Thursday, 28 February 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 27 February, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPEAKER —Before the debate is resumed on this Bill, I remind the House that it has been agreed that a general debate be allowed covering this Bill and Orders of the Day Nos 2 and 3, namely, the Trust Recoupment Bill 1985 and the Trust Recoupment (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(10.01) —In addressing this legislation yesterday, I was drawing attention to the problems which the interpretation of the Commissioner of Taxation had placed on numerous consultants and small business people when the Commissioner chose in Ruling No. IT 2121 to impose penalties and taxes on family companies and trusts in relation to income from personal exertion. This is a most deplorable matter. It has caused widespread disruption, great concern and real damage to many small business people throughout Australia. People who originally entered into arrangements whereby they could go out and seek work from a range of clients are being seriously disadvantaged. The Commissioner has levied taxes, fines and back payments to the extent, in many instances, of $40,000 or $50,000, which he has gathered through a process under existing legislation to convince people they should meet assessments dated before 28 May 1981. Mr Robert Brown —You know that the honest ones have nothing to worry about. Mr CADMAN —That is not true; that is far from the truth. If the Government believes that, if that is the Government's attitude, it will be condemned by every small businessman in Australia. What the Government is doing in fact is, by a back door process, forcing the unionisation of many areas which are not currently unionised. It is denying access and opportunity for people of capacity, drive and good intentions for themselves their families and the people of Australia. Many of those individuals have been denied the opportunity of regular employment. They have been told by their former employers that the only way in which they will be able to maintain a regular income is by becoming a consultant or subcontractor to that company. They have no option; either they lose their job or they become a consultant. In many instances they have gladly taken up the opportunity of becoming a subcontractor or a consultant, because it gives them a range of opportunities that had not existed for them previously. However, the Commissioner, in his interpretation of the Federal Court of Australia case of Tupicoff v. Commissioner of Taxation, has said that he is not concerned about the details of the arrangement. As long as that person has changed the process of his arrangement with the company which is providing the funds, that person will be regarded as an employee. That is a deplorable approach and a deplorable decision, and it is supported by the Australian Labor Party. It is a dreadful thing that the Treasurer (Mr Keating) will not apply his mind and his skills to these matters, instead of trying to trick the Caucus into accepting a larger number of banks than it thought Australia was going to get. He should apply his mind to the real needs of the nation, such as the clearing up of the present tax fiasco. It has created great concern and disruption all around Australia because nobody knows what tax will be applied next. The Treasurer should apply his mind also to this decision made by the Commissioner of Taxation. The Commissioner has said some incredible things in his ruling. He has said things about employers and employees that show a naivety, a lack of understanding, about working relationships within the community. Many individuals, having been forced to change their relationship with a company, have established bona fide private companies and have set up offices within their homes. They do not have the capital to rent professional offices and hire secretaries, or in every instance to buy equipment, but they have established a proper process of business. Where will it stop? Already the Commissioner has said that he is chasing people involved in industries such as mining, computers, insurance, motor vehicles, real estate and entertainment. There is not much more left. My friends in the building industry and in other important industries indicate that they will be next in line. The man on the tools and the man and his mate who go out with a skill will need to be very cautious in the way in which they approach their work from now on. The writing is on the wall; the Commissioner will pursue people who are bona fide, legitimate small business people. These people have taken the big plunge, they have made the decision to go out on their own-sometimes coercion can work in more than one way because the Commissioner has taken the extraordinary step of writing to major contractors asking for details of their arrangements with sub-contractors and consultants. It is extraordinary for the Commissioner to write to a head contractor and say: 'I want the details of your arrangements with your sub-contractors'. The Commissioner has a responsibility to gain tax from those who owe it, but he should be dealing directly with the individuals about whom he is concerned rather than the people who employ them or use their services. My friend the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) nods his head in agreement. I know that we agree in this area. I must convince members of the Australian Labor Party that they are cruelling every opportunity for small business and the fear that has been put through the whole of the small business community cannot be underestimated. This matter involves 250,000 taxpayers. That is a large number, and in many instances they and their families are being asked to pay as a result of assessment fines and charges which they cannot meet. They have no resources to meet those fines and charges. The Commissioner, in paragraph 6 of his findings, said: There are said to be advantages to the former employer in these types of arrangements in as much as there is no longer any obligation to take out workers compensation insurance and to make tax instalment deductions. In some cases the former employer has also sought to escape the obligations for providing recreation and sick leave. Why should any former employer be obliged to make those payments? It is not an employer-employee relationship; it is one between a contractor and a consultant. It involves a prime organisation. Surely the Taxation Commissioner must go back and look at these issues. That is a completely fallacious