled. It may seem to the honourable member for Moreton that that was a good use of Parliament, but it fails to attract my sympathy in the proper conduct of this chamber. Consequently, with my powers of debate, I have been able to persuade the Government that we ought to alter the procedure, and the Government has agreed. I know that, in the circulation of his amendment, the Manager of Opposition Business (Mr Sinclair) has suggested that we could overcome that problem by bringing on notices later in the day so that they do not interfere with Question Time. That is something that a procedures committee can look at. But, in recognition of the fact that we have done away with that time and in recognition also of honourable members' rights, we have extended the adjournment debate from 30 to 45 minutes. Mr Hodgman —Big deal! You have been talking to Valeriy Ivanov again. This sounds more like Moscow to me. Mr YOUNG —I think the honourable member for Denison enjoys adjournment debate speeches. His intellect would not take him beyond a five-minute speech. Five-minute speeches are ideal for the Opposition. That is what I think and I suggest that going from 30 to 45 minutes-- Mr Cadman —Why didn't you come up with it in the last session? Mr YOUNG —Why did the honourable member for Mitchell not get on the front bench? Why did all the New South Welshmen miss out on the front bench? No honourable member made more speeches or gave more notices in the last Parliament than did the honourable member for Mitchell, who sits at the back of the chamber. They did not impress his own Party or the Government and I am really persuaded by his performance that the alteration should be made. A few years ago, when the system operated in what we may call a normal way, there was an average of about three notices a day throughout a year. Last year the average was about 12 or 13 notices a day. It was a useless use of the time of this Parliament and was obviously something which should not be allowed to continue. A procedures committee can look at that as well as other measures. The Opposition knows what happens, from when it was in government, when Parliament is used for the useless calling of quorums. When the Fraser Government was in power, if our side of the House called quorums repeatedly, the right honourable member for New England, the then Leader of the House, using all the facilities available under the Standing Orders, would come in and say: 'There you are, fellas. You have 15 Bills and you have an hour to get rid of them. If you want to use up your time calling quorums, that is one thing'. Mr Hodgman —When are you going to put a hammer and sickle on the Speaker's chair? Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Denison should put a hammer and sickle in his mouth. He is talking himself into lasting opposition. I think the fascist Right has got hold of him. I would hate to live under his Standing Orders. Notices of motion can still be given and they will be handed in to the Clerk. In the meantime, we have extended the adjournment debate. It is obvious that the increase in the number of members from 125 to 148 will make-- Mr Donald Cameron —Who did that? Mr YOUNG —The National Party of Australia and the Australian Labor Party did that. It was initiated by the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). He put the idea forward. Mr Donald Cameron —That's not right. Mr YOUNG —He did. If the honourable member reads Hansard he will find that the honourable member for Boothby was the first person to mention that we should increase the number of members in this Parliament. If the honourable member reads Hansard he will see that I said it was not a very good idea. But then the National Party went out and hired our friend from Duntroon, Malcolm Mackerras. He went before the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform and said that it would be a splendid idea. Doug Anthony said: 'If ever you are going to increase the size of the Parliament, now is the time to do it'. But Doug picked up his half a million dollars and whizzed off. It was not going to affect him, but we were left with it. We now have gone from 125 to 148 members and, obviously, those additional members will have some impact in the Parliament. Now is the proper time to have a total review of the procedures which affect our working lives here. We must be able to utilise as best as possible the time available for the sittings of Parliament. As honourable members opposite know, the other thing about notices of motion is that, unless both parties agree that a motion should be debated, it is not debated. Therefore, notices were simply an attempt at 30, 50 or 100 seconds of propaganda before Question Time. We looked at but finally decided against-I notice that the right honourable member for New England puts forward the idea again-adopting the Canadian system whereby a certain short period of a day is put aside for back bench members to have their say. I am not altogether opposed to that system, but I would prefer-- Mr Cadman —Accept it. Mr YOUNG —It may work; it depends on the quality of those sitting opposite and at the moment I am not very impressed. Mr Donald Cameron —Your own side uses these procedures. Mr YOUNG —Of course it does, but now that it is in government it is far more responsible. Rather than just grab ideas out of the air and say 'This is what we will do and we hope it works', we have decided to refer the matter to a committee. We have all had experience of working on joint committees. Committees work successfully because when members of parliament are not before the public, they quite sensibly reach valid conclusions about matters referred to them. We will refer to a committee the way the Parliament operates. I do not think any person in this House believes that we have inherited a totally adequate system for the conduct of business in the House of Representatives. It seems to me that the proper way for the system to be totally reviewed is by a procedures committee. If that committee thinks there is some abuse- Mr Donald Cameron —You set up a committee on a tax summit; everything. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Moreton is continually interjecting. I suggest that if he cannot keep quiet he would do better to get out of the House. Mr YOUNG —The honourable member for Moreton has a great love for this institution. He does not want to see anything happen to it. One of these days I will tell honourable members why he loves it. He has a very special reason for loving this place and it has nothing to do with the Standing Orders. He does not care about the Standing Orders. Mr Donald Cameron —Tell us. My wife would like to know too. Mr YOUNG —His wife is probably sharing in it. We will not curtail business that goes before a procedures committee. I hope that the Opposition will put its best talent on that committee. We want people with ideas that will make this chamber work better than it has over the last 20, 30 or 40 years. Quite honestly, in the last few years, whenever an idea came up for making the business of this chamber more efficient and to better use the time, the government of the day, whether it was the Fraser Government or the governments before 1972, were always terrified about making any change. They always thought there might be a trick attached, or some advantage to the Opposition, in changing the procedures to which they had become accustomed. In spite of the fact that the right honourable member for New England was a very good Leader of the House, he was not a good leader in terms of the reform of procedures. He too believed that the devil you know is better than the devil you do not know. I believe that we should let a procedures committee look at the procedures of this chamber. We are not making massive radical changes to the Sessional Orders. If that committee has strong views and can reach conclusions about changes it wishes to innovate within this chamber, it can put them to the Parliament and they will receive a very sympathetic hearing from this Government. The responsibility ought to have been given to a committee a long time ago. I am sure that after we have heard from the committee this Parliament will be far more efficient than it is now or has been over the years, merely because of the change of procedures. Those new members who come here and experience the system under which we work in this Parliament, who become accustomed to the fact that they have to run backwards and forwards from their rooms every time the green lights go on-the rooms are getting further and further away in this old Parliament-- Mr Donald Cameron —That's because you are getting older. Mr YOUNG —I am getting older, and wiser. I wish I could say the same for the honourable member; he is just older and wealthier. Ultimately, honourable members, irrespective of the criticisms they may have today, will applaud me in a few weeks time. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(4.41) —I think that last Friday every member of this place realised that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had blown his marbles. He has blown his marbles both in the electorate at large and in this place. The result is that he is no longer prepared to rise here and be subject to the proper criticism and scrutiny that all of us believe he should be subject to. The result of that is that we are now engaged in an absolute farce. The Government is seeking to restrict the rights of every member of this place by making fundamental changes to the Standing Orders. These changes are designed not to protect the rights of the Parliament, but to restrict them. They are designed not to enhance the rights of individual members, but to restrict them. They are designed not to try to favour the general freedom of speech in society, not to enhance our electoral ability, but to ensure that members have less and less time in which to express the points of view for which they were elected to his place. It is all happening at a time when, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has just told us, the membership of the House has been increased by 23, from 125 to 148. Instead of there being more time for members of the House to talk about matters of importance to their electorates and constituents, there is less. Instead of there being a proportional increase in every facet of the proceedings of the Parliament, instead of the Leader of the House saying that, as we have more members we will increase the time given for questions without notice to an hour a day-- Mr Young —Ha, ha! Mr SINCLAIR —Not on your sweet life. Listen to him; he is roaring with laughter over there. He recognises what a fool the Government makes of itself at Question Time. I can well understand his not being prepared to extend Question Time. Instead of giving us a guarantee that there will be an adjournment debate every night, the Leader of the House comes up with the farcical idea that the time for adjournment debates will be extended by 15 minutes. We just happened to look at the number of adjournment debates there have been since we have had a Labor Government. Of 49 sitting days in 1983, on 12 days there was no adjournment debate. Thirteen of those debates were shorter than the 30 minutes now allocated. On 25 of the 49 sitting days we did not even have half an hour for the adjournment debate. On 12 of the days we did not get an adjournment debate at all. Yet the Leader of the House comes in here with his crocodile tears and says: 'We are giving you 15 minutes more for the adjournment'. As if that was not bad enough, in 1984 we had 52 sitting days. On 25 of those 52 sitting days there was no adjournment debate. Yet the Leader of the House says 15 minutes extra will be allocated to the time for such debate according to the Standing Orders. On another eleven of those 52 sitting days, the 30 minutes was restricted. Thus, on 36 of 52 sitting days in 1984 there was some restriction in the amount of time we had to speak on the adjournment debate. The Leader of the House says: 'Oh, gee, I am protecting your interests, boys and girls. Don't worry about it. You will have 15 more minutes'. I ask honourable members to consider that we have 23 more members and a record whereby in the last two years on more than half the number of sitting days there has been some curtailment of the 30 minutes allocated for the adjournment debate, yet the Leader of the House says he is protecting the rights of private members. What are members on the Government benches doing? I know that the Australian Labor Party has so little interest in the proceedings of the House that most of its members are not here at the moment; but put that aside. Most Labor Party members have no interest in trying to speak on behalf of their constituents or in raising matters on their behalf. Their succumbing to the wiles of the Leader of the House shows their total inability to understand that, unless there is a protection for the private member in this place, there is very little chance of individuals being able to say what they wish and when and where. The Leader of the House has said: 'Yes, but we have a new eight day sitting. It is terribly important that we have a look at the Standing Orders so we are going to eliminate the Standing Orders Committee'. That is what he thinks about providing a better form of sitting for the Parliament. He will set up a new procedures committee. What is in a name? Whether it be called a procedures committee or a Standing Orders committee makes no difference; there has always been such a committee. The Leader of the House thinks that because he changes the name there will be some inherent magic about it. It will change the Standing Orders in exactly the same way or introduce sessional orders as they have always been introduced. That will depend entirely on his preparedness as Leader of the House for the time being-we do not know how long he will be there-to accept that there is a need to try to protect the rights of individual members. But that is really only at the surface of it all. In 1983 we had a National Economic Summit Conference. We have just been through the trauma of a Federal election. The Labor Party, although it scraped home, did not really do all that well. The election was really about getting members into this Parliament. The Labor Party is not really adept at getting members into this Parliament. It reckons it cannot control Parliament the way it wants to. Where did it hold the National Economic Summit Conference? It held it in this chamber. Where will it hold the national tax summit, or whatever it is to be called? It will also be held here. What is happening in this place? Never mind being elected to Parliament. Never mind worrying about those of us who have our constituencies going back to our constituents promising to raise matters in the Parliament. Oh, no! Henceforth it will not be a matter of being elected to this Parliament; it will be a matter of getting an invitation from the Prime Minister to attend one of these summit nonsenses where everybody gets together in great fun and fellowship and the trade unions go out and write the communique in conjunction with the Hawke-Keating duo. We are now in a position in which the rights of the individual in this place will be enhanced if a summiteer but not if an elected member of Parliament. Frankly, that is not good enough. We have to understand that the reason that there were so many notices of motion in this Parliament is twofold. I think it was the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) who said that we were a pretty assiduous Opposition; and so we were. We are worried about the sorts of actions that this Government is pursuing that will affect our constituents and the principles in which we believe. It was for that reason we raised notices. Secondly, it is of interest that the number of notices from Government members and Opposition members has been about even. Not only members of the Opposition, but also members of the Government raised them. It is not a matter of it being a one-handed deal. Members on the Government back bench and all members of the Opposition felt frustration at the rare opportunities they had to speak on matters that were of importance to them. We are talking about the rights of individuals on both sides of the House to make contributions on matters that are important to them. The opportunities for individuals to canvass matters by way of a traditional procedure in this Parliament have existed since Parliament was first created in 1901. The procedure has not been introduced merely over the last few years; it is not something new. It has existed since the beginning of the Parliament. The procedure has been recognised from early times. When the monarch ruled supreme, for example, petitions were a way whereby individuals could get through to those who had authority. In this Parliament, what does the private member do? He used to have an opportunity to stand on his feet and give notice about matters that affected his principles, his electorate, his constituents, or about any other matter that he believed was within the Standing Orders and worthy of being canvassed. Under this new procedure, notices of motion will be hidden away in the Notice Paper. The Notice Paper will become compulsory reading for us all. We will have to read it assiduously to see who has been saying what about whom. The only person to know about the notices will be Mr Speaker himself. He will receive the notices and be able to say yea or nay. Not a soul in the electorate or in the Parliament will know the content of those notices unless he assiduously reads the Notice Paper. That is not always easy to do. So, looking at the expanded Parliament and recognising that there is a real need in this place to do as the Leader of the House has suggested and not to stick with the practices that have always been followed, we decided that it was essential to see whether we could improve them, and make a couple of significant modifications. I have suggested two such modifications. We all understand that the giving of notices of motion can be disruptive to the timetables and schedules of busy Ministers and members. It is sometimes difficult, when one has people waiting outside, to have to be in the Parliament for an indeterminate period while waiting to see whether one's particular item of business can be concluded. So I have suggested that first, we place a time limit-I have suggested 10 minutes-on the time allocated for the giving of oral notices. Perhaps a longer period might be satisfactory, but I think 10 minutes is a bare minimum. Secondly, I have suggested that we change the order of considering notices. Notices do not have to be given at the beginning of proceedings. They could be given, perhaps, after petitions on a sitting Tuesday or, when the House begins in the morning, immediately after petitions, which, honourable members will recall, under our present Sessional Orders, are read at the beginning of our proceedings. After prayers and petitions we could have notices for 10 minutes. I believe that would be an equitable way of meeting the valid concern that the Minister has put forward which is that too much time can be taken out of proceedings for notices. I believe that to have a 10-minute time limit for the giving of oral notices would be a very worthwhile and efficient way of protecting the rights of honourable members, recognising that there are 23 more of us in this place, and ensuring that there is a reasonable opportunity of canvassing matters of great significance. That is really the only way the matter can be handled. Of course, the elaborate procedures which enables an honourable member to move a motion of censure or to raise a very real problem by suspending Standing Orders can still continue. However, frankly I am apprehensive that the way this Government is going it may even want to cut out our voices in that respect, too. I believe that it is essential that there be at least a 10-minute oral notice period. I believe that my amendment would accommodate another procedure. It concerns 90-second statements being allowed to be made by members. I am told that in the United States House of Representatives a period has been allocated for the giving of 60-second statements by members for as long as their officers can remember. In other words, the practice goes back a long way. The United States House of Representatives is a democratic institution, unlike this place under this Government. There is no restriction on either the content of the 60-second statements or the total period allocated for them. Any decision is left entirely to the discretion of the Speaker. If there is pressing government business the Speaker will, of his own volition, defer the statements, or some of them, to later in the day when the business has been completed. Honourable members should notice that there is no restriction on either the content of the statements or the total period allocated for them. Honourable members should contrast that procedure with the procedures we have here. We do not even have a 90-second or a 60-second statement period. It must be recognised, however, that in the United States, as there are no Ministers in the House, there is no Question Time. To a degree, the 60-second statement period is a substitute. However, of course, the United States House of Representatives has a different sort of procedure. We all know that congressional hearings in the United States give individual members of Congress an opportunity to question the members of the United States Cabinet. In the Canadian House of Commons, which is similarly under the Westminster system, a 90-second statement system was introduced for private members in 1983. It is regarded as being one of the most successful innovations in the House for years. The House meets at 11 a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays and at 2 p.m. on Wednesdays. At 2 p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, immediately after the suspension of the sitting for lunch on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays and after prayers on Wednesdays, and at 11 a.m. after prayers on Fridays, the Speaker calls on statements by members. The Standing Orders do not provide for the length of the period but instead provide that at 2.15 p.m. on all days except Fridays and at 11.15 a.m. on Fridays oral questions be called on. There are certain restraints on what they may contain. Members can be instructed to resume their seats if there are personal attacks, if there is any attempt to move a motion or if the statement contains a congratulatory message or what are clearly frivolous issues. I believe that congratulatory messages are desirable. We all remember the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) last year congratulating the victors in the Sydney Rugby League competition. What is wrong with his doing that? Why does not the Minister who is at the table want his own colleagues to be able to congratulate the down town football team? I believe that a procedure of that ilk would be an advantage in this place. Therefore, I propose in the motion before the House that there be a 12-minute statement period in addition to a 10-minute oral notice period. There would be a 12-minute period within which it would be possible for honourable members on both sides of the House to make statements for a maximum of 90 seconds. I believe that procedure would protect the interests of members of the Parliament and give honourable members on both sides of the House an opportunity to present their views more adequately than they can do now. I therefore move the amendment that has been circulated in my name, that all words after 'that' be omitted with a view to substituting the two very commendable practices of ten minutes of oral notices and 12 minutes of oral statements of no more than 90 seconds duration, which would genuinely enhance democracy in this place instead of inhibiting it which the motion moved by the Leader of the House, I am afraid, will do. The Opposition opposes the motion moved by the Leader of the House in its present form. I move: That all words after 'That' be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ', unless otherwise ordered, the following amendments to the standing orders be adopted for the remainder of this session: Days and hours of meeting Standing order 40 be amended to read- 40. Unless otherwise ordered, the House shall meet for the despatch of business- (a) in the first sitting week, on- Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m. Thursday, at 10 a.m., and Friday, at 10 a.m., and (b) in the second sitting week, on- Monday, at 2 p.m. Tuesday, at 2 p.m. Wednesday, at 10 a.m., and Thursday, at 10 a.m. From the termination of the last sitting in the second week, the House shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on the third Tuesday after that termination, unless Mr Speaker shall, by telegram or letter addressed to each Member of the House, fix an alternative day or hour of meeting. The 4-weekly cycle will then be repeated. Adjournment and next meeting Standing order 48A be amended to read- 48A. At 10.30 p.m. on each Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 7.30 p.m. on each Wednesday and at 4.00 p.m. on each Friday the Speaker shall propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate; if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress and upon such report being made the Speaker shall forthwith propose the question-That the House do now adjourn-which question shall be open to debate. No amendment may be moved to this question: Provided that- (a) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; (b) if, on the question-That the House do now adjourn-being proposed, a Minister requires the question to be put forthwith without debate, the Speaker shall forthwith put the question; (c) a motion for the adjournment of the House may be moved by a Minister at an earlier hour; (d) any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of the adjournment shall be set down on the Notice Paper for the next sitting; and (e) if the question-That the House do now adjourn-is negatived, the House or committee shall resume the proceedings at the point at which they had been interrupted: Provided further that, if at 11 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday and Thursday, at 8 p.m. on a Wednesday or at 4.30 p.m. on a Friday the question before the House is-That the House do now adjourn-the Speaker shall interrupt the debate, at which time- (f) a Minister may require that the debate be extended until 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, to enable Ministers to speak in reply to matters raised in the preceding adjournment debate; at 11.10 p.m., 8.10 p.m. or 4.40 p.m., as the case may be, or upon the earlier cessation of the debate, the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting, or (g) if no action is taken by a Minister under paragraph (f), the Speaker shall forthwith adjourn the House until the time of its next meeting. Routine of business Standing order 101 be amended to read- 101. The House shall proceed on the days indicated with its ordinary business in the following routine: Monday and Tuesday 1. Questions without notice. 2. Giving notices (for a maximum period of 10 minutes). 3. Presentation of papers. 4. Ministerial statements, by leave. 5. Presentation of petitions. 6. Matter of public importance. 7. Notices and orders of the day. 8. Statements by Members (at 8 p.m.). 9. Notices and orders of the day. Wednesday, Thursday and Friday 1. Giving notices (for a maximum period of 10 minutes). 2. Statement by Members. 3. Notices and orders of the day. 4. Grievance debate or general business (at 12.45 p.m. on Thursday only). 5. Questions without notice (at 2 p.m.). 6. Presentation of papers. 7. Ministerial statements, by leave. 8. Presentation of petitions. 9. Matter of public importance. 10. Notices and orders of the day. Question time New standing order 101A be inserted- 101A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Wednesday and Friday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that questions without notice can be called on at 2 p.m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Statements by Members New Standing order 101B be inserted- 101B. (1) At the times indicated in standing order 101, a Member, other than a Minister or an Assistant Minister, may be called by the Chair to make a statement for a period not exceeding 90 seconds. The period allowed for these statements shall not exceed 12 minutes. (2) At approximately 6.30 p.m. on each Monday and Tuesday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that statements by Members can be called on at 8 p.m.: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced; and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Precedence for government and general business Standing order 104 be amended to read- 104. Unless otherwise ordered, government business shall, on each day of sitting, have precedence of all other business, except that on the sitting Thursday alternate to the sitting Thursday to which standing order 106 applies, general business shall have precedence of government business commencing at approximately 12.45 p.m. At 2 p.m. the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House and forthwith call on questions without notice: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. Grievance debate Standing order 106 be amended to read- 106. Notwithstanding standing order 105, the first order of the day, government business, on each alternate sitting Thursday commencing with the first sitting Thursday after the Address in Reply to the Governor-General's Speech has been adopted shall be a question to be proposed by the Speaker 'That grievances be noted' to which question any Member may address the House or move any amendment. The order of the day shall stand postponed until 12.45 p.m. and, if consideration of the question has not been concluded at 2 p.m., the debate thereon shall be interrupted and the Speaker shall put any questions then before the House, and, after resolution of those questions, shall forthwith call on questions without notice. General business and grievance debate New standing order 106A be inserted- 106A. At approximately 12.45 p.m. on each Thursday the Speaker shall interrupt the business before the House in order that general business or grievance debate, as the case may be, can be called on: Provided that- (a) if the House is in committee at the time stated, the Chairman shall report progress; (b) if a division is in progress at the time fixed for interruption, the division shall be completed and the result announced, and (c) the Speaker shall fix the time for the resumption of the debate on any business under discussion and not disposed of at the time of interruption. General business-priority to notices Standing order 109 be amended by omitting 'for 2 hours after the meeting of the House' and substituting 'until 1.45 p.m.'