and biased statement written by somebody who does not support the concept of small business and individual effort. It is written by somebody who believes that there should be only major employers and major unions, and if people do not fit into that category then they are not wanted in Australia. The steps taken by the Commissioner will destroy much of the small business incentive in Australia. This is a dreadful thing that the Commissioner has done. One has only to read his ruling to see what a biased approach has been taken in this matter. Again the Commissioner has chosen a very unusual type of case on which to base his ruling. He has chosen the case of Tupicoff v. the Commissioner of Taxation in the Federal Court of Australia, a case in which all the factors of previous employment were carried on by an individual who called himself a consultant. I would like the Commissioner, the Treasurer and honourable members opposite to investigate very clearly the circumstances of people within their electorates, within Australia, to establish how many actually reflect this Tupicoff arrangement. I suggest that there are very few indeed. Let me give but two instances. One of the draftsmen employed by a major Australian company was told that his employment was not further required and that his employment would cease at the end of one week's notice. In the same discussion he was offered the opportunity of becoming a consultant the following Monday. He was told that he would be sacked if he did not become a consultant. He was sacked anyway but he had the option of becoming a consultant or getting no work. He took up the consultancy and for almost one year worked consistently and solely as a sub-contractor for that employer. Gradually, as an individual, he picked up a diversity of work from other clients. It takes time to establish a business. It takes time to get out and make one's name known in the market place. It takes time to build up the contracts and to become an effective consultant operator for a draftsman, a real estate agent or somebody in the automobile industry. That is what the Commissioner has failed to recognise. In this instance the Commissioner is saying that the draftsman that I am speaking of will be regarded as an employee for a portion of his period of self-employment and, for the other period he will be considered to be self-employed. Imagine anything so ridiculous. A man who is establishing his own business for the first time is told-- Dr Klugman —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I was just wondering whether the honourable member had entered for the hypocrisy prize. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have already warned honourable members about frivolous points of order. Mr CADMAN —Mr Speaker, if you do not ask the honourable member to withdraw I will use that word consistently in the House. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I remind the honourable member for Mitchell that the term was not applied to him; it was applied to a prize. As such it was not out of order. Mr CADMAN —Is it proper for me to speak of the hypocrisy of the Government, and the double dealings of this Government in the way in which it has dealt with consultants? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(10.13) —As interesting and as divergent as the views previously expressed by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) might be, they have nothing to do with the matter before the House. I am becoming increasingly offended at the intrusion into parliamentary business of matters which are totally irrelevant and which do not in any way conform or relate to the business with which we are trying to deal. The legislation before the House, the three trust recoupment tax Bills, are a repeat of Bills that were brought in last year. They have a long history and I think that history is worth recounting. If we go back to November 1979 we see that the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), brought in some amendments to the taxation Act to deal with trust accounts. The debates of that day are worth reading. On 14 November 1979 the honourable member for Gellibrand (Mr Willis) had some comments to make regarding this matter and he pointed out that the then Treasurer had opened up a wide area of tax avoidance by the removal of gift tax. He quoted from the then Treasurer's answer to a question on notice as follows: Abolition of gift duty is not seen as relevant to tax evasion practices which are, of course, illegal. To the extent that abolition resulted in the lifting of a constraint on the transfer of capital assets, it has, to a degree, made tax avoidance that much less complicated and costly. In other words, the then Treasurer, by his own actions, had made tax avoidance easier, less expensive and open to more people. That really is the crux of the whole question. In 1979 the honourable member for Gellibrand said to the then Government: 'What you have done is opened up a Pandora's box'. The then Treasurer said: 'Yes, we have. It had made tax avoidance easier, less complicated and, therefore, more likely to happen'. In the same speech, the honourable member for Gellibrand said that the government of the day had brought in a train of anomalies which left open wide scope for tax avoidance. At that point the then Treasurer nodded his head, which was noted. In 1979 the Treasurer of the day said: 'Yes, I agree, we have brought in a lot of problems and of course we are addressing them'. So he addressed the problems in 1979 and he addressed them again in 1981, which followed a statement he had made in 1980. The amendments in 1981 related quite specifically to trust stripping schemes. Legislation had initially been enacted in 1979 and further legislation was enacted in 1981 to try to address the problem. In May 1981 the then Treasurer brought in legislation retrospective to 24 June 1980. He stated: In a statement on 24 June 1980, I foreshadowed legislation on tax avoidance through attempts to exploit the tax-exempt status of various entities. As I said at the time, two earlier warnings about the abuse of the privileged status of tax-exempt bodies had gone unheeded . . . What are we doing today? We are dealing with transfers of assets to tax exempt bodies. So, four years later, almost to the day, we are still dealing with the same call, its having gone unheeded. In fact, on the point of the retrospective nature of this legislation, it should date back to 1979, because the then Treasurer indicated then that there were anomalies and tax avoidance would in fact increase in that particular area. The honourable member for Gellibrand and then shadow Treasurer said that if the Treasurer was serious he should, in fact, date his retrospectivity from the time the practices were started. The point of this whole debate in the last two years has been at which point the legislation should apply. The Government is making the point, as it has made for six years, that the only way to really destroy the tax avoidance industry is to make legislation corrective and applicable from the time when the fraudulent schemes were started. That is the only way we can address the problem. Members of the Opposition are saying now 'When we find a scheme, some years after it has started, we will serve notice'. They would do that after the scheme had been operating, and that would protect and encourage people to introduce those kinds of schemes. In 1979, in 1981, right through to now, loophole schemes, paper schemes, schemes which are blatantly fraudulent have been developed. The parallel drawn in recent weeks between morality and law is a very good one. We are talking about morality; the Opposition is talking about legalism. What we are trying to address is the incompetence in the previous Government's legislation that left these kinds of openings. The legislation before us really is an attempt to address the flaws brought in by legislation introduced by the previous Government over a number of years, flaws that were able to be exploited by people engaging in these kinds of schemes, be it the cherry-pickers scheme, trust stripping or a range of other schemes. The fact is, we are trying to remedy the errors brought into the system. I think it is worth heeding the warnings of the honourable member for Gellibrand in May 1981, when he stated that the tax Act already extended to 1,010 pages; three years previously it had been 695 pages. The tax Act increased in size by 100 pages per year under the previous Government. It has been greatly increased in size and incomprehensibility by the vast amount of tax avoidance legislation that has been passed in recent years also. The increased complexity not only makes it more difficult to understand, but also increases the scope for tax avoidance. In effect, the previous Treasurer, who trumpets in this House and around the countryside how much he has done about tax avoidance, has, quite clearly, greatly increased the capacity for people to avoid paying tax by introducing massive amounts of legislation which was incomprehensible, which was full of loopholes and which has been exploited. After he did that he said to us: 'But that was the law. I made those laws and I made mistakes but you can't punish somebody else. You can't go back and correct that'. For six years the Australian Labor Party has been saying that it would take the legislation back to when this scheme was started to serve warning on those people. People who engage in fraudulent schemes, in paper schemes and in schemes aimed clearly at tax avoidance by artificial means are acting immorally. Morality is not dated in time and it is not dated by a parliament; it is dated by a person's actions. Who in the Opposition will start defending the recent Irish court case which clearly flies in the face of morality on a legalistic principle? Which honourable members opposite will tell the Australian people that this Government should not try to bring back to Australia a man who has charges to face? Technically and legalistically that man does not have to come back to Australia as there is no requirement by law for him to do so because of the actions that were taken at the time of his arrest. Are members of the Opposition going to argue the legalism of that and say that this Government should not persist with a moral case and return that man to Australia? The parallel is very close. The Government is saying that there is a moral charge to answer and a moral role to play. If we are to equate morality with the Opposition's incompetent drafting of legislation, God help Australia! We would be in awful trouble in the years ahead, particularly if the Opposition were returned to government. The Australian people want governments to act in a way that is moral. The Opposition wants governments to act in a way that is tied to its own incompetent legislative drafting programs. I do not think the Australian people will wear that and I do not think they should. Over the last two years the Government has been saying consistently that it does not matter whether $10m or $500m is involved as the principle of taxation equity, the principle of taxation equity, the principle of morality of the taxation system, has to be upheld. The way to do that is to issue the warning to tax avoiders that the Government issued when in opposition six years ago. Our spokesman of the day on taxation said that, no matter what the law says at the time, if a person engages in fraudulent schemes which are blatantly aimed at tax avoidance-schemes of fiscal nullity and the like-a Labor government would make the legislation retrospective to the time the scheme was started. The tax avoiders were told that they should not look for loopholes because if they find them a Labor Government would close them from the time they were found. How can the Government be expected to answer to the Australian people for loopholes in legislation which was passed by previous governments? The Opposition is asking the Government to wear the Opposition's incompetence and it is asking the Australian people to accept the Government's wearing of it. The Government cannot and will not wear it and neither should the Opposition. I assure honourable members that the Australian people will not wear it. Most Australian people are locked into the pay as you earn tax system. Most of what we are talking about today is outside their realm of knowledge or capacity. The Opposition is suggesting that the Government apply morality to PAYE taxpayers but that it does not apply it to those who are not in the PAYE system. The speech by the honourable member for Mitchell was a superb example of distortion, confusion and virtual deceit in regard to the way the tax Act is applied. If one were to apply the honourable member's parameters there would not be any PAYE taxpayers in Australian at all and every taxpayer would be paying a lot less tax. One would then, of course, have to change completely the taxation levels. The increasing burden on PAYE taxpayers is largely a result of the kind of thinking and argument presented in the honourable member