. Matter of public importance Standing order 107 be amended by omitting 'at least one hour before the time fixed for the meeting of the House' and substituting 'not later than 12 noon on each sitting day'. Divisions and quorums In all standing orders, except standing order 200A, relating to the taking of a division or the counting of the House or committee for quorum purposes, any reference to 2 minutes be omitted and 3 minutes substituted.'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Is the amendment seconded? Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(4.56) —I second the amendment. We often hear statements by the Leader of the House (Mr Young), who is sitting at the table, that he belongs to a democratic government and a democratic Australian Labor Party. However, when one looks at the figures that characterise the performance of this Government one finds that it is the least democratic government since Federation. In fact, even in the statement of the Minister today he complained vigorously about members of parliament having to come to the Parliament. He said that they would rather be back in their electorates. I remind the Labor Party that people are elected to the Parliament. This is where their jobs reside. This is where they do their jobs. This is where they represent the wishes of their constituents. What the Minister and this Government have done is to prevent members of Parliament from both sides of the House from doing their jobs effectively. It is a matter of individual taste, I guess, and I understand the difficulty of members who have come from a long away, but the sittings of the House as they presently are constituted make it very difficult indeed for back bench committees to operate effectively in this House. Of course, we all know the importance of committees in informing members of legislation, in allowing points of view to be put forward which may characteristically be against the Government's point of view. The Minister at the table also complained that Ministers have to come in here and occasionally wait. I remind him that Ministers are members of Parliament. They are not exalted beings. They would not be Ministers unless they were members of Parliament. Their first duty is to this Parliament. I wonder whether this Government really is supportive of the concepts of a Westminster style of government at all. We all know that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) considers himself to be the potential first President of this nation. However, when we see the concentration on summits on every conceivable aspect of public life, we wonder whether the Government in power at present really supports the concept of parliamentary democracy. Let me look at some of the performances of the Government since it has come to power. In relation to the rights of ordinary members of parliament-not the Ministers not the Government, but members of parliament-my colleague, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has already raised the question of adjournment debates. He mentioned the number of adjournment debates that have been held. Adjournment debates are very important for back bench members of the Parliament. They give back bench members of the Parliament the opportunity to raise issues of interest to them and their constituents in an unhindered sense. What has been the performance of this Government since it has come to power? The number of adjournment debates has been the lowest of any parliament since 1963. For the first time since 1963 this Government has brought about the lowest number of adjournment debates, in two successive years. What a performance for a Government which claims to represent the people, to preside over a democratic society, to be a democratic party. Every aspect of democracy which allows members of parliament to put forward their points of view is stifled by the actions of this Minister and this Government. In the first year of the Fraser Government, 1976, there were 10 grievance debates. In 1977 there were nine grievance debates. The number of grievance debates averaged about nine throughout the time of the Fraser Government. As soon as the Hawke Government came to power, down the figures went to an average of seven grievance debates. I turn to questions without notice. Here we have a situation in which back bench-and front bench-members of parliament can ask Ministers questions of which, at least from our side, they have not been given prior knowledge. Let us have a look at the Government's performance in this area-the effective scrutiny of a government. In 1976, the first full year of a Fraser Government, there were 1,447 questions without notice. In the second year there were 1,021. But what of this Government, which again purports to be the best government-certainly since the war years. The Prime Minister proudly boasts that his Ministers are the best since the war years. If they are the best since the war years, why are they so scared to answer questions without notice? Why do they run away from answering questions without notice? Why do we have the record in 1983 of only 597 questions without notice? The Government did even better in 1984; it reduced that number to 591. The Ministers of the best government since the Second World War do not have the courage to come here and face questions without notice. Not only do they not have the courage, they do not have the information. Let us look at the average number of questions without notice answered by members of this Government. It has averaged around 12 to 12.7 per day. Not only do we have the numbers of days of sitting reduced, we also have the numbers of questions without notice reduced, the number of adjournment debates reduced, the number of grievance debates reduced and now we have the number of notices of motion being reduced. How can any Labor member of parliament honestly report back to his or her constituency and say that he or she represents a democratic form of government? In every way this Minister and this Government are curtailing Labor members' rights as back benchers. Government members should be very conscious of their extreme responsibility and extreme privilege of being members of this Parliament. They should be defending the rights of members of parliament as assiduously as this Minister is trying to detract from them. There have been a great number of members of parliament since Federation and all of them have sought to protect the sanctity of this institution and to enhance its importance. But in the two years that the Hawke Government has been in power, it has sought at every turn and at every opportunity to reduce the importance of parliament and the opportunities of members of parliament to put forward their points of view in relation to their constituents in what should be the greatest forum in this land-the Parliament of Australia. It is absolutely appalling that the Minister can come here and, in his usual cheerful fashion, put forward, quite straightfaced, the proposition that he is after all protecting the rights of backbench members of parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth and the proof of that is in the statistics which are available and which cannot be refuted. I challenge the Minister to get up and say: 'Yes, we are in favour of more questions without notice'. Mr Young —All my back benchers are happy. Mr MacKELLAR —Well, let us hear a ringing endorsement from the back bench members. I wonder whether they are all happy about not having the opportunity to answer questions without notice. If they are, that is the most damning indictment of any political party that I have ever heard. It is a damning indictment when a Minister can get up and say that the Government has reduced the number of opportunities for back bench members to ask questions without notice and they say they are happy about it. They have been cowed into submission; the factions have got to them. It is more important to be able to ask a question without notice in one's individual faction than it is to be able to ask a question within the national Parliament. That is what the Government has reduced this Parliament to, and I think it is an absolutely shocking statement. Not only is the Minister capable of making such a statement, but his back benchers are prepared to sit there quietly without any objections while he makes it. I am certain that members on this side of the House will take back to their constituents the fact that Labor Party members of parliament are quite happy to be muzzled and gagged. They are quite happy to sit there mute in the face of the performance such as that given today by the Special Minister of State. There are quite legitimate suggestions being put forward as to how the procedures of the House should operate. I really believe that behind any proposition for alteration of the procedures of the House, we should keep in mind the importance of this institution. Every change should be designed to enhance the status of this institution in the community. Every proposition should be put forward in the belief that individual members of parliament, whether they be Ministers or back benchers, whether they be in government or in opposition, have the opportunity to take part in debates on the great issues of the day and, at the same time, have the opportunity to bring forward matters of concern to them and their constituents. That is what we are here for; that is what we are elected for; that is what we are paid for. We are not paid to be back in the electorates; we are paid to be in the Parliament, representing the people who elected us or who are in our constituencies. I acknowledge that there are proper suggestions for alterations to our procedures but I suggest that the background to those alterations should be designed to enhance the Parliament and the opportunities of individual members to put forward their views. The fact is that every change so far brought in by this Government and this Minister has detracted from the status of the Parliament as an institution and has reduced the opportunities available to individual members to put forward their points of view. The Opposition, rather than being negative, has put forward positive suggestions. I urge the Minister and the Government to take these suggestions in the spirit in which they have been put forward. We believe these suggestions would do much to add something to the opportunities available to individual members of parliament and to make certain that the constant reduction in such opportunities is at least halted for a moment. It would also give an opportunity for a further committee to review all the procedures and come up with further suggestions. We put forward this amendment in a spirit of seeking to improve the workings of the House and we suggest that the Government should accept it. Certainly, we suggest to individual back bench members of the Government that they should look very carefully at propositions which further reduce their opportunities as members of parliament. One's position as a member of parliament should transcend any party political allegiance in the final analysis. I know that that is a terribly difficult concept for a member of the Labor Party to take in but, in fact, that is the way it should be. If a parliamentary democracy is to work and if Parliament is to remain a great institution, individual members of parliament must pay the utmost respect to that institution and to their privileges and opportunities within it. If any government, of any political persuasion, seeks to reduce the opportunities of individual members of parliament to play their role in that Parliament properly, those individuals should revolt against such a proposition. Our proposals are positive and they enhance the status of the Parliament. They also provide opportunities for back bench members and I urge the Government to accept them. If the Government will not accept them, I urge Government members to show a little bit of courage and support them. Mr SPEAKER —The original question was: 'That the motion be agreed to'. To this motion the Leader of the National Party has moved as an amendment: 'That all words after ''that'' be omitted with a view to substituting other words'. The question now is: 'That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question'. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the question be now put. The bells being rung- Mr Donald Cameron —This is shocking. This is disgraceful. Mr Hodgman —This is absolutely disgraceful. Why don't you rip the Australian flag down and put the hammer and sickle up. It is disgraceful. You rigged the boundaries last year. Why don't you- Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Moreton and the honourable member for Denison persist in that sort of behaviour, they will be named immediately. Mr Hodgman —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, prior to your taking the chair on coming into the chamber, the honourable member for Moreton and I had been rising in anticipation of the call. As soon as we endeavoured to rise for the call upon the completion of the remarks by the honourable member for Warringah, you stated the question, as you were entitled to do. My respectful submission is that it was quite improper for the Leader of the House to gag the debate while you were carrying out your duties and stating the question to the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There are two aspects to the honourable member's point of order, one of which is as to the question before the House. An amendment had been moved and seconded, and therefore that amendment had to be stated to the House, which I did, at which stage the Leader of the House got the call. As to the calling of yourself or the honourable member for Moreton to speak, that is a matter of explanation not a matter of order. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Scholes, G. G. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Sinclair's amendment) stand part of the question. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, J. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Scholes, G. G. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 62 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 13 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Klugman, R. E.Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R.Hurford, C. J. Wright, J. W.Jacobi, R. Young, M. J.Jakobsen, C. A. Adermann, A. E. Hodgman, W. M.Aldred, K. J. Howard, J. W.Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Braithwaite, R. A. Lloyd, B.Brown, N. A. McArthur, F. S.Burr, M. A. McGauran, P. J.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Scholes, G. G. D. Wilson, I. B. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That, in relation to the proceedings on any sales tax Bills, so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent- (a) the presentation and the first readings of the Bills together; (b) one motion being moved and one question being put in regard to, respectively, the second readings, the committee's report stage, and the third readings, of all the Bills together; and (c) the consideration of all the Bills as a whole together in a committee of the whole. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(5.29) —This is only a formal motion, and the Opposition offers no objection to it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Ms Jakobsen, for the Committee appointed to prepare an Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General, presented the proposed address which was read by the Clerk. Mr SPEAKER —Before the honourable member for Cowan commences her speech on the Address-in-Reply, I remind honourable members that this is a maiden speech and ask the House to extend to the honourable member the usual courtesies. Ms JAKOBSEN(Cowan)(5.30) —I move: That the following Address-in-Reply to the Speech of His Excellency the Governor-General be agreed to: May it please Your Excellency: We, the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Australia, in Parliament assembled, desire to express our loyalty to our Most Gracious Sovereign, and to thank Your Excellency for the Speech which you have been pleased to address to Parliament. I am pleased and honoured to move this motion on behalf of the Government and I thank my colleagues for the privilege. Firstly, Mr Speaker, in accordance with convention, may I congratulate you on your re-election to your high and important office. I understand and have observed during my short time here that you discharge your duties fairly and in a good natured manner. From all accounts, the respect which members of this House have for you personally equals the respect they have for the position which you hold. I assure you of my co-operation during my term in this House. I congratulate also the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees on her re-election and on the high esteem in which she is held in this House. I enter this Parliament as a member of the Australian Labor Party and as the elected representative of the people of Cowan in Western Australia. By electing me, the residents of Cowan have indicated their approval of and support for the Hawke Government's achievements during its first term in office and for the continuance of its policies of economic reconstruction and national reconciliation. In accepting the privilege the electors have conferred upon me, I undertake to represent them to the very best of my ability. The seat of Cowan was formed as a result of the redistribution last year and comprises the northern segment of the old Stirling electorate and the southern section of the old Moore electorate. I am indebted to my colleagues the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard) and the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards) for their ministrations, in days gone by, to the residents of what is now my electorate. As the beneficiary of their, and the Labor Party's, electoral goodwill, I thank them. The electorate is named after Edith Cowan, the first woman to enter Parliament in Australia and only the second woman to achieve that distinction in the British Empire-the first being Lady Astor. It is claimed that when Edith Cowan was first elected the Age warned that if her example were to inspire other women there would be 'many dreary and neglected homes throughout the country sacrificed on the altar of political ambition'. I hasten to assure the House, and the Age, that my home is no more dreary or neglected now that I am a member of parliament than it was before I became one. Indeed, I gladly and gratefully acknowledge the support and assistance I have received from my husband and my children in reaching this place. The welfare of women and children was always of great concern to Edith Cowan, and her work in founding the King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women in Western Australia is well known. Mrs Cowan was also associated with the Children's Protection Society and she founded the Women's Service Guild. She was an outstanding personality in the women's movement both in Western Australia and Australia, and was an active and courageous social reformer. Edith Cowan always hoped that the way she had paved for women's representation in the Parliament would be followed by more members of her sex. As a woman I am proud to have followed her example. I applaud her achievements and her memory and am privileged to represent the electorate which honours her name. Those honourable members who are familiar with Western Australia's geography and demography will appreciate that the electorate of Cowan is situated in the northern growth corridor of Perth's metropolitan area. It is primarily a residential seat with large numbers of homes under purchase and/or construction. Many of the newer residents have benefited from the Government's first home owners scheme and many more have been assisted by its achievements in lowering interest rates and inflation. Because families in my electorate, by and large, face substantial mortgage repayments, they are particularly sensitive to movements in interest rates and associated economic policy. Others, who are not in a position to build or buy their own homes, are concerned about the allocation of Federal money to public housing through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The majority of residents in Cowan have relatively young families and are extremely concerned about taxation policy. The Institute of Family Studies has found that between 1975-76 and 1984-85 families with children had the highest tax increases, with large families encountering the greatest average tax rate increases. Accordingly, I welcome the taxation review which is to take place later this year and the Government's undertaking to make the tax system fairer, simpler and more efficient. It is imperative that income be redistributed more equitably and more progressively. Together with the taxation review, the Government has signalled its intention to reintroduce the bottom of the harbour Bills which were rejected during the last Parliament. In doing so it has clearly renewed its commitment to give the highest priority to measures against tax avoidance and evasion, which constantly undermine the equity of our taxation system. As a person interested in and concerned about issues affecting women in our community, I count myself fortunate to be a member of a government which possesses such a formidable record of action in this area. In particular, the ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women was a milestone in Australia's political history. It is pleasing to note that the Government's affirmative action pilot program is receiving excellent co-operation from the companies and departments involved. One of its major achievements to date has been the improvement in community attitudes towards women, especially in terms of employment. In my electorate women with children have a desperate need for more child care and family day care services. The Government's commitment to create an additional 20,000 child care places will hopefully mean that they can look forward to an improvement in their position in the near future. Discussions are currently taking place between Federal, State and local government representatives in the Wanneroo area with a view to ensuring maximum community involvement in the provision of children's services and a substantial increase in the care available. The Governor-General's address also refers to Australia's participation in International Youth Year activities. Young people are the foundation of our future as a nation and I am confident that the foreshadowed examination of issues affecting young Australians will realistically address the problems of youth unemployment and homelessness, among other things. Too many young people in my electorate are affected by the tragedy of unemployment and suffer the problems of despondency and low self-esteem which long periods out of work inevitably induce. Some of these young people have become involved with community youth support scheme groups in the area and others have taken up activities organised by education program for unemployed youth, or EPUY, groups. Many have been assisted by the Government's employment creation initiatives through the community employment program, which is designed to assist disadvantaged groups and individuals. Prospects for teenage job seekers remain optimistic as a result of the Government's in principle acceptance of the Kirby recommendations on youth traineeships and its intention to move urgently in the youth policy area. Where youth employment is concerned it is also necessary to encourage actively private enterprise to adopt a more responsible and sympathetic attitude to employment generation and training for young people. Furthermore, employer groups need to shelve their constantly reiterated calls for a reduction of youth wage rates as a solution to youth unemployment. It is nothing more than a recipe for the exploitation of young people already in the work force. To the extent that more jobs may be provided for young people, these would necessarily be at the expense of adults-possibly those with families to support-who are presently employed in relatively unskilled occupations. The net contribution of such a scheme to the overall problem of unemployment would be nil and young people in the work force would find themselves substantially worse off in wage terms. At this stage I pay tribute to two groups in my electorate which have been working to assist unemployed young people for some considerable time. Both groups have shown initiative and determination in the way they have responded to particular obstacles and challenges confronting them. The Whitfords community youth support scheme has acquired its own building and has now embarked on a project to extend a helping hand to another needy and worthwhile organisation which arranges therapeutic activities for the disabled. This group-CATA as it is known-is seeking government financial assistance but has the misfortune of failing to fit into any of the funding avenues available to groups providing valuable community services. The Balga community youth support scheme has been operating in extremely cramped premises for some time and has now taken the matter into its own hands by launching an appeal for funds from the public for the specific purpose of overcoming its accommodation difficulties. I wish both organisations well in their respective endeavours now and in the future. The work that they do is greatly appreciated by the community at large as well as by the young unemployed people they so ably assist. There is also a need within my electorate for another community youth support scheme in the Girrawheen area where unemployment levels are disproportionately high. I shall continue to pursue this matter through the appropriate channels. I also gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the Anglican health and welfare services in pursuit of Skills West funding for a program to improve the employment skills of women in the Girrawheen area and their endeavours to gain the support of local employers for an employer attachment scheme involving work experience and training. The Governor-General, in his Speech, also referred to the Government's intention to establish principles for national land rights legislation in recognition of the fundamental importance of the land to Aborigines. As Australians we must all acknowledge, accept and honour the historical debt we owe to the Aboriginal people, whose traditional lands were acquired by early white settlers without the benefit of a treaty. Racism and paternalism can no longer be tolerated in this country. Aboriginal people must be permitted to reclaim as much of their heritage as possible. Their dignity as a people and their future participation as citizens of this country depend upon this being achieved. The eyes of the world are on Australia over this question. No amount of political posturing will disguise attempts to shy away from our national obligation in this significant and long overdue area of basic human rights. I am pleased to acknowledge the support and encouragement of many church and community groups in my electorate and elsewhere in Australia on this aspect of Federal Government endeavour. Another area of national and international importance, which this Government is squarely facing up to, is the issue of peace and disarmament. As a member of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom I urge the government to continue its efforts to promote the proposals for a South Pacific nuclear-free zone and an Indian Ocean zone of peace. In the same vein, I extend my sincere congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and the Federal Labor Caucus on the courage of their decision to review the commitment relating to MX missile tests. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, this issue is of great concern to a broad section of the Australian community. There is a groundswell of public opinion and the Government would have been insensitive and irresponsible to have ignored that opinion. As stated in the Governor-General's Speech, this Government remains deeply and firmly committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament. I am confident that it will continue to have the fortitude and determination necessary to respond to the wishes of the people on issues of national importance such as these. After all, as Edith Cowan is reported to have said, the aim of all parliaments should be the peace and happiness of those for whom they legislate. I thank honourable members for their attention. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the honourable member for St George, I point out to honourable members that this also is a maiden speech and I ask the House to observe the usual courtesies. Mr DUBOIS(St George)(5.44) —I am honoured to second the motion moved so ably by my colleague the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen). I am grateful to my colleagues for allowing me to make my maiden speech so soon after my arrival in this Parliament. I also join the honourable member for Cowan in congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election as Deputy Speaker of this House and Chairman of Committees. Your reputation as a parliamentarian has made you a household name in political circles for some time. I first came to know of you some years ago when your colleagues from Sydney spoke highly of you. When I came to this House you made me feel most welcome. I was a new member and it was a strange place for me, but you extended that warm friendship that made me feel at home. I am sure that experienced members will remember their first term in this Parliament and they would understand my gratitude to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your assistance. I ask you to convey to Mr Speaker my congratulations upon his election once again as Speaker of this House. He discharged the important duties of Speaker in the Thirty-third Parliament with great distinction. This House is all the richer in having him once again occupy the great office of Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, I make this pledge to you and to Mr Speaker: I will refrain from unruly behaviour in the House. I will respect and obey the rulings that are made for the orderly conduct of debate in this House. I know that I will honour that commitment. The Governor-General's Speech to members of the Parliament of Australia is a blueprint for continuing growth. If we put the nation's interests before selfish indulgence surely we must accept that the Government's program, embracing a reconciliation between separated elements of our society, coupled with a co-operative effort for the common good, is the only path to follow. Gone are the past animosities pitting Australians against Australians to achieve cheap and temporary gains for some. Gone are the mutual suspicions fostered for so long that restricted our development. In their place we have a new relationship of co-operation and it has produced results. We will build on these successes as this Government takes us into our bicentenary and beyond. It is an appropriate tribute to this Government that it has been entrusted by the Australian people to take us through this very important time in our history. The economy is making great strides towards full recovery. The prices and incomes accord has led to real and lasting gains for all Australians. The Government's economic programs are successful. His Excellency made it clear in his speech that they will continue. At the coming tax summit all will be invited to contribute their ideas to decide what changes might take place. The Government will extend its employment and community welfare programs. Greater resources will be directed towards further improvements in education and other initiatives to achieve a stronger, fairer and more equitable society. I take this opportunity to thank my campaign workers in St George for, without their tireless efforts, I might not be here today. I particularly thank my wife, Annette, for her endurance, advice and understanding. Never once during those long days and what seemed even longer nights did she fail to be anything but my most energetic worker. I thank Mrs Val Backvall for her generous support through the election campaign and I thank the many other workers too numerous to name individually. I am also indebted to my predecessor, Bill Morrison, a neighbour, a good family friend and a political colleague for many years. I have always respected his advice and valued the close rapport we have enjoyed for many years. I wish the Morrison family well as they continue to serve Australia's interests in another role. The division of St George was created in 1948 and I am honoured to be the seventh member to represent the interests of all the people of St George in this Parliament. The electorate of St George has been represented by the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia four times each prior to my election. Two members have represented the seat twice, the first was Bruce Graham and the other was Bill Morrison. I am the first member for St George to follow a predecessor from the same political party. A great Labor tradition has commenced. I am aware of the impressive record that Bill Morrison made here as a parliamentarian and a Minister, and I am honoured to take the baton from him. St George was once regarded as a most marginal electorate. I am grateful that Bill left it in such good shape. I will ensure that St George will always remain a safe Labor seat. I first came to Australia in 1951, as a child, from a place now known as Vanuatu. It was there, as a child, even though I was a member of a privileged class, that I found I could not accept the glaring differences between the standard of living enjoyed by the European colonists and that of the Melanesian people. It was there that my deep compassion for the underprivileged was formed and the seeds of my later political commitment were sown. I still retain my compassion and deep commitment to assist the less fortunate. It was not until late 1972 that being an Australian took on a new dimension for me and for millions of my fellow citizens. We had gone through a period when privilege had become entrenched, Australia was regarded as a European appendage in Asia and we suffered from the disastrous involvement in Vietnam. But all this came to an end with the election of a Labor Government. For me this was the time when Australia came of age and my commitment to the great principles of the Australian Labor Party have not diminished since that time. Late in 1984 I was called by my Party to contest the seat of St George. Once again the electors of St George declared their support for the Labor Party and I was sent here to join my colleagues to form the second Hawke Labor Government. The people of St George joined other Australians in reaffirming their faith in the Government and gave it a clear mandate to continue the work it had started-to build a better, fairer and more prosperous society. They had good reason to place their trust once more in a government dedicated to improving the lot of so many who had been neglected in the past. St George is a compact suburban electorate of some 31 square kilometres. Those honourable members who have flown to Sydney would most likely have flown over it. While they would be most warmly welcomed, the aircraft noise many of our residents have had to suffer over the years is not so welcome. The residents of St George were at last offered some hope of relief from this noise pollution when the Labor Government took some positive steps in looking for a site for Sydney's second major airport. The people of St George have made welcome a significant number of migrants from Greece, Italy, Yugoslavia, Lebanon and many other parts of the world. The problems of resettlement are many and varied and I am committed to helping these people find their place in this great country of ours. They know the solid achievements of the Labor Government and the continuation of those policies will create more jobs to alleviate the higher than average unemployment level among the migrant communities. They know that the value of their savings has been protected from the ravages of high inflation. They know that we can achieve our goals by working together. They know this Government is committed to ensuring that there will be no second class citizens in Australia. St George has all the richness of a mixed community working together in harmony with understanding and tolerance. The young people of St George, who will become the men and women of tomorrow, can look forward to their future with confidence. They will continue to benefit from the programs that will provide jobs and expand the opportunities for those who wish to continue their education. The foundation stones have been laid for a better tomorrow. With a young family myself, I understand their aspirations and I will be aiming to assist my young constituents to extend their education and in getting jobs. The senior citizens of St George, whose past labours have given us what we have today, know that they can enjoy their well earned retirement in dignity. They were recently subjected to disgraceful scare tactics designed to frighten them into voting against a Labor government that has always in the past, and indeed will in the future, look after their interests. They contributed to that vote of confidence in this Government and their trust is well placed. To all the citizens of St George I repeat the pledge I gave to the electors: I will strive diligently and energetically to serve their interests and to make St George an even better place to live. The electors gave me a clear signal, with such a comfortable majority at the 1 December election, that they want me to contribute as a member of this Government to building a better future for Australia. I look forward to the task ahead of us. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(5.56) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election to your high office. I wish you well in your further term. I also offer my congratulations to the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) on the occasion of their maiden speeches in this place. I hope that they enjoy their stay in this place. I would not go so far as to hope that it will be a long one; nevertheless, I hope it is enjoyable for them. It is important to remember that the Speech delivered by His Excellency, the Governor-General, was written by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), or more likely by his speech writers. Any criticism of it is not, therefore, to be deemed to be criticism of His Excellency. In the Governor-General's Speech the Government claims a clear mandate for its socialist objectives. Nothing could be further from the truth. If any honourable members opposite doubt that conclusion, let them urge the Government to spend more taxpayers' money on one of those surveys they are wont to commission at the drop of a political hat, to ask the voting public what it expects and what it believes is the Government's mandate. The outcome of a properly constructed survey would be unquestionably different from the mandate this Government will claim it was given as it tries to justify some of the more outrageous legislation, no doubt under pressure from its Left factions, pursuant to its objectives to socially engineer Australian society in the image of its more vociferous ideologues. The in words under this second Hawke Government promise to be 'inadequate, inconsistent, incompetent and insincere'. Definitely out is the word 'integrity'. The Speech which is the catalyst for this debate gives more than one clue to the inadequacy, incompetence and insincerity of this Government. The first example has been mentioned already. The second is found in the fourth paragraph of the printed version. It claims for this Government, just two short years after it was first elected and less than three months after an unnecessary election, that Australia has experienced the strongest and most sustained economic performance for decades. Mr Drummond —What a load of rubbish. Mr ROCHER —I thank the honourable member for that comment. We now have something that we have had to endure described as 'sustained performance'. If anything this Government has claimed for and of itself, that is the most damning. It makes abundantly clear the shortsightedness and short term thinking of this poor excuse for a government which makes pretentious claims about its fiscal competence. After a mere two years we are urged to believe that Australia has witnessed the strongest and most sustained economic performance for decades. Never mind that the Australian currency has depreciated to its lowest level since Federation. Never mind that the deficit on the current accounts of the balance of payments is going through the roof. Never mind the highest Budget, accumulated deficits and attendant interest on borrowings in living memory. Never mind all that and more; we are being asked to believe Australia has experienced the strongest and most sustained economic performance for decades. Heaven help us. It is absolute rubbish of the sort that brings politicians into disrepute. So too is the entreaty to this Parliament to provide the legislative basis on which the Prime Minister claimed commitments to the electorate are to be carried out. When has this Prime Minister earned accolades for keeping his election promises? In less than two years in office he has broken and failed to keep more election pledges than any Prime Minister this century. Mr Andrew —Ask my grape growers. Mr ROCHER —Ask the grape growers. Ask a lot of people. Ask the elderly, ask the kids trying to get into colleges or universities, ask a whole bunch of people around the country. Mr Andrew —Ask the unemployed. Mr ROCHER —Ask the unemployed. Undoubtedly the Prime Minister is the world record holder for broken election promises. If, as stated, it is the Government's intention to maintain its approach to economic policy, we should pray that that will be another broken promise. If that one is not broken there will be more pressure on the Australian dollar, there will be more pressure on the balance of payments and the levels of our reserves, and there will be more pressure for big deficits for future generations of taxpayers to service and repay. It has always been difficult for rational people to accept the so-called prices and incomes accord as anything like a sustainable panacea for our economic well-being and progress. The ink was hardly dry on that apology for a binding agreement before the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) was scouting for a way in which the building industry unions could subvert its provisions. That little episode has not yet reached its conclusion but it will after the next national wage case is decided. Then, with the Minister's support, we will see a campaign for a non-contributory, industry funded superannuation impost at an amount struck by or with the connivance of the Minister. Accord or no accord, the cost of employment will continue to escalate at a rate far greater than inflation as measured by the consumer price index. The big government backed assaults on the costs of employment during the coming year will include two national wage case increases. These will go hand in hand with the widespread imposition of compulsory superannuation in industries in which, until now, it was purely voluntary, and supplemented by implementation of a national occupational health and safety program. On top of that there is likely to be a cost to employers in meeting the, as yet, undefined demands of that other arm of government under an Australian Labor Party administration, more commonly known as the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Altogether the expected blowout in the costs of employment will have dire consequences for our unemployed and our standard of living. On the one hand it is not much good for the Government to be expressing universal concern for those who have experienced the effects of prolonged unemployment while, on the other hand, it continues to foster and support wage structures which will perpetuate high levels of prolonged unemployment. There is not much to be said for a commitment to centralised wage fixing and an archaic industrial relations system which condemns so many of our breadwinners and our youth to entrenched, irreversible unemployment. This incompetent Government has thrown up its hands and admitted that hard core and long term unemployment are too hard to handle. It is walking away from the problem. This is evidenced by its propaganda-like mind conditioning rhetoric but only because it is unable to escape the manacles applied by its masters in the unions and the claustrophobic limitations of its accord with the ACTU. The infamous accord, which is the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain's peace in our time deception, is now being seen for what it is not. It is not a formula for industrial peace in our time, as evidenced by the debacle of the recent Public Service strike, which has been euphemistically described as a work bans campaign, or unabated strikes and industrial disruption throughout the building industry. The strength of the accord in curbing the excesses of unions is a hairless Samson if the industrial sabotage of grain and coal handling facilities is remembered. Countless industrial relations issues have simmered uncertainly and boilovers are now even more in prospect, and this Government will be powerless to act unless it can break the bonds of its accord with the unions and exercise the right and duty of a democratically elected government, which, after all, is elected to govern all Australians. That it has the ability to govern for all is doubtful; that it has the will is improbable; that it and its Prime Minister have the integrity is simply out of the question. Not only has the Government walked away from difficult industrial relations problems but also it has abandoned economic problems largely of its own making. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has simply thrown up his hands and walked away from the burgeoning growth in the supply of money. Because his target of an 8 to 10 per cent growth in M3 was exceeded in both November and December-it reached 11.8 per cent-it is all too much to be bothered with. The January figure for M3 which is to be announced this week will probably show that it is growing at a rate of around 12.5 per cent or some 25 to 30 per cent above the Treasurer's forecast for this financial year. Despite the expectations of sane men everywhere, corrective action is not even being contemplated. This blowout is only part of the picture anyway. Probably more important is the growth of broad money supply, and that is also out of control. However, the Treasurer's response is the same. He is doing nothing. He is ignoring his own forecasts and refusing to issue amended predictions now that it is inevitable that his earlier goals cannot be met. That is hardly imaginative or responsible fiscal management. It will be steady as she goes under this Government, even if that means going steadily down the gurgler. There is to be nothing like bringing forward the projected May bond tender and testing the market by seeking around $1,000m to soak up excess liquidity. That theme or a variation of it would go some way towards reassuring domestic and overseas investors and observers. The nomination of new money supply goals, if coupled with a believable undertaking to stick to them, would go some way towards restoring faith and confidence. If the Treasurer is content to continue to sit on his hands and do nothing to restore confidence by taking positive steps to tell the nation that the growth of money is receiving attention, at least he may be cajoled into making the most of the collapse of the Australian dollar. If we must live with his fiscal ineptitude, we could at least go some way towards taking a golden opportunity to match the rhetoric of successive governments and reduce the levels of tariff and other protection. I say it is a golden opportunity because depreciation of the international value of our dollar by around 15 per cent means that large sections of our protected manufacturing industry are approaching 30 per cent more competitive against imports. That is a direct consequence of the deflation of our dollar and it is a golden opportunity to do those things which successive Prime Ministers have said overseas, repeated time and again in international forums while away from these shores and have come back to this country and ignored. Apart from being in line with the stated preferences of many in the Government and Opposition parties alike, lowering the tariff would help to ameliorate the inflationary effects of both the cascading dollar and the blowout in the stocks of money. Of course, it would be too much to expect the Treasurer to do the right thing then and amend the Government's submission to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission by telling it that the Government's argument in favour of a 2.6 or 2.7 per cent across the board wage increase was predicated on wrong forecasts and wrong information. It would be too much to expect the Government to say: 'Because we did have the wrong information, because the figures we now have tell a completely different story, we have to submit to the Commission that there should be no 2.6 or 2.7 per cent increase across the board. The economy of the country will not now stand it, nor will the employers of Australia cop it and still be able to maintain employment'. That would be too responsible. While the Prime Minister admits to fallibility, albeit when caught by his left wing with his MX exposed, we have yet to hear the Treasurer confess to his mistakes or miscalculations; nor, it seems, are we likely to hear him. Much is happening under this socialist Government that is worrying for decent Australians, who look to the Commonwealth for strong leadership. We are witnessing the transition from the first Hawke Government to a government of appeasement-from the first Hawke Government of broken and unkept promises to a government of appeasement. Most of all, the transition is apparent within the Australian Labor Party where we see appeasement of its Left faction, its Centre Left faction, its broad Left faction, its Centre faction, its Right faction, its independents and, through them, a plethora of minority interest groups. Leadership is diminishing as we see the dominance of the Australian Council of Trade Unions over the Government and the growing influence of an irrational nuclear disarmament movement, as well as the growing influence of apologists for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics masquerading as unilateral disarmers. Mr Braithwaite —They are taking control. Mr ROCHER —They are taking control, indeed. We see other groups getting increasing comfort from this Government as it finds itself locked into the union movement and the minority interest groups of which I have spoken. Amongst those receiving increasing comfort are mediocre educators with mediocre education standards. We are seeing the appeasement of those who would like to see a massive transfer of resources from the wealth-creating achievers by oppressive taxes and government charges. We are seeing comfort being given to those who would diminish our ability to develop a credible defence force. We are seeing comfort being given to those who denigrate and undermine our defence and trade alliances with the free countries of the world. On the last occasion on which I spoke in an Address-in-Reply debate, which was early in 1983, I said that there is much for this Government to do. Leadership has to be shown. There is little evidence of it but it is not too late. Despite my desire to see in government my Party, in coalition with the National Party of Australia, the affairs of Australia demand that we have responsible leadership from the present Government. Mr Tuckey —God save Australia. Mr ROCHER —God save Australia, indeed; never mind Sir John Kerr. We have seen an abdication of responsibility by the Prime Minister, ably supported by his Ministry. I said in 1983, and I say again, that the thing confronting Australia, apart from the need for leadership and strong and positive management of this country's affairs, is concentration on our economy. The Government should stop trying to chase every rabbit down every burrow and get on with the job of managing the country and its economy. It should ignore the diversions of those outrageous reformers who seek to influence it. They should await their day and their turn and allow the Government to get on with the business of managing the economy of this country and keeping us out of the unholy mess that we will be in if it does not accept its responsibilities. I presume this Government will go its full term, unlike the previous one. The Prime Minister would be unlikely to pull on an early election, although no one could doubt his wisdom in calling the election held on 1 December. It is now patently clear that, had that election not taken place, the coalition parties would have been returned to government. The Prime Minister's timing was impeccable-- Mr Braithwaite —Did you see the last Bulletin poll? Mr ROCHER —The Bulletin polls indicated that. Unlike the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), those of us parliamentarians who seek to represent our electors rather than serve the government of the day, know from feelings within our electorates that opinions have changed radically and dramatically since 1 December. The Government is on notice. I hope it takes some cognisance of that notice and the warning it has been given-not because I think it deserves to govern but because it will be in the interests of the people of Australia. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(6.16) —Madam Deputy Speaker, before I commence my speech, I lend my congratulations to those who have gone before in congratulating you on your election to high office and to express my pleasure at seeing you again in the chair. Prior to the last 20 minutes, I had decided that I should resist the temptation to comment on the Opposition's trivialising of issues facing Australia. But, having sat through the speech by the honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher), I find it very hard not to comment on the contradictions and waffle in it. I suggest that anybody who takes the trouble to read the speeches by Opposition members should look very closely at the inherent contradictions and sheer nonsense in them. In the Address-in-Reply debate I think it is appropriate to pick up a statement from the Governor-General's Speech. I refer to page 8 of that Speech. The Governor-General said: The Government will continue to attach the highest importance to its efforts to achieve defence self-reliance. Within the parameters of economic policy, it will increase investment in the capacities of Australian industry to design, manufacture and maintain defence force equipment. (Quorum formed) I certainly must express my admiration for the great improvement in the skill and cleverness of the Opposition in its tactics in the House; I see it has really learned something! I return to the Governor-General's Speech. He speaks of the highest importance being attached to achieving self-reliance in defence. Self-reliance is a term that comes to mind easily but it has enormous implications for Australia. In the late 1930s and early 1940s this nation relied on defence pacts to protect the future of the country. We went from being a nation with virtually no defence manufacturing capacity in 1941 to being one of the world's foremost aeronautical manufacturers and munitions manufacturers by the late 1940s. Certainly Australian industry and the Australian people showed their capacity to become self-reliant when the need arose. In the last 35 years Australia has been taken back by our predecessors to the situation of the early 1940s. For the previous speaker to talk about defence and defence policy for Australia is a sham and a fraud. The former Government perpetrated on Australia perhaps the most cruel hoax and one of the most cruel deceptions the country has ever seen: The illusion of a defence Force that does not exist. The illusion was created by buying fancy pieces of equipment which, on the surface, matched the world's best, but which have a non-existent quality and capacity to fuel. The example that springs most vividly to mind is that of the Leopard tanks which are fine so long as we do not decide to have a war with the people who make the shells, because if we did we would not have any shells for them to fire. Defence self-reliance could become the most important movement for the defence forces, the people and the government of the country. Self-reliance offers us a chance to re-establish in our defence forces and our community a sense of national pride and national capacity. Let us face it: Who takes particularly seriously a country that has to rely on many other countries to furnish its armaments and its weaponry? At this stage, Australia is incredibly vulnerable in terms of armed combat. A number of factors with respect to self-reliance must be canvassed in the months, indeed years, ahead. One is the terminology created by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in recent years when he used the word 'clawback' to indicate the return to government on government investments. One can argue quite coherently that if a government spends one dollar in Australia, for example on defence manufacturing, 40c of that is returned to State and Federal governments in direct revenue. That means that the net cost to government, to the people of Australia, is 60c. If we spend a dollar on overseas manufacturing, the eventual cost is more than one dollar by the time we service the overseas debt that involves. But, if we were to say that we would increase our investment in Australia by a billion dollars and have a clawback of $400m, we would be accused by the Opposition, in its opportunistic way, as in the case of Medicare, of inflating revenues and expenditures. How can this nation monitor its investments without the machinery to weigh up and to measure the benefits that accrue from investment in the nation and its future? That particular ingredient should be treated in a much more profound fashion than it has been in the past. Perhaps a more important aspect of defence manufacturing relates to technology. The major force in world manufacturing technology is defence manufacturing, whether it be the materials, such as carbon fibre composites, titanium metals, miniaturisation, computerisation or transistorisation. Most developments in these areas come from defence-led requirements. Most of the commercial manufacturing taking place in the world is a spin-off and a flow-on from defence manufacturing. The country that gets behind in its defence manufacturing falls behind in world manufacturing export markets. That is exactly the position in which we are. This country is falling further back because it no longer is involved in high skill manufacturing. A self-reliant Australia in the defence field would become a much more competent country and a much more capable exporter of manufactured goods. The other aspect is the great Australian cringe: If it is Australian made it cannot be very good. I have heard that now for the last two years from departmental personnel and from industry. The deprecation of Australia and Australian industry by Australians is monumental. The corollary is that the Americans are by far the best manufacturers in the defence field. I draw attention to an article in the National Times of 15 to 21 February, part of which states: The armed services are rejecting shoddy products from military contractors at an unprecedented rate, including fighter jets from McDonnell Douglas, missiles from Hughes Aircraft and semiconductors from Texas Instruments. And cost increases and cost overruns persist, with inflation in the defence sector running 2 percentage points above the overall inflation rate. The whole two-page article is about the lack of quality control in American defence manufacturing, yet who in Australia considers that the Americans have quality problems in defence manufacturing? The answer is, no one; after all, it is we who have those problems. This country has to re-establish its capacity and its pride in its skills. The most important single factor leading to the present situation was the election in the mid-1960s when the F111s were a major campaign topic. That purchase was one of the shoddiest tricks played on Australian defence preparedness and one of the most divisive decisions made by government in terms of defence manufacturing. That decision virtually destroyed the aeronautical manufacturing industry in Australia and our capacity to maintain our skill levels in a fast accelerating world competition. It meant that we went back to the Dark Ages, where we have been now for some years. There is clearly some capacity for the export of defence products. That has a great deal of validity. Certainly, I appreciate the decision of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in recent days to appoint a consultant to examine that issue. But there is perhaps a greater spin-off in terms of export manufacturing. The skills required in a project such as Project Waler-the use of metals, of aluminium and steel, that currently are not used in Australia, the machining tolerances required, the machining skills and design skills required-would be vastly better than those used in work we normally do. The use of higher skills would bring us back to being one of the world's premier metal skills countries. In the few minutes left to me, I make a call to Ministers of the Government and to the Parliament as a whole to understand and to come to terms with the potential that we have to use our defence expenditure, to integrate it with our industries, and to make it a source of pride to Australians, not just in the political or defence fields, but to the entire Australian community. I make a call to industries to explain to the Australian public how good they are, of what they are capable and what their capacities and skills are, because for many years now they have been badly misrepresented by previous Liberal-Country Party governments which did not see any role for manufacturing in Australia. Our industries are among the best in the world, but to prove that they need to prove their capacity to the Australian people. I am sure that they are prepared to do that. I make a call also to the service men and women of Australia and point out to them that, by the kind of self-reliant development in which Australians are involved in designing, manufacturing and putting together defence forces that would give us true self-reliance, they can become much prouder of their role in the defence forces. They can have a sense of pride that they are not separate from the community, that they are not using foreign equipment, that they are not beholden to somebody else's training and skill programs or to someone else's manufacturing; they can be proud that their input, as part of the defence of the country, brings the community and industry into one coherent whole. I make those calls on a bipartisan basis because traditionally to some degree there has been a bipartisan view of defence needs. There has not been a bipartisan view of the expression of those needs but certainly there has been in respect of the needs themselves. In the next few years we have the opportunity to set Australian defence procurement and manufacturing on a course that will see us into early the next century in a way we have not seen since between 1942 and 1946. That is not only possible but also totally desirable. I call on all members of the Parliament in both Houses to look into this area of activity and to try to get behind the call for Australian self-reliance. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(8.00) —Madam Deputy Speaker, at the outset I offer you my congratulations on your re-election. I pick up the point in the Governor-General's Speech which referred to our American relationship, particularly the issue of the ANZUS Treaty. We had an opening debate in this place on Friday on the ANZUS Treaty. It seemed to me that it was appropriate for debate during this session to start with that issue because it is the most important issue facing us, as it affects the security of this country. If one does not have security, if one's borders are not secure, all the welfare and other programs the Left would like to introduce into this country mean nothing. Security is the first and foremost duty of any government. The ANZUS Treaty goes to the heart of the security of this country. ANZUS is not an automatic commitment. However, it is a very strong expression of friendship and support by a very major ally of ours. It is a written demonstration that our interests coincide. It is a shield for us in a troubled world-for Australia, for America, to some extent, and for New Zealand, I hope, in due course. It allows us to spend scarce resources on the development of this country. When I hear the naive arguments of members of the Left who want to kick America in the teeth every time they get a chance, I wonder how they would feel if all their fancy programs were abolished and the money for them went into the very necessary defence forces of this country to make ours a credible defence should the ANZUS alliance fall apart. It never ceases to amaze me why the Left wants to see the ANZUS alliance destroyed, why it feels that everything American is bad. The Left makes a lot of noise but it contributes nothing positive to replace what it wishes to pull down. I would have thought that no one was more surprised then the left wing of the Australian Labor Party when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) capitulated two or three weeks ago after a very short campaign by its members. It is timely to look at why ANZUS is so important to this country. For 34 years it has been a centrepoint of our defence policy-and a very successful one at that-at very little cost to Australia. Obviously the circumstances have changed considerably during those 34 years, but not for the better. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether ANZUS is still relevant. In trying to answer that question it would seem appropriate to look at the area in which we live, at South East Asia, and specifically at Vietnam, to which I have been twice. As people have unkindly said when I went back there last time, at least I got to Hanoi. The Vietnamese expansion should give us very considerable cause for concern. The Vietnamese now firmly occupy not only the whole of Vietnam but also Kampuchea, where they have some 160,000 troops, and Laos, where they could have up to 40,000 troops. Those people who are saying that, given time, the Vietnamese will withdraw from Kampuchea and Laos seem to me to be simply indulging in wishful thinking. From what I saw, I believe that the Vietnamese are there to stay and will never withdraw. Kampuchea and Laos, in due course, if they are not already, will simply become colonies of Vietnam. That in itself is worrying enough, but the other worrying thing about Vietnam is that it is becoming a massive base for the Russians in South East Asia. Wherever one goes in Vietnam, the Russian presence is overwhelming. In civilian terms, in Vietnam's infrastructure and in its Government's industrial development, the Russian presence is felt. Places such as Cam Ranh Bay and Da-Nang have become massive military bases for the Russian forces. One has to ask why they are there. I am not saying that the Russians are about to invade Australia, but it is certainly not in Australia's interests to encourage the Russian presence in that part of the world. The Philippines is a highly unstable country. Without putting too fine a point on it, the Marcos Government is in considerable trouble. We do not know what is going to happen in the Philippines in the next few weeks, months or years. However, it is likely that if the increasingly strong insurgent forces succeed in toppling the Marcos Government the very strong American bases in that country will exist no longer. In Papua New Guinea there are increasing problems on the border. The Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) could not even visit the country a week or so ago because his security could not be guaranteed, which is in itself an indictment of the problems in that border area. In New Caledonia there is a strong dissident group with strong communist affiliations. If that group were to be successful, what would that mean for Australia? Within two hours flying time, for the first time in our history, a hostile nation could be on our doorstep. The ANZUS break-up, if it came to that, would create a general air of uncertainty in the whole Pacific region. All those small countries that look to Australia, New Zealand and America for assistance and guidance would feel uncertain. The umbrella would be removed. Those small countries would be approached by the Russians with offers of industrial and economic development which they may well be tempted to take up. That would be their decision. However, I am saying to the House that it is not in our interests as Australians to allow such a situation to arise. We live in a very troubled area and we would be very stupid not to recognise it. The main discernible and immediate threat to Australia must be the increasing Russian build-up in this part of the world. Other threats could materialise quickly. When Lord Mountbatten was Chief of Staff of the British forces he was once asked by the Prime Minister of the day how many threats Britain had had to meet in the last few years by the commitment of forces and how many of them had been foreseen. His answer was: 'We have been committed 48 times and we foresaw none of them'. What can happen to Britain can quite easily happen to this country or to any other country. When we talk about the very real and very big Russian threat that is threatening our interests, all we get from the left wing of the Labor Party is inane chortle, as though the Russians did not exist, as though the problems of Poland and Afghanistan did not exist, as though the Russian presence were just not there. All the time the Left is kicking America in the teeth, the Russians never get a mention. It is as though the balance of power which has maintained the peace for the last 40 years had not been affected, and if the Americans were unilaterally to disarm and we were to dismantle ANZUS everything would be right. Of course nothing could be more stupid than such an attitude. Let us take a quick look at the Soviet forces in the Pacific. They are not a figment of someone's imagination. These figures one will get from any reputable magazine. The Russian Pacific fleet consists of over 100 submarines, 2 aircraft carriers- Mr Hunt —Nuclear? Mr WHITE —Nuclear and nuclear-armed. It has 88 principal combat ships, 220 other combat ships and 340 combat aircraft, including 120 bombers. Of those bombers a considerable number are the Bear and Backfire bombers which are capable of covering any part of Australia, including Tasmania, from Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam. They are all capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Yet we are faced time and again in the Press by the Left demanding unilateral disarmament. Why are the Russians there, why are their numbers increasing and why are they pouring such enormous quantities of arms into South East Asia and the Pacific generally? I do not know the answer to that. However, I know one thing-it is not in Australia's interests to dismantle our defences, to dismantle our alliances while that massive buildup is going on at our doorstep. The fact is that without strong alliances and without American friendship we are very naked indeed. Let us look quickly at the state of Australia's defences. I think the best word to describe them is 'pathetic'. They are run down and they are suffering a very severe morale problem. They are all short of equipment and most of the equipment is old. They have very limited weaponry and limited-in some cases non-existent-mobility. Despite a lot of talk, in two years nothing has happened to improve that situation. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) has charged Mr Paul Dibb with having a good look at our defence forces once again. This is what Mr Dibb had to say to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence about Australia's defences: Isn't it about time Cabinet asked the Defence Committee to establish what are Australia's vital interests, and what they are in order of priority. Is it the defence of the Australian continent and if so, what parts? Is it the off-shore deposits of oil, natural gas, our territorial seas, our lines of communications? What is the policy? Does it have nothing to do with our neighbouring friendly countries? Let me tell the House what Mr Dibb had to say about the ANZUS alliance: The prospect of a breakup of the ANZUS treaty would be of enormous benefit to the USSR's world wide interests. Nothing would be more welcome in Moscow than the dissolution of ANZUS, involving as it does, such close allies of the United States. When we turn to the terms of reference given to Mr Dibb by the Minister for Defence we read of part of his responsibilities in paragraph 3 (a): to undertake a review of the content, priorities and rationale of defence forward planning in the light of the strategic and financial planning guidance endorsed by the Government. I must ask what those guidelines are, because as far as I know they simply do not exist. What the Government is really saying is: 'We don't know what they are. For God's sake, Mr Dibb, tell us'. The Government is asking him to tell it what it should be telling him. That is the reality of Mr Dibb's appointment. It is a classic political ploy to do nothing. There have been studies and reports ad infinitum on the state of Australia's defences. Mr Dibb's appointment is simply to give the Government an excuse further to delay any decisions. We do not want another study, we want some decisions. I do not know Mr Dibb. As far as I know, he is a very able man. All I know is that he will need all his ability if he is to get through any reasonable recommendations and get the Government to act on them. Let us have a look at what we have got in our defences. The Royal Australian Navy has been reduced to a coastal patrol force. It has three destroyers, four frigates, six destroyer escorts and six submarines. It also has one mine hunter. It has 13 patrol boats armed with 40mm Bofors guns and half-inch machine guns. We have no Fleet Air Arm and our anti-submarine helicopters are based at Nowra. Ours is a Navy without any teeth. The Army is probably in the most deplorable state of all-a field force under six under-strength battalions. The First Brigade of two battalions in Townsville-the Operational Deployment Force-never has exercised as a complete unit because it does not have the manpower or the support and it has never had the tactical mobility to lift it anywhere, let alone any ground mobility when it gets there. In the last year it has been training on man pack operations because it simply has had no other support. The Royal Australian Air Force has been given every role that can possibly be conceived. As other defences have been run down the RAAF has been told to take over. Its tasks include air combat, air interception, fighter escort, anti-shipping and close air support of ground forces, and it would be very lucky to do any one of those properly. The F111 squadrons still have iron bombs. At this stage they have no capacity for Harpoon weapons and no capacity for guided bombs. We are getting the F18, which is a magnificent aircraft, but, as I understand it, it has no capacity for aerial refuelling. If we put these squadrons at Weipa, which is the most northerly sealed airstrip from which they can operate in Australia, they could not reach the border of Papua-New Guinea without running out of fuel. Let me quote briefly what the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence said about Australia's defences: The Committee considers that Australia's present defence strategy is inadequate in terms of its short term deployment capacity and combat sustainability . . . The Committee is not satisfied that the Australian Defence Force can meet low level threats . . . It goes on to cite weakness in surveillance, no aerial refuelling, lack of operational readiness, lack of air transport, lack of air defence, lack of modern weapons and so on. That is the opinion of a joint committee of this House. With such forces and in the face of such a threat, can we afford in this country to stand alone? The answer is no. Therefore, do we need strong alliances, such as the ANZUS alliance? The answer very clearly is yes. The question is how much has the ANZUS alliance been damaged? I was appalled to hear the Minister for Defence in this House the other day make a very pompous and empty speech which did not address the problem at all. The Minister spent all his time denigrating previous governments. He said that the ANZUS issue was: . . . simply a small episode in the relationship between ourselves and the United States . . . That, from the Minister for Defence, is abysmal. The damage is that we are seen by the world to have a weak Prime Minister who does not stand for his national interests. He has given encouragement to the Left. I notice some of the questions on the Notice Paper indicate where the Left is going next by simply asking about the contracts for the American bases. That will be the next step. If we cannot help the Americans in simple MX tests, what will happen when it comes to the real crunch? Our intelligence will be curtailed. We are making neighbouring countries nervous. We have exposed our own weak defences in the whole MX issue. We have forced the cancellation of various and valuable exercises. We have invited trade retaliation, and Congressman Cheney has indicated that in the United States of America. In conclusion, let me read a letter typical of those I have been receiving. It is from a 26-year-old constituent who wrote to me last week as follows: I am a concerned citizen wishing to let my opinion be known. We need America's backing and we have to be prepared to co-operate with them. I respected Mr Hawke and was glad he was backing the Americans. I am most disappointed he gave in to pressure and backed down. That sums up the security problems that Australia is facing. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.21) —I preface my remarks this evening by congratulating you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your most deserved re-election to your office. As many will now be aware, 1985 has been designated as International Youth Year by the United Nations. The theme for the year is participation, development and peace. I believe that it is vital at this early stage that we now look at what we have let ourselves in for. What are we going to do this year? Will we go through a few token events, mouthing patronising platitudes, and forget about it conveniently on 1 January 1986, or will we take the bit between our teeth and work to the spirit of the year to lay the groundwork for participation of young people in our society? I put it to the House that this will require a very broad bipartisan approach at the Federal Government, State government and local government levels and deep into the community as well, if we are to achieve those aims. Today, I want to concentrate on the participation theme of International Youth Year because the opening of Parliament highlighted to me and to many others the fact that most people have not yet got a clue about what participation of young people in our society is all about and how we are going to improve it. At the swearing in and opening ceremonies of Parliament, I took the liberty of wearing an off-white, light summer suit, cut in the way that young men today would wear their suits. Mr MacKellar —You daring thing! Mr STAPLES —That suit did not have a collar such as the honourable member for Warringah would wear, with a noose tied around his neck. It was open. Apart from the fact that the suit got quite a lot of television coverage-which probably points to how boring the opening of Parliament can be-it shows that there is a wide variety of opinion as to whether or not that sort of outfit is bright and modern or shabby and inappropriate. Let us get it straight once and for all. I am not talking as a young person. When one has as much grey hair as I am getting, with what hair is left, one does not really consider oneself biologically youthful. (Quorum formed) I am particularly honoured by the presence of so many of my colleagues in the House. Unfortunately, one does not have to be biologically youthful, as I am not and as most of us are not, to appreciate the adverse reaction to this event and to realise that young people do not relate to this place, with its befuddled and bewigged traditions, and its self-importance which tut-tuts any one who is not in a navy-blue or grey pin-striped suit. Unfortunately, people on the other side of the House distinctly fail to recognise that clothes can be a barrier to the way young people relate to traditions and to institutions such as Parliament. If we are looking for the participation of young people in the decision-making processes of this country, whether it be in Parliament or in other forms of activity in the community, we, as elderly people-there are not too many people between the ages of 15 and 25 in this House-should be looking at ways in which we can facilitate the involvement of young people in the affairs of this country. What alienates young people from society and the processes which govern them is that society, whether we like it or not, says to young people: 'You are too young to seek your independence. You are too young to have your own opinion. You are too young to know what is best for you, and you are too young to know what is best for this country'. There is no denying that we are reliant on young people for our future, but we create barriers by our 'We know better' attitudes, by our refusal to provide young people with points of access to power, and by our refusal to provide young people with access to decision-making processes and to the status that we reserve for those who fit more into the mainstream of adult society. At a time when we begin to organise our celebrations of the bicentenary, let us go back more than 2000 years to Socrates, who said: 'The right way to begin is to pay attention to the young'. If one wishes, one may go back a couple of hundred years before that to the sixth century BC and Confucius, who said: 'Youth is to be regarded with respect. How do you know that their futures will not be equal to our present'. Our Australian young people are our future and they are also our today, but today they do not have a real status and a role in our society. Continually we put them into a crossfire situation. Articles such as those which appeared in the Australian recently by Greg Sheridan, attacking the public education system in an hysterical diatribe dressed up as responsible comment, only serve further to destroy the tentative steps of our young people towards adulthood. Thankfully, today's young people do not consider the paranoid super-powers and their sycophants to be capable of preserving their world for them. They reject the need for a nuclear arsenal that is arrayed before us. I am sorry that the honourable member for McPherson (Mr White), who spoke before me, has left the House, because I am sure he would appreciate the fact that 15,000 times the total explosive and destructive force that was used in World War II, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki, is now sitting in arsenals, nuclear silos and whatever around the world waiting to be rained down upon us. Thankfully, today young people reject the need for that ridiculous arsenal. Adult society wonders today, and we will be concentrating a lot more of our efforts on wondering, why young people turn to drugs, alcohol, speed and vandalism. The plain truth is that we need to spend more time and money in examining, attacking and eradicating the causes, not just the end results that we see in the smashed telephone box, the drug problem, or the road toll. We have to ask the young people what they think and involve them in the decisions and processes that form part of their own lives. John Ewen, of the Centre for Youth and Community Studies at Phillip Institute of Technology, which I am proud to say is in my electorate, says his book, 'Youth in Australia-A New Role and a New Deal for the 1980s' makes the point: The generation of the late sixties took the developed world's leaders by surprise and shook many societies almost to their foundation. Whatever form the next generation's intervention takes (and it could well be one of brute force and violence), it is plain foolishness with a dearth of ideas for progress amongst the tribal elders-that the young should be excluded from the development process. The primary lesson for us from the Third World is that, however difficult and in some cases unsuccessful their youth policies have been, they have started from the objective of offering a role and a status to the young. Youth is not merely a problem to be overcome or controlled, it is an asset to national development to be fostered. Our task is now to investigate how such a policy could be translated and redefined in our society. Honourable members opposite who now pooh-pooh this should look at what International Youth Year is; that is the whole idea of it. Members of the Opposition have a role to play in this, as well. If they renege on that role, let it be on their heads. The young people today who do not wear the sorts of clothes which our lawyers and business executives wear, who do not care for our stuffy structures or attitudes, will soon be the ones who will be pushing the wheelchairs of honourable members opposite, paying their health and pension benefits and passing laws which will affect all of our lives. Maybe one-day in this very place they will be looking at laws relating to euthanasia, while we wait on our respirators for the outcome. Nineteen eighty-five is International Youth Year, but that is only a recognition that the future belongs to young people and that young people should be made integral participants in our society today. We are always saying that we are doing this, that or the other for our children's future. This year-the year with the international theme of participation, development and peace-is our chance to provide for our children's future and enhance our own world today. We have to give them now the role and status they seek in their world. We have to give them a go. We have to do our part to take away the barriers of communication. I do not think it should be too hard for members of the Opposition to look at the barriers of communication that exist between old and young. In some ways that may mean that we do not wear ties or regulation shirts, but we must honestly open our doors and our minds to their lives. Mr Goodluck —Oh! Mr STAPLES —All that today's adult society has managed to do, should you listen to young people, is to have effectively deprived them of a future with peace, jobs and hope. It is very easy for those of us who have jobs, influence and years of building our own individuality and identity to lose sight of what it was like when we were young, when we first left school. Let me close with some words from the Costa Rican Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport in 1981. We pooh-pooh the Third World, we think we are much smarter than its people, but they do have some things which might be of interest and value to us. The Costa Rican Ministry said: Young people do not want to be classified as adults-to-be, preparing to assume their social responsibilities tomorrow. They want to participate here and now in social life on the same footing as adults. That has been shown to be the case for Australian young people. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(8.35) —Firstly, I congratulate the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) for having delivered their maiden speeches in this place. I wish them a very fulfilling experience here, if not an enduring one. Thursday's outline of the Labor Government's plan or program was a very depressing document indeed for Australian agriculture. In no more than 20 lines and six sentences it dismissed the rural areas of Australia with a talkfest and a year 2000 document. Unless attitudes change, a rural crisis will engulf Australia long before the year 2000. The recent disturbing Budget deficit estimates, the balance of trade deficit and the collapse in the value of the dollar should be a warning to all Australians that our honeymoon is over. They underline the need for responsible responses on the wages and economic management fronts. They point to the need for governments to take the tough decisions. Blow-outs in money supply, sudden reversals in crucial government policies and a wave of crippling industrial disputes have not helped to engender any confidence amongst investors, either in Australia or overseas. Government policies have been the biggest contributor to the decline of the Australian dollar, which has lost 30 per cent of its value against the United States dollar in less than three years, and half of that loss has occurred this month. The rapid downturn of our economic prospects leaves no other responsible choice to the Hawke Labor Government but to take the hard decisions to reduce public expenditure and to keep wage increases down to the lowest possible levels. No longer can we ignore declining export competitiveness and industry profitability. In heavy overseas borrowing and excessive wage increases, dating back to 1974 when the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, we have seen a successful attempt to trade short term gains in take home pay for declining competitiveness and long term falls in our relative standards of living. Australia is now becoming less able to repay its debts, at a time when those debts are going through the roof. The foreign debt bill has exploded from $40 billion last year to about $60 billion today; more than $10,000 for each Australian family. It is time for a reappraisal of economic policy. Priorities must be changed to maximise real economic growth, raise competitiveness and progressively reduce our accumulated national debt. The key to economic recovery lies in our ability to maintain and increase export markets for our agricultural, mineral and other export products and services at competitive prices. Only by raising export income will Australia begin to repay its rapidly increasing debt. It should be of great concern that the primary producers have been allowed to slip behind other sectors of the Australian economy. In fact, primary producers will suffer an average 17 per cent cut in income this year as a result of an accelerating cost price squeeze, and sluggish commodity prices. Mr Hodgman —How much was that again? Mr HUNT —A 17 per cent cut. No other sector of the Australian community has had to suffer such a cut. Agriculture today returns an average 2 per cent to capital, which is about 20 per cent of the average level of profitability of other industry sectors, yet primary industry is the first trigger which sparks off an economic chain reaction, undergirding the standard of living of all Australians. The dependence of the economy on primary income is the focus of a recent publication, entitled 'Australia and Argentina: On Parallel Paths?' The authors suggest Argentina's slide from wealth reflects the damage caused to primary industry by adverse tax and assistance policies. The end result was a balance of payments crisis for Argentina. These same warning lights are now flashing in Australia, with our trade deficit likely to blow out another $2 billion to an estimated $11 billion or more than 20 per cent, by the end of this financial year. Commenting on this Australia-Argentina theory in the Sydney Morning Herald on 23 February, Peter Freeman argued that our own economy was less likely to slump due to the strength of a rural sector built on private enterprise and supported by coalition policies over the years. Peter Freeman was courteous enough to ignore the Australian Labor Party; and the farmers know that Party's form only too well. However, the Hawke Labor Government will ignore the importance of rural Australia at its peril and at the peril of every Australian. The Hawke Labor Government must adopt positive economic initiatives which will allow primary industries to maximise their domestic and export potential. For too long governments-State and Federal-and others have regarded farmers as wealthy backwoodsmen whose resources are up for grabs. For too long we have witnessed the successful transfer of resources from rural Australia to other sectors of the economy, including the industrial and public sectors. For too long Australian governments have run away from the challenge of reducing industrial protectionism. In a speech in Japan last year the Prime Minister made the right sounds only to be pulled into gear by the unions. The Hawke Government now has its chance to tackle the level of tariff protection. We must have immediate adjustments to tariff levels or domestic prices will rise and the resulting pressure on the consumer price index will further increase wage rises where there is full indexation under the so-called accord. In short, we risk a new inflationary spiral. The resulting cost pressures will hit primary industry hardest of all as it is the sector least able to pass on cost increases. It is the sector least able to afford cost increases. The Hawke Labor Government must act to remove the devaluation effects from wage adjustments regardless of pressure from its behind-the-scenes master, the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The great feature of a free exchange rate is not only that it has the capacity to keep governments honest-including Treasury and Reserve Bank administrators-but also that it reminds trade union leaders, industrialists, exporters, importers and others of the importance of acting responsibly in the market place in terms of prices and wages. If wage rises outstrip productivity, the resulting inflation further reduces our competitiveness on tough world markets. Of course that leads to further unemployment. Excessive protection encourages irresponsible wage demands and settlements. In reducing protection we must be mindful not only of the low levels of profitability experienced by primary producers but also of the effective rates of assistance to industry at present. Since the start of the last decade, effective assistance to agriculture has been lowered from 28 per cent to 8 per cent, yet manufacturing today continues to enjoy assistance at the rate of 24 per cent, down from 36 per cent over the same period. In other words, the rate of reduction in the level of protectionism has been reduced twice as fast for agriculture as for the industrial sector of the community. We should also be mindful of studies which have drawn a conclusive link between high levels of protection of manufacturing industry and poor manufacturing export performance. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) must act in this area to achieve his stated and commendable goal of boosting our manufacturing export trade but he will not succeed in that objective by picking winners and directing trade resources to those so-called winners. Despite primary producers' extremely tight margins, they have not sought direct financial aid except in extreme situations where industries face massive short term upheavals resulting from economic difficulties beyond their control. What they seek is stable, predictable government with rational macro-economic policy and a readiness to take the hard options where necessary. There has been massive reconstruction in agriculture in Australia. In the dairy industry, the total number of dairy farmers has dropped from 49,000 to 19,700 since 1964. To counter its problems the industry has after 12 months of exhaustive negotiations developed a national marketing plan acceptable to the vast majority of producers. In a disgraceful show of petty politicking, this plan has been rejected at three meetings of the Australian Agricultural Council by the Victorian Labor Government. Although the industry has undergone reconstruction further problems face the industry due to the huge dairy stockpiles resulting from European Economic Community and United States subsidy policies. The Victorian and Federal Labor governments should stand condemned for the obstruction to the implementation of a modified national plan which has been thrashed out by the various dairy groups in the States. There is absolutely no justification for any attempt by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) to impose an alternative plan based on the Industries Assistance Commission recommendations which are rejected by most sections of the industry. The self-help dairy industry plan, as with most current rural industry proposals, would have little impact on government outlays. By contrast, there are occasions when economic events outside the control of the industry threaten short term, but devastating, social damage to whole communities. In those circumstances short term aid is justified, if not essential. The highly efficient sugar industry faces such a crisis today because of the huge subsidised surplus of sugar from EEC countries being dumped at give-away prices. The industry is making every effort to produce a scheme for long term self-rationalisation, but in the meantime faces a 1985 No. 1 pool price of $230 a tonne, which will barely cover costs. In 1986, the pool price is likely to drop to about $180, and in 1987 it will be around $140 to $160. By guaranteeing a minimum average price of $240 a tonne the Government would at least offer the efficient producers a chance to remain in the industry. Temporary assistance would be only a marginal recompense to an industry which has subsidised Australian consumers to the net value of more than $300m over the past decade. To fail the sugar industry at this time is to fail the most efficient sugar industry in the world to the advantage of heavily subsidised beet growers in Europe. At two elections the Hawke Labor Government has promised assistance and then walked away from its commitment. A maximum $16.5m has been forthcoming from the Federal Government, while the Queensland Government has contributed more than $30m over the same period to bridge the industry over this difficult crisis. The inadequate contribution of the Hawke Labor Government to date makes a mockery of the Prime Minister's assurances to the industry in Brisbane a week before the last election to 'undertake a financial commitment . . . which is going to result in a strong and viable industry'. The steel industry in Australia three years ago was receiving average effective aid for a range of products of 14 per cent. The Government's steel industry plan has raised bounties from $1m in 1982-83 to an estimated $52m this financial year. If it is good enough for the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, with its approximately 29,000 employees in the steel division, in its hour of need, it is good enough for Australia's 20,000 workers directly employed in the sugar industry and another 100,000 whose jobs indirectly depend on the industry. That sort of assistance should be good enough for an industry which earned $617m in export income in 1983 and more than $1 billion two years earlier. The future of all Australian primary industry lies largely in external markets. Most of our industries are highly efficient and able to supply domestic orders and have a capacity to produce at a relatively low cost increasing volumes for export. However, the subsidy policies of Europe are blocking efficient lower cost food production with their high cost subsidised surpluses. The Opposition was pleased that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Primary Industry responded to calls by farm groups to visit the EEC personally and explain to the new Commission our traditional markets, especially in the Asian-Pacific Basin. However, there remains some uncertainty over what was achieved in those talks and whether guarantees were in fact watertight. It is essential, therefore, that the Minister for Primary Industry report to this Parliament as soon as possible on the outcome of their negotiations. To delay this report will only heighten the uncertainty now confronting producers, especially those engaged in our vital beef trade on dwindling Asian-Pacific basin markets. We must not have a repeat of the Prime Minister's refusal to make such a report following his February Asian tour last year. There is one other aspect of Government policy which will be crucial to the future, not only of primary industry but of all industries in our economy and the people of this country. They must be confident that they have stable, responsible Federal government which is committed to national macro-economic policies and concerned to improve our competitiveness and trade performance. Sadly, the events of the past few weeks indicate otherwise. The MX missile fiasco was one of the most disastrous foreign policy moves ever undertaken by an Australian Prime Minister. It seems incredible that the Prime Minister of Australia should have been forced to make a panic decision to break an agreement with the United States while on foreign soil but only a day away from his official visit to the United States. Surely if he had to make a backdown to his faction-riddled Labor Party he should have continued his visit to the United States where he could have had a full, frank discussion with President Reagan explaining the reasons why he, as Prime Minister of Australia, had to break an undertaking given in 1983. The repudiation of his agreement with the United States is a major victory for the socialist Left of the Labor Party. It is a major victory for the Soviet Union and its communist allies. The majority of Australians have every reason to be disappointed, if not devastated, over the apparent weakness of the Prime Minister in backing down to members of his radical Left and their fellow travellers of the Centre Left. If this can happen in a policy area as important and fundamental as our alliance with the United States, it could happen to any Labor policy. The devastation of confidence at home and overseas has been clearly reflected in the fortunes of the dollar. In conclusion, I call on the Hawke Labor Government to give clear, unequivocal commitments to the primary industries of Australia and then to carry through those commitments. The farm costs summit, the tax summit and the 'Year 2000' report will all give the Hawke Labor Government an important opportunity to establish the needs of the rural sector and to act on those needs. On the other hand, it cannot use those reviews as a shield behind which to hide a lack of substantial policy. It must recognise the rightful place of the primary sector in the Australian economy as a first step to recovering some of the ground that has been lost. It must recognise that there is a crisis in the dairy, sugar, dried fruits and rice industries with wheat, grain, sheep meat, and other industries not far behind. There is a crisis of confidence in agricultural Australia and action must be taken right now to ensure that agriculture does not crash in Australia as it has done in Argentina. Mr GEAR(Canning)(8.54) —At the outset I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your re-election as Chairman of Committees. Like other speakers, I welcome that move. You have been a great inspiration to me and in every sense of the word, you are a real lady of this Parliament. I would also like you to pass on to Mr Speaker my congratulations on his re-election. I congratulate in advance the new members on both sides of both Houses of Parliament on their election to this place. In particular I congratulate my colleagues, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), who moved and seconded this motion. Whilst there is some restraint on the Government side I would like to touch on some of the major issues facing us today and look at some of our achievements in the past. Firstly, let us look at the Government's record. It is hard to believe that, just about two years ago, our economy was in recession and we were losing 200,000 jobs a year. Yet here we are, two years later, with one of the fastest growing economies in the world. We have a significant growth in employment and in other areas of the economy. The level of unemployment is down from 10.3 per cent to 8.1 per cent. As I said earlier, unemployment was growing under a conservative government. That is one of the major reasons why the former conservative Government was defeated at the polls in 1983. It is also one of the major reasons why it was not elected again in December 1984. Back in 1977 the conservatives promised to lower housing interest rates by 2 per cent. They put housing interest rates up by 5 per cent. That is another reason why they were not re-elected in 1984. On the other hand, this Government has been able to bring down housing interest rates. That has been of great advantage to a lot of young people in Australia, particularly those who are buying homes. We have reduced the inflation rate from 11.5 per cent to 6.1 per cent. Back in 1975, after the Whitlam Government was sacked, the conservative Government of the day said that one of its major tasks was to reduce inflation. We had seven years of conservative government. The conservative Government had seven years in which to reduce that inflation rate, yet when it was kicked out of office, as it rightly was, the inflation rate was still the same as it was when it took office. We have reduced that inflation rate to 6.1 per cent and it will probably drop lower next year. We have had the fewest industrial disputes in 16 years. Let us cast our minds back to how things were prior to 1983. We have only to look at the Queensland dispute to be reminded. The Queensland Premier, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen, took on the unions and, in the process of trying to win that dispute, was willing to sacrifice the benefits and the welfare of the people of Queensland to get his own way. It is only because of the responsibility of the unions that those people have acceded to the request to go back to work, but that dispute is not over. We can see what will happen. We will have the old confrontation with Australian against Australian-in this case Queenslander against Queenslander-trying to get some political advantage. I have been told that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was trying to go to the polls. That is well and truly out of the way now because there was a significant swing against his Party in the by-election, and so there should be. That is what the people of Queensland think about the confrontationist style of the Queensland Government. That is what the people in Australia think about the confrontationist style of honourable members opposite. In our first term we introduced the first home owners scheme, which has meant assistance for 75,000 young Australians, many of whom could not have got into their first homes if it were not for that scheme. I turn now to the tax summit which is to be held in July. That tax summit is long overdue. It does not matter to whom we talk in Australia, everyone says that we have one of the worst taxation systems in the world. It is a taxation system which moved Professor Mathews a few years ago to say-I cannot remember his exact words, but they went something like this: 'It is not a matter of making the rich pay more tax; it is a matter of making the rich pay any tax at all'. That is the taxation system we have now. Let us hope that the taxation summit coming up in July will address those problems. Under the Liberal Party of Australia we had massive tax avoidance and that is continuing today. We presented tax legislation five times and we will present it again. I say to the new members in this place: 'If you want to be counted as friends of the tax avoiders, you will have your chance pretty soon'. Not only members of the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party deserve censure; members of the Democrats are the people who really deserve censure because they are the people who come into these Houses of Parliament and say to the people of Australia that they will keep the politicians honest. If there is a group of politicians more dishonest than the National Party, and that is saying something, it is the Democrats. Let us look at the reliance that has been placed on income tax through the years. For the last six years, from the time we started collecting taxes to the present time, this country has relied on income tax. How easy it is for the people of wealth and people who are privileged to get out of receiving taxable income and paying their taxes. Mr Ian Cameron —How? Mr GEAR —That is all right; the honourable member can protect them. I am not apologising for him. He can shout as much as he likes. He can put his name on the record. One of the greatest things we have to do-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I invite the honourable member to ignore the interjections. Mr GEAR —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the things we really have to do at this taxation summit is to have a look at the plight of the needy, the poor in this community. For far too long their plight has been ignored. We can understand how they have been ignored by conservative governments because, by and large, they are there to protect wealth. But this Government has a real mandate and a real concern-it always has had-for those people in society who just cannot look after themselves, either because of circumstances or lack of education. That is one of the aspects we have to address at the tax summit. It should be axiomatic and I should not have to say it, but the equitable distribution of taxes on the ability to pay should be the foundation stone of the taxation summit. It has been absent from the taxation system until now, but we have to address that aspect. I was in the House the other day when the Treasurer (Mr Keating) presented some of his Bills. One of them was to do with tax trust stripping. I will read his words to the Parliament tonight: Mr Speaker, trust stripping involves arrangements under which trust income is formally allocated for tax purposes to a beneficiary that does not pay tax on it-such as a tax exempt charitable institution. The income concerned, however, is effectively retained-undiminished by the payment of tax-by those family members really intended to benefit from it. I asked myself: Who are the people who really look at these schemes? Is it the average worker on pay as you earn tax? Of course not. It is the people of privilege, the people who can afford to pay highly priced accountants and lawyers to go into these schemes. These are the sorts of things this Government has a clear mandate to stamp out and it is going to do it. Perhaps the most important thing we have to do is tackle unemployment. It is the worst social problem we have today. It did not come about only in the period of less than two years that this Government has been in power. Unemployment did not happen just because the Hawke Labor Government was elected in March 1983. It is a compounding of events and of decisions not taken in the past. The 1960s and 1970s were the years of lost opportunity in this country. Decisions on restructuring should have been made then but were not. The Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, effectively sums up the situation when he says that anybody who really wants to look at a working museum should look at Australian industry. We have unemployment because certain policies were not taken in those years. The conservative governments were in power then. One of the things we have to do as a government is train our young people and teach them skills. It is of no use to give them the dole as that will not do a thing for young people. Leaving them with no skills at all makes them unemployable. One of the first things we have to do is train those young people. This is something the previous Government never addressed and it is something that this Government has to address. I am pleased to say the some of the committees on which I serve are looking at that particular problem now. Not only does training give people a greater advantage in getting a job, but also it gives them a bit of self-esteem and allows them, if they can, to start up their own industries. If a person has skills he can start doing things; if he has no skills, he is unemployable. Another thing this Government has to do is rationalise the student support schemes and unemployment benefits. We have 37 different youth support schemes. That is just not good enough. A lot are contradictory and do not address the problems we face today. Mr Goodluck —Change the Government. Mr GEAR —We have changed the Government. Thank goodness for that. This Government will tackle the problem, whereas the previous Government never did. The 37 schemes came about because of the previous Government's incompetence. This Government will tackle the problem. This Government also has to look at the apprenticeship scheme. I have some figures which go back to 1970-71. They show that we had an intake in Australia then of 34,735 apprentices. By 1982-83, the last year of the previous miserable Government, the figure had grown to 34,797. What a great record! Honourable members opposite talk about training young people and unemployment, but they did absolutely nothing about it when they were in government. Members of the Opposition get up and give notice of silly motions, as they did today, and talk about industrial relations, employment and getting people back to work, but they did absolutely nothing when they were in government. Thank goodness this Government is here to do something about it. The next matter I would like to mention is the optional preferential system of voting. Madam Deputy Speaker, like you, I was shocked when 600,000 of our citizens did not have their votes counted in the last election. Once we have the report on that from the Australian Electoral Commission, we should act on any recommendations coming from the Commission. I do not know what they will be. Certainly one of the cornerstones of any democracy is having a system whereby all voters have their votes counted. No matter which side of the Parliament one sits on, one should seek to ensure that people have their votes counted, consistent with their wishes. Let me turn to Medicare. This is the second time that the Australian electorate has given the Australian Labor Party Government a clear mandate for Medicare. What do we have in New South Wales? We have the most privileged group of people in our society doing nothing more than getting down to using guerrilla tactics to try to undermine Medicare. To my way of thinking, the kindest thing that members of the Opposition can do is just shut up, say nothing and stay out of it. But no, they have got to put in their two bob's worth. The twelfth man of the shadow Ministry, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), came in over the weekend and stirred up the doctors, as was pointed out by the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) today. As I recall, the doctors' statement-this is the sort of thing members of the Opposition are backing now-states: The only thing that the Federal Government understood was someone standing with one foot on their throats and kicking their private parts with the other . . . These are the sorts of things that members of the Opposition are now condoning by their public statements, not only the twelfth man of the shadow Ministry, Mr Carlton, but also the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), who very soon will be sitting where the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is seated, as we all know. What are members of the Opposition up to? Why do they not shut up and let the Government get on with one of the reforms for which it has a mandate? As I said before, we got that mandate twice. We have been elected twice on that clear understanding. I would like to close on a matter which I think this Parliament should address in its current term; that is, the glaring gap in Australia's provision for its retired. This Government, in its first term, tried to do something about the retirement system, inadequate as it is. Firstly, we put a lump sum on taxation payments. It seemed to us that double dipping was not fair. A person could go through his working life and get a taxation benefit for, rightly, putting some of his resources away to look after himself when he was retired. We gave a taxation incentive for that and I am not knocking it. What I am knocking is the practice of taking the lump sump and paying virtually no tax-around about one per cent in tax on the lump sum-and then investing it in such a way that one did not get an income so that one could then go back to the taxpayers and say: 'How about giving us a pension?' What did the Opposition do then? Was any responsibility shown? No. The main group of people who attacked that-this is a good barometer of what the Government is all about-were among the most privileged groups in our society, the airline pilots. They took lump sum payments of about $600,000, having worked 38 hours a month and earned about $75,000 a year. They are the people who really got stuck into the Government on that matter. To me that is a clear statement that we were right. The Government also brought in the assets test. A number of honourable members on that side of the House-the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar) is not one of them-can thank their lucky stars that they are here today, because the advertising campaign in the election period by the Opposition parties was nothing more than scandalous on that issue. They did nothing more than try to scare the pensioners, and they did that. They scared the pensioners who came running to my office. I am sure other members of the Government experienced the same thing. People were scared out of their wits by propaganda put out by the Liberal Party of Australia. Why can it not fight an election fair and square? Why does it not get out and tell the truth? A number of honourable members opposite-I am sure the honourable member for Wide Bay is one of them-did not do that. This country is lucky that it has returned this Government. We have the best Prime Minister, certainly in my lifetime. We have the best Ministry to sit in this House since the Second World War, and that is an independent statement. We have the best back bench, and if that is being a bit indulgent I will wear it. We have the best Government that this country has had for a while. It is a government which will not shirk its responsibilities and which will take the tough decisions that the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) talked about. Members of the previous Government did nothing in the time they were in office. That is why they are in opposition and will be there for a long time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.09) —From the outset, I would like to associate myself with the expressions of allegiance and loyalty contained in the Address-in-Reply-and I really mean it, unlike a number of others in this chamber. I congratulate Mr Speaker on his re-election and Madam Deputy Speaker and all the Deputy Chairmen, including yourself, Mr Deputy Speaker. There was an atrocious attack on Australian parliamentary democracy in this chamber this afternoon when the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who, honourable members might remember, with his minions started tinkering last year with the electoral system, decided he was going to tinker with the parliamentary system. His motion was defective because he should have added 'pull away the coat of arms from above the Speaker's Chair and replace it with a hammer and sickle' because that is what we are now coming to when private members of this Parliament cannot exercise their traditional right to give notice of motion in this chamber. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order, The honourable member for Denison should not advocate putting a hammer and sickle in the place of the ornament above your head. Such a suggestion is totally out of character for him and he should withdraw it straight away. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! There is no point of order. I am sure that the honourable member for Canning has been here long enough to know it is not appropriate to take frivolous points of order. Mr HODGMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not advocate it. I appreciate the fact that the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has been able to get from his dinner at the Embassy tonight to the chamber. I am just saying that when we get to the stage when the Special Minister of State thinks he is in Moscow, not in Canberra, and the rights of private members are taken away, that is an assault on Australian parliamentary democracy which nobody can ignore. Election day-1 December 1984-marked the beginning of the end of the Hawke socialist Government. This discredited, dishonourable government is now in its second and final term of office. The current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the little Caesar of Australian politics, has lost his charisma and does not know where to find it. He is on the way out. We now have a minority government in office in Australia. According to the latest Morgan Gallop Poll only 43 per cent of Australians would vote for the Hawke socialist Government today. If an election had been held just nine days ago the Leader of the Opposition, Andrew Peacock, would be Prime Minister of Australia and the present temporary occupant of the Lodge would have been told to pack his bags and be on his way. The people of Australia are not fools, Mr Deputy Speaker. They started to see through this phoney Prime Minister late last year and if the Federal election had been held a week or two later there is no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of many long term parliamentary commentators in this place, that Prime Minister Hawke would have got the axe. As it is, there is now considerable speculation on whether he will survive as Prime Minister for the full term of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The knives are out and there is no doubt that he will have to perform an extraordinary juggling feat between the lunatic factions of his coalition Government if he is to be in the Lodge for Christmas dinner in 1985. The Hawke socialist Government is a coalition of lunatic factions. We have the socialist Left or, as it is more properly described, the pro-communist Left. We have the Centre Left whatever that might mean; we have the so-called Right, which is truly the sanitised Left in anybody's language; we have the independents who are nevertheless bound to throw overboard their 'independence' whenever Caucus makes a decision; and lastly, we have the biggest faction of all and that is the 'Left-out group' which, of course, comprises all those talented people who once again have been left out of the Ministry. One has only to study the faces of honourable members sitting on the benches in this chamber occupied by the Hawke socialist Government to realise quickly that there is more talent outside the Ministry than there is inside it. Yet the Prime Minister had the gall to try to con the people of Australia by telling them that this was the most talented Ministry since World War II. What a lot of piffle! What a lot of hogwash! The combined talents of the Hawke socialist Government Ministry would be hard pressed to exceed the mental capacities of the fourth graders of whom the Treasurer (Mr Keating) spoke so feelingly just a couple of weeks ago. I put it to the House that every fourth grader attending school in Australia today should feel insulted that he or she has been compared with any member of the Hawke socialist Government. This deceitful Government conned its way into power on 5 March 1983 and escaped by a whisker the executioner's axe on 1 December 1984. A Government which has earned acknowledgement in the Guinness Book of Records as having broken more promises and in a shorter time than any other Government in the history of western parliamentary democracies now pledges, without any hope at all of honouring its solemn promises, a magical, mythical, mystical economic trilogy. It had the hide to reaffirm it as recently as last Thursday in the extraordinary speech which it gave to His Excellency the Governor-General of Australia who was required by law to read it at the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I will quote the speech verbatim; this is what it said: The Government has given the people of Australia explicit commitments regarding the Budget deficit, Budget expenditures and taxation. None of these will be increased as a proportion of gross domestic product in 1985-86 and over the Government's second term. Those commitments which the Prime Minister and the Hawke socialist Government obliged His Excellency to read on 21 February simply cannot be honoured. It is as plain as that. This economic trilogy trumpeted around Australia by the Prime Minister did not even have the backing of Cabinet. Any matriculation economics student in the land could see that this Government, the biggest spending, highest taxing peacetime Government Australia has ever known simply cannot implement the programs and policies upon which it has been elected and at the same time contain the Budget deficit, Budget expenditures and taxation. Somebody will have to pay the bill. The people of Australia have already been victims of the biggest tax slug since World War II in the 24 months that the Hawke socialist Government has been in power. Today, an average worker is paying $23.50 a week more in taxes under Prime Minister Hawke than he or she paid under Prime Minister Fraser. The increase in personal income tax receipts in the first 15 months of the Hawke socialist Government exceeded substantially the highest tax grab during any period of the Whitlam socialist Government and that was the Government which brought Australia to the brink of bankruptcy in the dark years of 1972 to 1975. Quite bluntly, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Hawke socialist Government is more dangerous to the future of Australia than the Whitlam socialist Government ever was and, heaven knows, it was bad enough. In economic terms this Government is a disaster and, mark my words my fellow Australians, each and every one of us will have to pay a pretty hefty bill when the discredited Hawke socialist Government is thrown out of office at the next Federal election, as it undoubtedly will be. However, it is also clear in other areas that the Prime Minister and this Government are simply unfit for office. They cannot be entrusted with the national security of Australia. Any person who listened to the debate in this House last Friday would have quickly realised that the Hawke socialist Government, and particularly its erratic and emotional leader-some would say hysterical-have betrayed Australia's interests in the international scene. The ANZUS Treaty fiasco of recent weeks has done more to damage the national security of Australia than anything else since World War II. For this to occur in peacetime is an appalling indictment of a Prime Minister who was prepared to put appeasement of party factions ahead of national interest. As the Leader of the Opposition so eloquently stated on Friday, this is a Government whose actions in recent times have done enormous damage to the ANZUS alliance. I can see no difference in principle between the actions of Comrade Lange and his Government and the actions of Prime Minister Hawke and the Hawke socialist Government. I am absolutely convinced that the United States will never be able to trust the word of Australia while the Hawke socialist Government remains in office. We now see publicly exposed a Prime Minister who has let his country down. Quite bluntly, we now have a situation in which a second grade Prime Minister has tried to turn this great country-Australia-into a third world country in response to the urgings of fourth graders and fifth columnists. That is what the Government has done. The Prime Minister's recent visit to the United States was a disaster of unparalleled proportions. The headlines of the United States Press tell it all. Listen to this, Mr Deputy Speaker: 'Australia balks on accord to aid in U.S. test of MX'; 'Premier cites split in Party'-that was on the front page of the New York Times-'Australian takes middle position in the U.S.-New Zealand dispute'- Mr Hunt —What paper? Mr HODGMAN —That was in the New York Times which is read by millions of our allies. What is worse, in a feature article, Bernard Gwertzman, a leading American writer-this was read by millions of Americans-states: Mr Hawke sought to put himself in a middle position between Australia's two allies in the alliance. In the same article Gwertzman quotes a senior State Department official as saying that the United States no longer viewed New Zealand as 'a loyal and faithful ally'. If that is the judgment on New Zealand right now, what do honourable members think is the judgment on Australia under this erratic, emotional and hysterical Prime Minister and this dangerous, sinister Hawke socialist Government? It is no wonder that Republican Senator William S. Cohen and Congressman Robert Cheney, across party lines, united with Democrat Congressman Stephen J. Solarz, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Asian Sub-Committee, in expressing their outrage. When I read in the New York Times that 'Australia's Prime Minister said today that he had told the United States that because of a revolt in his own Party he would probably have to renege on a pledge', I, as an Australian, feel ashamed. In the same report it is stated that Prime Minister Robert Hawke 'startled American officials'. The latest public opinion polls show that the Prime Minister also succeeded in startling a very large number of Australians. I put it to the Prime Minister that he has let us down and has let Australia down. He can never again be entrusted with the sacred duty of guarding the defence of this nation. The greatest paradox of this entire disaster-this international tragedy of giant proportions-is that Mr John Curtin, whom the Prime Minister eulogises, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt created in the darkest days of World War II an alliance which has now tragically been destroyed by two socialist Prime Ministers, the Prime Minister of Australia and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The Tasman Sea between Tasmania and New Zealand is no longer the subject of Western alliance naval surveillance. The Royal Australian Navy is incapable of patrolling the area, the Royal New Zealand Navy is absolutely tiny and the United States cannot-I repeat cannot-patrol the area without access to New Zealand ports. History will judge that ANZUS was destroyed in 1985. Australia is the poorer as a direct result of the actions of the present Prime Minister and his Government and their capitulating to the pro-communist Left. We in Tasmania feel particularly vulnerable about the situation in the Tasman Sea. The plain fact is that the Tasman Sea, an enormous expanse of water between, on the one side, Tasmania and south-east mainland Australia-I see present in the chamber all the members from Tasmania, as they always are-and New Zealand and extending from New Caledonia south to the southern oceans adjoining Antarctica, as a direct result of the actions of comrade Lange and Prime Minister Hawke, has now become a Soviet maritime playground. Mr Milton —Ha, ha! Mr HODGMAN —The honourable member for La Trobe can laugh. He is one of the fourth graders. I am surprised that so many of them got back from the Soviet Embassy dinner to be here tonight. They wear a track from here to the Soviet Embassy. Mr Gear —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. We were not at the Soviet Embassy tonight; I do not know what the honourable member is talking about. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —For the second time this evening during the speech of the honourable member for Denison, the honourable member for Canning has taken a frivolous point of order. I do not want that to happen again. The honourable member knows that points of order should be taken only when appropriate and not in the way that he has been taking them. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. But I am, of course, used to this. It is no wonder that we are calling that part of the Parliament 'Moscow corner', which is what it is. When I inform the House that on a recent expedition to Antarctica a senior Australian official counted 27 ships on the horizon, of which 23 were Soviet vessels, and when I inform the House that only a few years ago a Soviet maritime research ship got into difficulty and had to limp into the port of Hobart, and that that so-called peaceful vessel was accompanied by a very large Soviet submarine, I have to say that the Hawke socialist Government appears blind to the increasing Soviet maritime activity in our waters. I do not believe the people of Hobart will forget the armed sentries carrying machine guns who took up position on the Hobart wharf alongside the submarine and the so-called peaceful marine research vessel. I do not think the people of Western Australia will put out of their minds repeated sightings of Soviet naval ships off the coast of Western Australia. We must be the greatest fools in the world if we fail to recognise that, in the eyes of the Soviets, Australia is the richest prize-I emphasise that-in this region of the world. It is no wonder that the Soviet Press has gone overboard in recent weeks in its praise of Prime Minister Lange and the actions of his Government. I am now informed that our Prime Minister's 180-degree turn over ANZUS has also been warmly applauded in the Soviet Press. Those members of the Hawke socialist Government who occupy that part of this chamber which we now call 'Moscow Corner' must be delighted beyond their wildest dreams with the success that they have achieved this year. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain appeased Nazi Germany, with disastrous results. In 1985 the Prime Minister of Australia appeased the pro-communist elements of his own Party, again with disastrous results. Who are the big winners? Obviously, they are the pro-communist Left in the Australian Labor Party, the ones the Treasurer calls the fourth graders, and the Soviet Union. Who are the big losers? They are Australia and Australians. In my 17 years in State and Federal politics, I have never before observed such enormous public disillusionment and shame as that which I observed when the Prime Minister of Australia told our most loyal ally, the United States of America, that he was going to renege. This Prime Minister left Australia as a hawk and came back as a chicken. Like most chickens, his fate is predictable. The only questions are: Who will wield the axe and when will it fall? On this and other issues the Prime Minister is exposed as the great pretender of Australian politics. He is an actor and a pretender. He is a counterfeit Prime Minister in that he presents himself as one who is inspired by sweetness and light and totally committed to the national interest. But in reality he is a prisoner of the very dangerous factions of the ALP of which I spoke earlier. I was going to talk about the Prime Minister as the great royalist who, when he goes to England, is quite happy to be photographed with his arm around Her Majesty the Queen Mother and who, when in the United Kingdom, can be duchessed up hill and down dale by the royal family. But let us just look at his record back home. This committed republican, who aspires to be the first President of an Australian socialist republic, has had removed from every embassy, high commission and consulate the photograph of Her Majesty the Queen of Australia and had it replaced with a horrible technicolour cameo of himself accompanied by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) wearing a mauve or puce-coloured safari suit. The Crown has been taken off the passport. Who told us about that? Last year we had an attempt to remove reference to the Queen from the oath of allegiance. It is only a matter of time before the word 'Royal' comes out of the Royal Australian Navy and the Royal Australian Air Force. What we do with the Royal Mail-under the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister on the Status of Women (Senator Ryan) that will have to be 'Royal Person'-I do not know. We end up without a single item of Australian currency with an image of our sovereign on it. My final comment is to tell honourable members that this Government's No. 1 commitment is to tear up our National Flag before 1988. It is a socialist republican Government and at the next election it will be defeated. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(9.29) —I am very pleased to be able to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your position in the chair. I am also pleased to have the opportunity to congratulate the Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees for the exemplary performance they gave in the last Parliament. Of course, that is the reason they have been re-elected to this Parliament. There have been occasions when the Speaker and Deputy Speaker have had to admonish me for making interjections. I must admit it has not happened very often, but there have been occasions when speeches such as the one that has just been given by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) have provoked one to make interjections. I do not think that I have ever heard a speech in which the speaker has so indulged himself in kicking the communist can. I thought that sort of thing went out years ago, but the honourable member for Denison has to continue it because nothing else in his speech was worth repeating or mentioning. I prefer therefore to get on with my speech and make no more comments about the honourable member for Denison. At the declaration of the poll for the seat of La Trobe last December, I emphasised that the three main policy areas which would be my main concerns during my third term as the member for La Trobe would be unemployment, poverty and nuclear disarmament. I thank the electors of La Trobe for their strong confidence in me which enables me to represent them and allows me to deal with these most important and vital issues. In speaking in the debate on the Address-in-Reply, I wish to concentrate on these three vital issues which our Government and, indeed, the whole world are facing, and which were also mentioned in the Governor-General's Speech. With regard to unemployment, the Governor-General said: The Government remains deeply concerned at the disproportionate share of unemployment which is borne in Australia by young people. In relation to poverty, the Governor-General said: In its coming term the Government will continue to give a high priority to improving the living standards of the most needy in the community. Finally, in relation to nuclear disarmament, the Governor-General said: The Government remains deeply committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament . . . It will actively promote programs for the International Year of Peace in 1986, and will advance the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Proposal. My concern is that the Government has not given sufficient recognition to the fact that one of the main causes of unemployment and poverty is the ever increasing economic cost of the nuclear arms race, which involves particularly the economic resources of the two super-powers. These resources, which could be diverted to productive employment and the alleviation of poverty, are being used in the development of first strike nuclear weapons systems, such as killer satellites and the MX missile which has been grossly misnamed the 'Peacemaker' by President Reagan. The United States has had record budget deficits over the past four years. This year the deficit is expected to reach $US220 billion. These deficits have arisen largely because of the huge cost of armaments programs. It is this huge deficit, with its voracious appetite for funds, which has caused the sharp rise in interest rates in all the countries of the world which are strongly tied to the international financial system, including Australia. Apart from the difficulties of expanding Australia's manufacturing capacity on the basis of dear money, high interest rates cause hardship to home buyers and help to fuel inflation. They also cause problems in relation to our total foreign debt which has multiplied by three times over the past four years. We now owe $42,000m, which is equal to nearly one-quarter of our gross domestic product, and the cost of servicing these debts in terms of interest payments was $3.1 billion or 11 per cent of our export earnings. If we add to that figure the repayment of capital we reach a total annual repayment of foreign debt at $7.7 billion in 1983-84, which the Reserve Bank has stated is 28 per cent of our export receipts. As I have mentioned, high interest rates are restrictive of increased business activity which means less employment and more poverty. Nowhere is this more evident than in many Third World countries, where unemployment and poverty have been made catastrophically severe by years of drought. The unfortunate mixture of high foreign debt and high unemployment levels has led many people to predict that Australia will become a Third World economy by the end of the century. I do not hold such a pessimistic view myself, as I anticipate that Federal Labor governments will stay in office for many years to come. Nevertheless, it is imperative for Australia to re-structure industry to provide more employment and to improve our export capacity. The recently completed Ferris report on export marketing has called for increases in our exports of manufactured goods and services on the basis of wide-ranging export incentives. In this respect it is particularly disappointing to hear reports that the Industries Assistance Commission has failed to support the industry development plan of the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights Union. The plan was essentially one which advocated import replacement policies leading to an increase of between 238,000 to 293,000 jobs in a five to seven year period, and was supported with contributions from both the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research and the Victorian Ministry of Employment and Training. In the Governor-General's Speech, it was stated that: The Government remains committed to developing a strong and competitive manufacturing industry. It is mainly as a result of competition from East Asian countries, especially Japan, that our metals and engineering industries have suffered a severe decline over the past ten years, resulting in a net loss of 152,000 jobs. The AMSFU plan indicates how Japanese manufacturers are strongly assisted by financial support from the Japanese Government. It is essential that the Federal Government adopt similar policies to support our own metals and engineering industries. These industries are vitally important for support because they employ a very skill-intensive work force which provides technological opportunities for the remainder of the economy. The AMSFU plan outlines policies which could be implemented by the Government to assist Australian manufacturers in producing quality manufactured goods for the Australian domestic market. With the expansion of our manufacturing capacity would come a first phase of increased technological efficiency. Following this phase would come a planned second phase of export growth whereby Australian Companies compete directly with East Asian manufacturers. The third phase would be essentially one of a withdrawal of government financial support. It is important, in my view, for the Government to resist pressures to allow so called market forces to dictate the process of structural change in the manufacturing industry. One of the strong advocates of a market-led structural change is the Industries Assistance Commission. However, officers of the Commission appear to overlook the fact that countries such as Japan pay lip service to the concept of an open and liberal international trading system whilst at the same time providing government export incentives to assist the international competitiveness of their export industries. Of course, Australian Government financial support should only be provided on the basis of certain fundamental principles. The AMSFU plan sets out six major principles. Firstly, there must be accountability by the companies operating under the industry development plan as industry assistance must not be open ended and must be subject to adequate performance. Secondly, there must be compensation for existing export industries whose competitiveness is reduced by the operation of an industry development plan. Thirdly, information must be provided in full to support the selection of industries for assistance. Fourthly, representation must be available for all the interested groups involved including unions, consumers, management and government. Fifthly, there must be flexibility in the management of industry development programs and the use of policy instruments, such as investment incentives, taxation and research assistance, skill and re-training programs, industry mergers or co-operative agreements, foreign investment controls, export incentives, bounties and subsidies. These policy instruments must be integrated with specific policies of export expansion, import replacement and industry modernisation. Finally, there must be co-ordination between the different levels of policy development and implementation to ensure that Government resources are used both flexibly and efficiently. In my view, the AMSFU industry development plan is one of the most constructive job creation proposals to emerge from the prices and incomes accord. The Federal Government will be failing the union movement and the hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers if it does not support the plan. In reality, we no longer live today in a market system. The international capitalist economy of which Australia is a part is dominated by a few powerful interest groups, concentrated in a privileged relationship between big business and governments. The prices and incomes accord has made it clear that unions can no longer deal within a framework of traditional collective bargaining on wages and working conditions, but must also take part in a system of social accounting. Social accounting requires that multinational corporations as well as governments provide information on their forward plans and on their impact on what is done, why, where and when in the economy. Such a planning process is a challenge to the union movement, but in the case of the metal trades unions they have not hesitated to take up their responsibilities with the submission of their industry development plan. I congratulate them on their initiative, and trust that the Federal Government will seriously consider the plan despite the reported adverse reaction of the Industries Assistance Commission. In the short time given to me to speak on the Address-in-Reply I will not be able to deal with all aspects of the Governor-General's Speech. However, I will make some comments on the Government's major review of the Australian tax system which the Governor-General announced will take place in 1985. Caucus members are anticipating that, in line with other representatives of the Australian people, they will have the opportunity to participate in the national tax summit to be held next July. I hope to make my own contribution to the tax summit, although in a spirit of co-operation my contribution probably will become part of a broad approach by a group of Caucus members. I believe that if we are ever to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth in Australia-at present 10 per cent of the population own 60 per cent of the country's total wealth and 50 per cent of the population own less than 8 per cent of the country's wealth, or the richer 2,000 Australians own as much as the present two and a half million Australians own-we must then introduce an effective tax on wealth. Unfortunately, the wealth distribution figures I have cited relate to 1981 as no up to date figures are available. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has indicated, however, that an inquiry into the distribution of wealth in Australia will be undertaken shortly, which will indicate, I forecast, that the rich have become richer and the poor poorer in the four years since 1981. For the record, I indicate my opposition to any broadly-based indirect tax, although the introduction of new narrow based indirect taxes should be investigated. The reason for my opposition to the introduction of a broadly based indirect tax is that such a tax would fall inexorably on the poorer sections of the population. I favour the introduction of a capital gains tax which member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the United States of America have incorporated in their taxation systems. I also support the introduction of gift taxes and an inheritance tax, which should be imposed on the heirs of wealthy estates. Finally, the introduction of a net annual tax on the assets of the rich should, together with the other taxes I have mentioned, provide substantial government revenues. The Government could then provide income tax relief for low income earners by substantially raising the tax-free threshold. I commend the Government for its aim of creating a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society. Before I end, I congratulate all those new members who have been elected to this Parliament and, in particular, the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois), who delivered their maiden speeches in the Parliament this evening. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(9.43) —Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset, like all the previous speakers in this Address-in-Reply debate and certainly none the less sincerely, through you, I congratulate Mr Speaker on his re-election to high office by this House, Madam Deputy Speaker on her re-election as Chairman of Committees and you and your colleagues on your appointment as Deputy Speakers in this chamber. Secondly, I address some personal remarks to my friends and supporters in the electorate of Tangney. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not my maiden speech, I have been here previously. I address some remarks specifically to those friends and supporters who stood by me during my 20 months out of this chamber. In my view, the honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) saw the writing on the wall. I regret that he did not stay on for the fight. Nevertheless, to all of those friends and supporters who worked with me, part time for some 16 months and full time in so many cases for some four months, go my heartfelt thanks. Our Liberal campaign in Tangney recorded a 6.3 per cent swing in our favour. That is noted by some commentators as a national high. To all of those who know to whom I am speaking-they will, of course, be reading this speech in the future-I simply say thank you very much. I now intend to dwell briefly on some matters relating to my portfolio, the portfolio for which I have been given shadow ministerial responsibility in opposition-that of employment, industrial relations and youth affairs. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you judge my speech to be somewhat sober it is because events have cast it so. I have returned to the Parliament after a short break. I judge that I return at a time when the Australian economy, and consequently our society, is at a crossroads and I have absolutely no faith in this Government's ability to pursue the right path. I say that not out of blind pessimism nor simply our of partisan political loyalties, for increasing numbers of the Australian electorate hold the same view and many more are on the verge of embracing it. The Government, for its part, has asked us to believe that it has a special relationship with the trade union movement-special in the sense of positive, constructive, even unique. The Government has argued that this special relationship has exceptional benefits for our country, particularly through the apparent minimisation of industrial conflict that it maintains has occurred. It is true that the Hawke Government's first term was blessed by relative industrial peace. But to what extent was this due to the Government's supposed special relationship with the trade union movement? One asks oneself to what extent it was promoted and maintained by the accord. Could it not have been due, in part at least, to high levels of unemployment? Could it not have been due, in part at least, to some promises made before the election we have just gone through? These are the questions that media commentators are only just now beginning to ask. They are beginning to ask them because the reality is starting to catch up with the myth. Myths are functional. In traditional societies they are often used to communicate moral tales or to portray desirable models of behaviour. They generally inculcate individual members of society with necessary group norms. For a myth to survive it must be plausible, it must contain a kernel of truth and it must possess some social utility. Otherwise the myth perishes. It is simply forgotten, its plausibility stretched too far or its usefulness outlived. The myth of this Government's special relationship with the trade union movement is a modern instance. It is no longer plausible. If it is no longer plausible, it no longer has utility and will quickly perish. We are now witnessing around us the beginning of the death of this myth, presided over by the media but ultimately executed by the people of Australia. For it is the people who are now saying that the accord no longer accords with reality. It is the people who are questioning the existence of a special relationship, other than perhaps one of extreme vulnerability on the Government's part to trade union pressure. After all, the Government's second term, not even three months old, has seen many industrial disputes already. There has been the Public Service dispute, which has helped sink the Australian dollar; which has tied up untold goods on our wharves, goods necessary for further production; which has cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in interest charges because of the Government's forced borrowings to stay afloat, to stay solvent; and which will cost taxpayers yet more if public servants are awarded a wage rise in excess of consumer price index linked rises awarded at the national wage hearing. After all, it is we, the Australian people, taxpayers, who pay the wages of public servants, and we will pay to foot this bill. Another dispute is the continuing Builders Labourers Federation fiasco, replete with the stench of high thuggery, standover tactics and worse. This Government has refused even to follow the example of deregistration set by Premier Wran in New South Wales. The Australian Federated Union of Locomotive Enginemen strike in the Hunter Valley is crucifying the remnants of our reputation as a reliable coal supplier and is enhancing the prospects for further lay-offs in the New South Wales coalfields. Strife on the waterfront with the Waterside Workers Federation of Australia and the Seamen's Union of Australia holding up goods on our wharves and ships in our ports around Australia is in response to employers exercising their legal rights in courts. I have enumerated only some of the major disputes. They are symbols, prominent surface expressions of a much deeper unrest, a general unrest which statistics are now beginning to bear out. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures on industrial disputation in Australia show an overall increase in the number of strikes in 1984 compared with those in 1983. Figures for 1985 have already had a big boost from the disputes that I have outlined, not to mention the lesser known regional disputes which are breaking out all over the country-in Canberra, in the Pilbara and on the Melbourne waterfront. The Public Service unions' attitude and approach are indicative. The Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission did not give them what they wanted, so they implemented bans. Those bans had such serious and far-reaching effects that not a single Australian failed to be affected by them in some way or another. The bans were effective. The Government rewarded the Public Service unions' militancy by leaning on the Arbitration Commission to re-open the case. The unions may still get a wage rise over and above that flowing from the national wage case, despite the Arbitration Commission's clear rejection of the unions' original arguments. No action or decision in our industrial relations system is taken in isolation. Every act and every ruling have an impact which ripples through to the farthest corners of industry and the labour force. So it is with this Public Service case. A score of left wing unions took out Press space in newspapers around the nation a couple of weeks ago to declare publicly their support for the Public Service unions' case. They did not do it out of a passionate love for wage justice for public servants. Indeed, in the aristocracy of labour, the hard core left wing unions tend to be rather condescending and look down on public servants as workers. Let there be no mistake about this. Those left wing unions declared their support for the Public Service because of hopeful precedent-the precedent that the case could set for the rest of the trade union movement to exploit. They hope that unionists in the Government's employ will set the precedent that under the accord, simply put, anything goes. They will stretch, bend, distort and circumvent the accord so completely that it will be an empty document, a hollow myth-a myth that has perished because it has no intrinsic truth, strength, authority or utility. Then, commentators will ask what the accord amounted to anyway. They will contemplate with faint curiosity the lengths to which the Government has gone to preserve the myth and they will ask: Why did it bother? The accord did not change a thing. It was a descriptive document, a public relations document, which merely described a brief and superficially balanced stage in the very ordinary relationship between the Hawke Government and the trade union movement. There exists no special relationship. This Hawke Government has a very ordinary relationship with the trade union movement. The signs are there for all to see and not just in anecdotal accounts of industrial conflict, nor in the statistics of the level of industrial disputation. Most starkly they are evident in recent employment statistics, which show that minor growth in employment levels which occurred in the first term of the Hawke Government has been arrested and that, most disturbingly, much of it was attributable to public sector job creation anyway-the dole recycling queues. If there is a single reliable barometer as to the health of the economy and its industrial relations system, it is the labour market. That is the single barometer which tells one more about industrial relations and more about the health of the economy than anything else. Unfortunately for many thousands of people, this Government must carry the can on the labour market too because that market is looking decidedly sick. Unemployment is now stuck at about 8.5 per cent. Look at any economic indicator or statistic. Predictions from most reputable commentators are that unemployment statistics will stay around 8 or 9 per cent for the next 12 months. More than 600,000 of our fellow Australians are without work and, regrettably, many of them are facing increased periods of continuing unemployment. Also, 25 per cent of our young people have failed to find jobs. They are part of that miserable present and part of that bleak future. Over the coming session, the Opposition intends to articulate a different approach. We are not interested in myths; we are interested in realities. On behalf of the Opposition, I hope to make very clear the choice between its approach and that of this failing Government. In the employment and industrial relations portfolio, more than any other, the consequences of the wrong choice become evident. We must get our industrial relations system right in Australia or we are consigning ourselves and our children to mediocrity, general improverishment and massive social decline. We are on the threshold of becoming not just a second rate but a third rate nation unless we can get our industrial relations system right. As I said at the outset, I have absolutely no faith in the ability of this Government to do that. Interestingly enough, the accord is a useful framework through which we can explore the alternative courses. The Government has tried to sell it as a document of equity and social justice. It has had its fair share of success in the marketing task, but its true nature, its shallowness and its emptiness are being relentlessly exposed. What is more, those aspects are being exposed not just by the Opposition, not even particularly by critics in the media, but by the hard, cold evidence of strikes, economic malaise and continuing high levels of unemployment and by the harsh reality that is coming home to the Australian people. If anything, the accord is a document written and negotiated by the employed for the benefit of the employed. It is a document which cuts out unemployed Australians. It shuts them out of the economy, which exploits their lack of organisation and consequently their voicelessness. If there is one thing that I wish to do while I am Opposition spokesman in this portfolio, it is to communicate and articulate the interests of the unemployed. If there is one view I seek to put loudly and clearly over and over again to members of this House and to the Australian public at large, it is that of unemployed Australians-young, old, middle aged, skilled, unskilled, migrant and indigenous. I seek to incorporate their views and their voice into a discourse which under this Government has been the sole preserve of the already employed. Their voice and their views will lend support to the revitalisation of the Australian economy, the restructuring of the industrial relations system and the redistribution of opportunity in the labour market that only the coalition's approach, as we enunciate it, can achieve. I commend our approach and our policies to honourable members and to the people of Australia. I am sure that over the next three years they will receive sufficient support to put us on the Government benches and those who have failed yet again on the Opposition benches. Debate (on motion by Mr Martin) adjourned. Mr WILSON(Sturt) —by leave-I present the report of the Commonwealth of Australia Branch Delegation to the Thirtieth Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Isle of Man, in September-October 1984 and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr WILSON —I am pleased to inform the House that the Douglas conference was most successful, both for the Association generally and from the point of view of the Commonwealth of Australia branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. In terms of the Association, the most significant matter was the continuation of consideration of the report of the working party on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the future. Certain decisions were made by the General Assembly at its meeting in Nairobi in 1983, and remaining matters were considered most thoroughly in Douglas, culminating in the decision of the conference, by an overwhelming majority, to adopt the working party report. Honourable members may recall that the Commonwealth of Australia branch was heavily involved in the decision to establish the working party and played a major role in its deliberations. Members of the delegation were heavily involved in consideration of the report by the conference. The adoption of the report will be very important for the future of the Association, covering as it does such matters as representation on the executive and means by which savings in expenditure could be achieved in the operation of the Association. Members of the House should also be aware that the new Chairman of the Executive Committee is the distinguished Speaker of the Indian Lok Sabha, Dr the Hon. Bal Ram Jakhar, who participated heavily in the work of the working party and who is a distinguished member of the Association. The conference was both productive and enjoyable. It was productive in enabling some 188 delegates and committee members representing 95 branches to debate and discuss a wide range of topical parliamentary, economic, governmental and social issues. I think it could also be said that some delegates came to the conference questioning the value of the CPA or the value of such a conference conducted by it. I think those delegates with doubts who took part in the formal as well as the informal discussions came away from the Isle of Man believing that there is great value in a body such as the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, a value that is derived from not only the formal discussions, but also the informal contacts that are made. In the formal discussions, what I found fascinating-and I believe other delegates found it of interest too-was the great commonality of concern about a large number of issues, a concern common to parliamentarians from countries large and small, from countries of the developed world and the developing world and the undeveloped world, from island state to continental nation. The identification of that common concern was very valuable when we realised that we shared similar interests although we came from such diverse countries. In addition to the formal discussions, great value was gained by all members of the Australian delegation, as well as other delegations, from their participation in informal meetings with parliamentarians from the countries which I described earlier. I felt very heartened and encouraged by the results of the discussions on the working party's paper and from the feeling of strength that was gained from the discussions between members representing the 95 branches attending that conference. The efforts of the officers of the Isle of Man branch, the members of the Tynwald, the Parliament of the Isle of Man, who participated so wholeheartedly in conference activities, and of the Manx people themselves, all combined in ensuring a particularly enjoyable and fruitful conference. With my fellow delegates, I am deeply appreciative of the generosity and hospitality of our hosts. I also place on record the appreciation of the members of the Australian delegation for the leadership provided by the President of the Senate, Senator Douglas McClelland, who was the leader of the delegation. He was a significant figure at the conference and enjoyed the respect and friendship of a wide range of delegates and observers. I say without hesitation that the Australian delegation took an active part in the conference debates, in the deliberations of the General Assembly and in those informal contacts to which I have referred. I appreciate the efforts of all my fellow delegates in this regard. I make one further comment to acknowledge the work of Sir Robin Vanderfelt, for whom this conference might have been his last as Secretary-General of the Association. I place on record our delegation's appreciation of his leadership at that conference as well as, I am sure, the appreciation of many of our predecessors in our recognition of the great services he has rendered to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at its conferences and to the Australian delegates who have attended them. Any delegation of six members of parliament relies very heavily on its staff and I take this opportunity to record my thanks and the thanks of members of the delegation to Mr Bernard Wright, a clerk assistant in this House-I am pleased to see he is on duty at this moment in the House-who acted as secretary to the delegation, and to Mr Keirin Schneemann, the regional secretary of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Australian region, who attended the conference as an observer and acted as an adviser to our dele- gation. Their assistance was of great value to all members of the delegation. I include one other note of thanks. One does not get to a place such as the Isle of Man without an immense amount of organisation, through the booking of air tickets and the making of reservations. The other day, I received a letter from Qantas Airways Ltd to say that Ian Grow has been given other responsibilities and has been moved from the position he has held for some time as the principal officer handling parliamentary bookings on Qantas overseas flights. For my part, and, I think, also for members of the delegation, I record my appreciation for his assistance to the delegation and for his assistance over a number of years to many members of this House and, no doubt, of the Senate, for the work that he did in making our travel arrangements so easy. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —by leave-As a member of the Commonwealth of Australia branch delegation to the Thirtieth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference which, as was mentioned, was held in Douglas, Isle of Man, I would like to support very strongly and sincerely the comments made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson), who was the deputy leader of the delegation. As he said, there is value in both the formal and the informal contacts made there and all members who went to that conference were very impressed with the standard of the conference. This was my first opportunity of being a member of the delegation representing this Parliament overseas. My impressions are that the Australian delegation to the CPA conference was held in very high regard by the other parliamentarians at the conference. It was interesting to observe that we were, I think, the only country that hosted a special function, apart from the host nation, for all other parliamentarians. It was well attended, I might add. On this occasion, it would be fitting for me to give due credit to the leader of the delegation, Senator Douglas McClelland, the President of the Senate. He had an important role in promoting an Australian perspective in both the conference debates and the deliberations of the General Assembly, and I think it is fitting that recognition be paid to his part in the total conference. I was fortunate in being the first cab off the rank, in terms of having the opportunity of being the first Australian speaker at the first plenary session, which dealt with the Commonwealth, the arms race and world peace. The general purport of the debate was that the Commonwealth should play an active intermediary role in the pursuit of international peace and disarmament, to establish a safe global climate for economic development. Mention must be made-and it has been made by the honourable member for Sturt (Mr Wilson)-of the tremendous hospitality received from our Manx hosts. That and the organisational arrangements for the conference made all overseas visitors and delegates feel very much at home. I would like to express my appreciation of their generosity and their hospitality. I trust that when we host the Thirty-fourth Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in 1988, which I hope will be a good vintage year-- Mr Young —That will be the start of our third term. Mr BLANCHARD —That is right. I hope that those entrusted with the organisation of that conference will pay considerable attention to the way in which the small Isle of Man CPA organised its conference. Finally, I would like to say how privileged I was to attend that conference. I would like again to share the comments made by the deputy leader of the delegation, the honourable member for Sturt, in his tributes to Mr Wright and Mr Schneemann, because certainly they played an important role in making sure that the Australian delegates to the conference were very well settled in at the conference and in the arrangements made before that conference. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —by leave-I feel privileged to have taken part in this Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation to the Isle of Man; to have enjoyed the amity and cordiality prevailing among the Australian delegates, and to have enjoyed a part of this world which must be described as quite exquisite. The Isle of Man is a gem in the Irish Sea. On a clear day, from Mount Snaefell, a mere 2,000 feet, one can gaze around the horizon and simultaneously witness the coastlines of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and one is reminded of the contrast with this vast country. That was not the only contrast. We were mindful, of course, that we rejoiced in a community which has treasured and has enjoyed the longest standing democratic parliament in the world-the Tynwald-for a period of over 1,000 years. I was particularly impressed with the nature of the character of the members of the community whose company we enjoyed. Whilst they were remarkably efficient and purposeful in their address to the essentials attended upon the visit to their small country of some 164 delegates and attendant staff, they manifested a quality which reminded me very much of this country of ours perhaps 50 years ago. I must admit to a silent lament that probably in 50 years time they will enjoy and suffer the experiences which this country of ours presently suffers. I mention the purpose of address, the most effective way in which they accommodated the reasonable expectations of the delegations, yet strangely enough, as efficient and deliberate as they were, they manifested a human quality which almost teetered on insouciance. I wonder where this exquisite place in the sun may end up as man hurtles to his destination, which is not yet determined. I enjoyed the company of my colleagues. I think the CPA delegation acquitted itself well. Whilst men of diverse cultures and characters can come together in common accord and discuss matters of common interest, our overall cause must be advanced as a consequence. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., under sessional order I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(10.15) —I realise that the Victorian election is on. I realise I am not meant to be speaking here tonight, but it is the fiftieth anniversary of Qantas Airways Ltd today. The first international flight Qantas made was on 25 February 1935. I think it is most important for all Australians to remember the fact. No doubt many parliamentarians, including the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown), make many trips around the world with Qantas in the big jumbo jets and think nothing of it, but it is to be remembered that the Queensland and Northern Territory Aerial Services commenced its services in western Queensland more than 50 years ago. The service was initially established by a number of people in that part of the world who saw the need for an airline to service western Queensland and the Northern Territory, to give those people much needed mail services and food services, which they were not able to get in those days. Of course, it was a tremendous advance in technology. The first internal Australian service, on 16 November 1920, operated from Charleville to Cloncurry. Charleville is, of course, one of the bigger and better towns in my electorate. Over the years many people have been involved, people like Sir Hudson Fysh, who was one of the first pilots, and Mr McGinness. Fergus McMaster was the first Chairman of Qantas, and Mr Baird was the first mechanic. Of course, many pioneer pilots and other people were associated with that airline in western Queensland in the early days. There have been a number of editorials in the daily Press today and I am pleased to see that they have taken time to remember the fact that we have come a very long way since those early times in western Queensland. The first flight took place from Brisbane to Singapore, and it took three days to get there. It used to take 12 to 14 days to get to London. These days we hop in the big Qantas jumbos and get there in less than 24 hours. Captain Scotty Allan was the first pilot to pilot the aircraft to Singapore. These days the airline takes many people around the world. Last year there were over 2 million passengers and the airline turned over $1.386 billion in revenue. It flew 64 million kilometres, and it employs 11,000 Australians. Mr Goodluck —Too many. Mr IAN CAMERON —It may be too many, but it is important that this airline does contribute tremendously to our economy and gives a lot of Australians good jobs. It also contributed $28.5m to tax revenue to this country. Honourable members would agree with me that it is most important that I, the member for Maranoa, one of the areas where this airline was born, be given time to pay tribute to the early pioneers of this wonderful airline. Of course, it is going from strength to strength. Last year it showed a profit of $58.3m. Mr Campbell —When are you going to sell it? Mr IAN CAMERON —We do not expect to sell it. While it is making a profit, there is no need to sell it. All honourable members will agree with me that it is a wonderful tribute to the endeavour of the early Australian pioneers. There is no reason why we should not all be very proud of this international airline that we have established. I know most of us are proud to fly Qantas around the world; we know it is one of the safest international airlines on which we can travel. I wish those who have contributed to this airline all the very best. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.20) —I rise in response to an article in today's Age regarding the preparations being made by the insurance industry to march tomorrow on the Victorian Parliament House as part of a campaign against the State Government's proposed changes to the workers compensation system. Supposedly spontaneous rallies like this take a great deal of orchestration and planning. High level authority in the insurance industry is required to make sure they happen. Employees in the insurance industry are expected to march, and I can only agree with the Victorian Treasurer, Mr Jolly, that the insurance companies are trying to use their employees as pawns in the election campaign. Only the naive would accept the statement by the Chief Executive of the Insurance Council of Australia, Mr Rodney Smith, that the rally 'originated out of spontaneous concern among workers about their careers'. The truth is that this rally and the vitriolic advertising campaign now running in Victoria through blanket television, radio and press coverage, at a cost of in excess of some $1.5m to $2m, is being run entirely, albeit covertly, by the Insurance Council of Australia itself. Moreover, millions of dollars which have come out of the premium payments of policy holders-the ordinary working men and women of Australia; payments for household, accident, life and property insurances, money that foreign-owned insurance companies have made out of the misery and suffering of Victorian workers-is being paid by the Insurance Council of Australia to the Liberal Party campaign in Victoria. The link between the Council and the Liberal Party in the State election is clear. I will demonstrate why. The Leader of the Opposition in Victoria has lost the confidence of business on the issue of workers compensation. Business is very much in favour of the Government's proposals and Mr Kennett has attacked the Business Council of Australia for its sensible stance. In an expensive rearguard action, the Insurance Council, dominated by foreign companies which want no part of the changes simply because they will offer business lower premiums and workers better cover, have joined directly with Mr Kennett's campaign. I have here the campaign strategy of the Insurance Council of Australia, dated February 1985, over the name of Mr Reg Trigg, Director of the National Accident Compensation Committee-the front organisation for the Council itself. Mr Trigg says that the insurance industry resources are to be concentrated on priority electorates. Target areas for action include all marginal Labor held seats, including the eastern electorates of Evelyn, Monbulk, Bennettswood, Syndal, Mitcham, Ringwood and Warrandyte-all seats Mr Kennett would have to win if he were, unfortunately, to form a government in Victoria. The co-ordinator of this campaign is a Jane Evans, who just happens to be on secondment from her job as Government Liaison Officer for the Insurance Council of Australia. Her task is to organise letters to local newspapers and to organise direct mailings and letter box drops of literature, and to give direct assistance to the local Liberal-National Party machine. Let me quote from an inter-office memorandum from the personnel department to all staff of Federation Insurance Ltd dated 13 February 1985: The National Accident Compensation Committee is asking all insurance company employees to actively support the Liberal and National Party candidates in selected marginal seats . . . Requests have been received already from the Liberal Party . . . we ask you to give your name if you are will to help. Once again the target Labor electorates are listed. This massive project of campaigning and direct mail, co-ordinated by the Australian Insurance Council through Jane Evans and the National Accident Compensation committee, has committed total resources which must exceed $2m-an amount which must be collectively paid by all member companies of the Council and, in turn, ultimately by ordinary policyholders. Yet in the Age today, despite these memos, despite this declared strategy, Mr Rodney Smith had the gall to say that the rally will be spontaneous. He cannot confirm or deny that the Council is actually involved in the Liberal Party campaign. Despite this proof, Mr Smith maintains that the Council has not donated one penny to any political party. It should be pointed out that such donations contravene the Council's charter and are a clear breach of the Council's internal rules. The political web of intrigue is complete. The rally tomorrow and this scurrilous media campaign against the interests of business and the welfare of the working men and women of Victoria are nothing less than the hijacking of millions of dollars of insurance premiums. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(10.25) —Madam Deputy Speaker, the 1984-85 Commonwealth Budget allocated tax reimbursement to the States for local government funds totalling $486.534m. The Victorian Grants Commission allocated the Victorian funds to each municipality, including an amount of $958,000 to the Oakleigh City Council. The Commonwealth Government therefore has a responsibility to the Australian taxpayers and also to municipal ratepayers to ensure that there is proper municipal management and financial control. During the past few years many public concerns have been expressed about aspects of Oakleigh Council administration, but recently the most serious allegations have been made in the form of statutory declarations signed by prominent local people within the Australian Labor Party, contained in a document known locally as the Blue Book, this disturbing collection of documents has been validated by the Victorian Minister for Local Government, the Honourable Frank Wilkes, who on 1 February 1985 wrote to Mr Geoff Leigh, MLA for Malvern, and stated: It is obvious that the documents were prepared by a person or persons within the ALP for use by duly elected members at forums within the party. I have been assured that they have been referred to the appropriate party committee and are undergoing examination. You will appreciate that the process is not within my responsibility as Minister for Local Government. What does this mean, Madam Deputy Speaker? Clearly, party factions are more important than the electorate, for clearly the factions in Oakleigh are at war. The Blue Book contains amazing statements about violence, intimidation, assault and other offensive behaviour, as well as concerns about financial administration. The documents reveal massive deficits in the Oakleigh City Councils budget. For instance, in 1983 the deficit totalled $522,506, following a deficit in 1982 of $564,833. The Director-General for Local Government has advised council that a significant reason for these deficits is that Council goes outside budgetary controls by the use of unexpected variations. Madam Deputy Speaker, what has happened to the Commonwealth funds allocated to Oakleigh? This question is given a fresh urgency by documents in the Blue Book. Mrs Heather O'Connor, a former ALP candidate for Bruce, has stated: A shot was fired through a window in my house. The police were called but no further action was taken. On the night of the incident there were five children asleep in the room where the shot was fired. There is intimidation and fear exercised by Councillor Perryman, Leader of Council Caucus and for many years chairman of the finance committee. Another member described how Councillor Perryman early one morning vandalised the fuses in his house and later that day Mr Farnsworth declared-- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I ask the honourable member to resume his seat. I suggest that the matter of which he is speaking at the moment is sub judice. It is a matter before the court. Mr ALDRED —To the best of my knowledge, these matters are not sub judice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —When you bring the name of Councillor Perryman into it, it is sub judice. Mr ALDRED —Only in relation to particular matters, not in the general sense, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your indulgence to continue. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I shall have to listen carefully to what you have to say. Mr ALDRED —Later that day, Mr Farnsworth declared: That evening I arrived home with my fiance and Mr Paul Foley at approximately eight p.m. (8.00 p.m.). Mr Perryman's car was parked in front of my house with its headlights trained on the front door. As I drove in my driveway another car pulled into the driveway, blocking it. Surely, Madam Deputy Speaker, we have here evidence of a little mafia-type boss manipulating power from his Oakleigh Council power base. I call on this Government to withhold any further Commonwealth funds to Oakleigh City Council until there is a thorough investigation into all aspects of Oakleigh City Council's financial administration. I also call upon the Minister for Police and Emergency Services to investigate the various allegations made in the Blue Book. I seek leave to table the Blue Book in support of the allegations and statements I have made. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is leave granted? Mr Milton —No. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. The honourable member's time has expired. Mr N. A. Brown —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. Did you say that leave was not granted? My understanding is that no honourable member indicated that leave was not granted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —One honourable member of the Government side of the House said no. Mr N. A. Brown —Which honourable member? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for La Trobe said no. Mr N. A. Brown —Are we to understand that he is obstructing the tabling of these papers? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Standing Orders of the House are quite clear. If one honourable member refuses permission, a document cannot be tabled. The honourable member for Menzies is well aware of the Standing Orders. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.32) —Over the past few days we have heard much about the threat of war. MX missiles and such things have been much discussed. But another war is threatening this country-that is, a milk war. The consequences would be disastrous to the rural sector of this country. The threatened dumping of surplus milk from Victoria on the New South Wales market is posing a serious threat to employment and to the economy of the Illawarra-Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands regions of my electorate. The problem is not only one for the producers of milk; it also threatens the livelihood of local factory employees, milk vendors and hundreds of smaller retail outlets. In terms of direct employment-those people earning their income from the dairy industry-there are 250 dairies employing 740 people; six factories employing 190 people; and 150 milk vendors, mainly self-employed, but also engaging an additional 220 casual or part-time assistants. To those 1,300 people add the many hundreds more employed in smaller shops and corner stores, together with many thousands of family members relying on that employment, and we have with this local dairy industry a very major contribution to the regional economy. Milk producers in my electorate are very concerned not only about the viability of their farms and the livelihood of their families but also for the consumers in respect of the orderly system that has been built up over many years to guarantee the regular delivery to them of the highest quality milk. It is a disconcerting and undesirable fact that Victorian farmers are not subjected to the very stringent milk testing procedures and quality control standards that the dairymen in New South Wales have to undergo and meet. Samples of Victorian milk taken recently from several stores in New South Wales were found to contain a material degree of sludge. New South Wales dairy farmers have had a proven supply record over the last 30 years in ensuring that fresh milk was available to New South Wales consumers every day of the year. Much is made of price comparisons. There is little difference in farm gate prices for market milk between Victorian and New South Wales producers. In fact, milk can be bought cheaper at the retail level in New South Wales than in Victoria. The unfair comparison that has been made through the media from time to time about the 18c to 20c difference is totally erroneous because it has compared the New South Wales market milk farm gate price of around 30c to 31c a litre with the Victorian manufactured milk price of around 11c to 12c a litre. As I have said, there is little difference between market milk prices and manufactured milk prices in the States. The important difference is in the amount of manufactured milk available in Victoria. Much of the problem facing the dairy industry today is because Victorian milk producers were allowed during the years of misguided Liberal rule to expand at will, with the consequence that today the industry is in an over-supply situation. We must have a rational approach to the industry. I am most concerned that Australia should have a rational dairy industry. The alternative to a rational industry is a milk war which can have only disastrous consequences for the industry in the short and long term and for consumers in the long term. It is confidently predicted that if a milk war is allowed to develop, 40 per cent of dairymen will go out of business, regardless of which State they come from. If a milk war develops, we will see milk producers going out of business in all States. Who will make up this 40 per cent? Those farmers most heavily into borrowing with fixed repayment commitments will feel the pinch. The reduction process will have no respect for State boundaries. The biggest worry is that those dairymen falling by the wayside will be largely in the younger age group, those on whom the future of the industry depends. I do not believe that we, as a Parliament, can allow this to happen. I give this warning to the Victorian members of Parliament who are so gung ho about getting into the Sydney milk market: If its Victorian milk today it could be New Zealand milk tomorrow. We in New South Wales have an efficient year round milk industry. We will fight to keep it and will fight to keep out Victorian milk. Mr HAWKER(Wannon)(10.35) —I refer to a question asked in Question Time today by my colleague the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), which in part stated: . . . accepting visits from nuclear-powered and possibly nuclear-armed ships is central to the ANZUS alliance, and the fact that at least one State has declared itself nuclear free, will the Prime Minister give a guarantee that visits by such ships will be welcomed in every State of Australia. In reply, the Prime Minister said in part: As far as the position of Australia is concerned in regard to the access of visiting warships from the United States, there is complete amity between ourselves and the United States Government. That was a very glib reply from the Prime Minister, and 'glib' is the word to describe it. After his backdown on the MX missile crisis, can we really take his word as being worth listening to? On Friday the Prime Minister, with the help of his colleagues, managed to survive a censure motion. During the debate he moved an amendment to the motion in these terms: 'reaffirms the Government's firm commitment to the ANZUS alliance an in particular the strength of relationship between the U.S. and Australia arising from that alliance'. After the breakdown of a simple request from the United States that it be allowed to refuel in Australia a few planes which were to observe an MX test outside our territorial waters, the question still arises: Can we really rely on what the Prime Minister said? I think many Australians are beginning to wonder, and for very good reason. That is why in the House today I gave notice of a motion which states in part: That this House- . . . (2) calls upon the Government to guarantee that all United States naval vessels will have full access to Australian ports, including the use of repair and maintenance facilities, irrespective of the stated views of individual trade unions and State Premiers. The key point in that notice of motion is the reference to the State Premiers. Let us look at a few facts, starting with the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain. What did Mr Cain do just after he was elected in 1982? I quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review of 9 June 1982, which refers to a letter to the Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, dated 27 May, in which Mr Cain initially raised the nuclear issue. The article states: . . . he said that he was writing to give early notice of the State Government's policy that it ''will not permit visits of nuclear powered or nuclear armed vessels to Victorian ports''. In fact, according to an article in the Australian of 19 June, Mr Cain went further than that. The article states: Mr Cain wrote to the Minister for Public Works, Mr Simpson, on May 27- the same day- directing that the policy be implemented immediately. Mr Donald Cameron —Who did? Mr HAWKER —Mr Cain wrote to Mr Simpson. He said: Berths and other facilities are not to be provided to nuclear-powered vessels or to naval vessels carrying nuclear weapons. On 8 June Mr Cain was interviewed on the AM program by an Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter, who asked him: Doesn't the Federal Government have right of veto over this though? Mr Cain replied: No, I don't accept that at all. We are administering this State and that's our decision in respect of these matters. Returning to the Prime Minister's answer, I think many of us feel very unsure of what he said. In fact, unsure might be a mild way of putting it. The question arises whether he can really guarantee that Australia would honour the ANZUS Treaty, including allowing vessels from the United States Navy to visit our ports. Without this guarantee, the Prime Minister in his statement, has given us a hollow and meaningless undertaking. Who would be the first to undermine this undertaking? I think it is already quite clear. It would be none other than the Premier of Victoria, Mr Cain who would be the first to undermine Australia. For the sake of all Victorians and for the sake of the defence of Australia, the Prime Minister must publicly state that he will not be dictated to be a fifth column Premier like Mr Cain. If he is not prepared to give that undertaking on this coming Saturday Victorians have no choice but to take their opportunity and vote the socialist government out of power in Victoria and boot them into Bass Strait. Mr Goodluck —I do not think we want them in Bass Strait. Mr HAWKER —Yes, they can go into Bass Strait. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.40) —It is with sadness that, yet again, I rise in this House to speak against the continuous racial violence in Sri Lanka. The Government of that once tranquil island is involved in oppression of the Tamil minority and with its army and security forces is engaged in genocide against the Tamil people. The ethnic violence which erupted in July 1983 brought untold misery to the Tamils. More than a thousand Tamils, peaceful citizens, were attacked, beaten, shot or burnt to death in July riots. One would have thought that after those sad events the Jayewardene Government would have stepped in to protect its Tamil citizens and to punish those who were guilty of planning and carrying out the unprovoked attacks. Yet, to date, no impartial inquiry into these violent attacks has taken place. What is worse, the killings continue. Ominous news of atrocities arrives regularly. I will quote from one of the telexes received recently. It states: Sri Lankan Government escalates genocidal violence against Tamils in Ceylon. First December security forces strafed from helicopters Tamil civilians in Nedunkerny near Vavuniya and dropped incendiary bombs on houses killing more than two hundred . . . same day Tamil civilians of Periyakulam village lined up and fired on by army death squads murdering twenty seven and injuring many more. Second December sixty four innocent Tamil civilians arrested at Chettikulam near Vavuniya by Army later found lying dead along the highroad . . . Third December fifty two Tamil detainees held in Vavuniya Army camp summarily executed by Sinhala Army . . . at Uyilankulam near Mannar Army deathsquad indiscriminately opened fire on innocent Tamil villagers and murdered seventeen and injured many more. At Parapankandal in Mannar district Army death squads intercepted two State transport buses and murdered all Tamil passengers totalling sixty five including a woman passenger. The telex goes on, page after page, giving details of gruesome atrocities against Tamil civilians. To dispel any doubt about what is going on, I also quote from the Australian of 13 February. It states: News of a new jungle massacre carried out by the Sri Lankan armed forces in the northern part of the island is being circulated in this coastal town. The country's heavily censored press, which has to rely exclusively on government hand-outs for its news of activities by both terrorists and security forces, says a raid on a jungle camp during a cordon and search operation around a number of villages in Mannar district 13 days ago resulted in the deaths of seven terrorists, and the capture of a considerable amount of military equipment. People who were there say the reality was quite different. Distraught villagers say 32 innocent men were shot in cold blood, often in front of the terrified eyes of their wives and children. They say no terrorists were in the villages, none were shot and no military equipment was seized. I call on our Government to take the necessary steps in international forums to mobilise world opinion which, in turn, will force the Sri Lankan Government to stop murdering its own citizens and stop the genocide against its Tamil minority. In addition, it is our duty to stop all military aid to the Sri Lankan Army, to make sure that Australian weapons and bullets are not used for killing innocent Tamil civilians. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(10.45) —I congratulate the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr Jeffrey Kennett, for springing to the defence of Lady Murray and Government House, on behalf of all Victorians, when he apologised for Premier Cain's rebuke and atrocious behaviour towards Lady Murray. I congratulate Mr Kennett because he summed up the feeling of Victorians and their hopes and aspirations that he will garner in the vote next Saturday in the Victorian election. Mr Kennett said, in part, in his letter to Lady Murray: The Victorian people overwhelmingly support and thank you and Sir Brian for the way in which you have conducted your duties as our Vice-Regal representatives in Victoria. All fair-minded Victorians would apologise to you for the difficult situation in which you have been placed during your term in office. I know that all honourable members on this side agree with those sentiments, and I hope that honourable members opposite will agree with them, too. I congratulate Mr Kennett for springing to Lady Murray's defence. Premier Cain apparently rebuked Lady Murray for a speech she made in October last year at the annual ladies day Legacy luncheon. As she said at the opening, she thought that it was pertinent in a history-conscious year, Victoria's 150th year celebrations, for her to speak about Government House, Melbourne. Having read and re-read the speech, I would have thought that Mr Cain, rather than rebuking Lady Murray-he did not do so directly; he did not have the courage to do so directly, but did so by speaking to the Governor-would have congratulated Lady Murray for putting on record the history of Government House. Lady Murray made an interesting speech, which dealt with the way in which Government House was moved on Federation, when Government House in Victoria became the Federal Government House. It was a valuable historical speech in Victoria's 150th year. The small-minded Victorian Premier, Mr Cain, rebuked Lady Murray by speaking to the Governor. Mr Cain continues to refuse to apologise and apparently refused to take from Lady Murray a copy of her most innocuous, interesting historical speech about Government House. He did not have the courage to do that. I say to Mr Cain: 'Be a man and admit that you are wrong'. The Premier has harassed the Governor and Lady Murray. He has not had the courage to speak to Lady Murray himself about the matter. His conduct has been, to say the least, ungentlemanly. Obviously, it is part of a plan by Mr Cain and a desire by him and his colleagues on the socialist Left to do away with the office of Governor in Victoria. Mr Cain is a prisoner of the socialist Left and consistently votes with the socialist Left. At the Federal Australian Labor Party Conference he voted with the socialist Left on the nuclear issues. The socialist Left thinks Mr Cain is marvellous. It was a pathetic, petty criticism from a puny Premier. It was child-like and childish behaviour. This small minded man, Mr Cain, is no man to lead Victoria for the next four years. He would have done better to have spent some of Victoria's money that was spent on the 150th year celebrations doing up the old lady, Government House, and on having an open day so that Victorians could see the historic mansion. It is part of Victoria's history, it belongs to Victoria and it is most proper and appropriate that Lady Murray, in Victoria's 150th year celebrations, should describe Government House. Mr Cain should do something constructive for a change. I say to the Victorian Premier:'Be a man, Mr Cain, and apologise to Lady Murray for your pathetic behaviour'. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.49) —The Australian Conservation Foundation has recommended to the Federal Government that it take up an initiative with its 15 contracting Antarctic treaty partners in forming a conservation convention for the continent of Antarctica, with the main aim of creating an Antarctica world park. The ACF has also suggested to the Federal Government that it propose to its treaty partners that there be a nomination of all parts of Antarctica by those claiming sovereignty for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Those areas which are not the subject of historic sovereignty claims could be managed by a special park authority. I would like to strongly support the ACF's proposals. The proposed world park could cover not only 14 million square kilometres, over one-and-a-half times the size of Australia, but also the continental shelf and possibly also the fishing zones. Different areas of the world park could be zoned for different purposes, such as scientific bases, nature reserves and tourism. Military activities of all types, including nuclear dumping and the testing of nuclear devices, would be totally banned. The eight main advantages for the establishment of a world park are as follows: First, it will result in the maintenance of a pattern of activity in Antarctica which has been successful in achieving scientific co-operation and conservation. Secondly, it will maintain Antarctica as a zone of peace. Thirdly, it will avoid increased tension between nations over access to Antarctica's minerals. Fourthly, it will avoid large expenditures on the search for minerals. Fifthly, it will conserve the Antarctic environment in its natural state as the last great wilderness and a global ecological buffer. Sixthly, it will set an example of environmental restraint which will be of value for international and domestic policy elsewhere. Seventhly, it will result in an earlier turn to renewable sources of energy and, eighthly, it will not prevent Antarctic minerals from being exploited if there were to be a demonstrated need for access to them in the case of a genuine world emergency. Australia, being one of the initial treaty nations and because of its geographical closeness to Antarctica, can take the lead in taking up the world park proposal. One of my concerns in relation to Antarctica is the threat which mining and oil exploration and the subsequent development of such industries could pose for the unique environment of the Antarctic. In the case of oil there is the major problem which oil spills could mean for marine life. Virtually all marine life is based on the marine environment. Oil degrades slowly in the freezing waters of the Antarctic and the debilitating effect of oil on the swarms of krill, upon which all other forms of Antarctic life depend, would be catastrophic. The flow of air and water throughout the region also poses threats for the fishing industries of Chile and Argentina. Mining and oil drilling would require extensive infrastructure for the housing of workers and for transport and storage facilities. Competition for the limited space could cause great threats to the environment, involving pollution and disturbance to the natural fauna. It is vital that the treaty nations agree to consider the conservation of the continent as an option which could run parallel to the consideration of a minerals regime while at the same time agreeing to a moratorium on mining until full consideration has been given to the conservation option. As an article by Dr Geoff Mosley, Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation, in Habitat some months ago indicated, time for the declaration of Antarctica as a world park is rapidly running out. If the Australian Government does not take the initiative now, the environmental beauty of the continent of Antarctica may be lost for all time to exploitative interests and the destructive forces of pollution and despoilation. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.53) —I wish to draw the House's attention to the chaotic position of health care in Victoria. Mr Roper took over the position of Minister of Health in Victoria in 1982. Mr Rocher —Roper or Raper? Mr McARTHUR —It is a bit hard to say, actually. Mr Roper, when shadow Minister of Health, gave an undertaking that the health system would be greatly improved. All we can see in conjunction with Medicare is that the system has been totally downgraded. We see the problems of budgetary restraint; we see the Minister accepting a 38-hour week, thereby incurring a 5 per cent increase in Budget costs. However, what did he do? He gave no further Budget allocation to hospitals. The hospitals reaction in Victoria was to accept fewer patients, to have less patient care and provide fewer services to all Victorians. The Government increased the cost of administration of the Health Commission of Victoria and increased the number of public servants. Some 25,000 have been added to Victoria's total Public Service payroll, thereby adding an extra cost to administration, not to health care. The only way that hospital committees of administration can handle the problem is to reduce the number of patients. They can then meet the Budget that has been set by the Health Minister. We find wards are empty in city hospitals in Victoria under this new system. Mr Rocher —They are being closed. Mr McARTHUR —They are being closed because they have insufficient funds to pay the nurses. We have, at this stage, a secret report concerning country Victoria. We have found out that the report has been presented to the Government but Minister Roper says that it is not authentic in suggesting that a number of country hospitals will be closed on the basis of cost. Honourable members can be sure that after the election, if by chance Premier Cain gets back into government, the smaller hospitals will be closed. Under the Medicare arrangements we can see one result: Less money from Canberra, public hospitals being overrun with public patients and private hospitals with insufficient numbers of patients. Queues are developing, especially in the city areas, and the private hospitals are in great financial trouble. Many Victorians have not taken out private insurance in the belief that they will get care through the Medicare arrangements. They are finding that the treatment is not available, that they have no choice of doctor and that they are waiting in the long queue. It is interesting to read in the Government-General's Speech that the Government has put this on record: In its second term of office, the Government will ensure the maintenance of the Medicare program which has extended health services and an insurance system to all Australians on a fair, affordable and stable basis. The Medicare levy of 1 per cent of taxable income will not be increased during the Government's second term. How can we run the hospitals in Victoria over the next three years with this state of affairs? The Federal Government will be allocating no further funds, and the Victorians are strapped for funds anyway. The Cain Government has put the view that $10m will solve the problem. I quote from the Age of 12 February: Doctor Robert Marshall, the chairman of a committee of senior medical specialists from Melbourne's big hospitals, said yesterday that the extra $10m offered by Mr Cain would do little to ease the hospitals' waiting lists, estimated at between 15,000 and 20,000 patients. Mr Cadman —How many? Mr McARTHUR —Between 15,000 and 20,000. To continue: But Mr Dr Marshall said that as the State's public hospitals' budget accounted for more than $1,000m, $10m represented an increase of only one per cent. Under Mr Roper as Minister of Health and under Premier Cain, if by chance Cain were re-elected, in the next four years the hospitals would be in a chaotic situation. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.58) —I cannot let the opportunity of the last couple of minutes of this adjournment debate go by without referring to the last speech. I refer to the area of Dunkley. The Victorian Government, in the last three or four months, announced a huge increase in expenditure on the Frankston hospital. At long last the hole in the ground at Frankston will be filled up. Liberal governments have failed for 27 years to fill that hole. They kept offering. Mr Shipton —Tell us what you did to the Mornington Bush Nursing Hospital. Mr CHYNOWETH —If the honourable member really wants to know, it was I who made successful representations to the Minister for Health to allow the Bush Nursing Hospital's case to be heard here. It was not a member of the National Party. It was not a member of the Liberal Party. It was I, when I was the member for Flinders. Claims that the Cain Labor Government will not be there on 2 March are completely false. This will be proved in the next four or five days. Over last month we heard about Jeff Kennett's foot and mouth disease. It is spreading to Canberra. I can hear it suffers all over the place. The candidate for Frankston South, Geoff Holland, is an excellent candidate. I cannot remember the name of the Liberal candidate, but Geoff Holland is the one who will win Frankston South. In Mornington we have David Hassett. He has represented the electorate of Dromana on the Mornington Peninsula excellently over the past three years and will represent Mornington for the next four years. In Dromana we have another excellent candidate, Allison Ogden. Dromana is a part of the Flinders electorate and is a beautiful area. I am quite certain that Allison will win there handsomely. Frankston, of course, is the hub of the peninsula and is in the beautiful electorate of Dunkley. The Mornington City Council has done more in community employment program projects than any other council on the peninsula. It has to be congratulated in the House for the excellent work it has done to try to alleviate the situation of those in our society who are disadvantaged. Opposition members interjecting- Mr CHYNOWETH —We can hear the bleating from the many of the right wing members of the National Party. They should have listened to the candidate who stood against me in Dunkley Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr 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 notice was given: Mr Sinclair to move- That the preamble to the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984, a.m., relating to the declaration and registration of Members' interests be amended, by adding the following proviso: 'Provided that these requirements will not come into effect unless and until the Senate has adopted resolutions requiring Senators to meet similar requirements:'. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 25 February 1985: Acts Interpretation Act- Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic reports of- Anglo-Australian Telescope Board, report for year 1983-84. Australian Atomic Energy Commission, report for year 1983-84. Australian Capital Territory Building and Construction Industry Long Service Leave Board, report for year 1983-84. Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, report for year 1983-84. Statement relating to failure to furnish periodical report within specified period-Capital Territory Health Commission, report for year 1984-85. Census and Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposal for disclosure of list of names and addresses-1985-No. 1-Manufacturing establishments for Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. Complaints (Australian Federal Police) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 11. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 12. Departure Tax Collection Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 8. Excise Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 13. Pig Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 10. Public Service Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 7. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinance-1985- No. 2-Motor Traffic (Amendment). No. 3-Health Services. Torres Strait Fisheries Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 9.