for Mitchell's speech. Not only is the Opposition inconsistent but also its tax policy is contradictory. The previous Treasurer indicated in 1979, 1980 and 1981 that tax avoidance was increasing because of the changes to gift tax in particular. He had opened up areas of avoidance that were not there previously and he said that he would address them. In 1980 he made two calls for that to be done, both of which went unheeded. Finally, he brought in legislation that was retrospective by almost 12 months. It is sheer hypocrisy for him to criticise us when the effective date of his legislation was 24 June 1980 and ours will be 1 July 1980. We are addressing the same issues. Of course, the greatest irony is that back in 1981 the honourable member for Gellibrand read to the House details of a tax avoidance scheme operating under the trust fund system which was very similar to the schemes being addressed in this legislation. He outlined it to the House then and said: 'Here is an example that has been circulated, showing how it works. What is being done about this one?' In effect, he gave notice then that we would take action on those kinds of schemes. The Australian Labor Party has acted absolutely morally for the last six years. It has warned the people of Australia, and more importantly the tax avoiders, that we would make our legislation retrospective. We twice sought a mandate for that principle and twice the people granted us a mandate that it was fair to treat fraud from when it was occurring. If the law does not cope with it, one has to make the laws retrospective to when the offences were committed. I suggest that the Opposition should think very carefully about the Irish case because the principles applying there now are exactly the same. On the Opposition's argument this Government would not persist with that extradition process because legally it has now been settled. If the Opposition wants to take that issue to the people, I think the people's judgments made in the last two years will be endorsed for many years to come. The fact is that one cannot separate morality from the law. The law must be based on morality. If one takes away the morality and applies only the legalism, there is no longer a legitimate law making body. The tendency of the other side of the House is to escape the issue through legalism and symbolic posing about what the law stands for. To the people of Australia law is about morality. How can immorality be legalised? That is what the Opposition would do. It would legalise immorality by its own incompetence in framing legislation. We all know, and the Opposition admits, that these schemes are fraudulent, blatant and aimed solely at tax avoidance. Having admitted all that, the Opposition says that they are still legal and therefore moral. The fact is that those two issues cannot be separated. The longer the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia maintain the separation between law and morality, the longer they will stay on that side of the House. These Bills are important Bills. They are setting a pattern, a precedent and a standard for Australia which Australian people expect. I trust that this time both of the Houses of Parliament will accept that principle. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. The Bill. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(10.29) —I move: Clause 5, page 6, line 39, omit '1 July 1980', substitute '12 May 1982'. It is a very simple amendment. It merely substitutes 12 May 1982 as the date for the commencement of the operation of the Bill instead of 1 July 1980. The reasons for the amendment were outlined yesterday by me, on behalf of the Opposition, and have been reiterated in the course of the debate. In that sense, I do not think the Opposition's reasons need any recapitulation. I note that in the course of the debate no evidence has been adduced by the Government speakers as to why on this occasion, without any kind of warning, without any seeming justification other than a desire to demonstrate an alleged zeal in tackling tax avoidance matters, this Bill should run from 1 July 1980. As always in these debates, I listened intently to the contribution made by my friend, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), who is always entertaining on these matters. I do not always agree with him, but he is always entertaining. Mr Robert Brown —And informative. Mr HOWARD —The honourable member may be informative, but he is not always informed. On this occasion, he presented what I found to be a fairly convoluted argument about how, if the recoupment legislation passed by the Fraser Government was justified on some odd notion of illegality of certain practices, so is the legislation before us. I point out to the honourable gentleman that just because a general anti-avoidance section of the taxation Act may catch a practice does not of itself make that practice illegal. It simply means that that practice will fail and that tax sought to be avoided by that practice or that arrangement must be paid. I found that argument of the honourable member for Charlton very difficult to follow. Perhaps I am a little slow at the beginning of the session, but his argument seemed to be akin to a proposition that, because the intent of section 260 which, I think, was inserted in the Income Tax Assessment Act in 1936, was to outlaw all kinds of tax avoidance practices, a government would be justified in running any anti-avoidance legislation from 1 July 1936, simply because, through section 260, the Act purported to proscribe all manner of tax avoidance arrangements. I say with respect to the honourable member for Charlton that I found that a difficult argument. Let me leave that aside. The difference between the Government and the Opposition on this matter relates purely and simply to the question of the commencement date. We see no reason for this Bill to have a retrospective operation. We have not been given any really valid reasons by the Government in the course of the debate for its proposed commencement date. We have produced a very compelling reason for it to run from 12 May 1982. It was on that date that I warned all and sundry that the then Government and, by implication, a subsequent government if it was of like mind on these matters would act legislatively. I recall that particular occasion. The announcement that I made received very wide publicity, so there can be no argument or cavil from those concerned with these matters whether that is a legitimate date. In the course of this debate, no arguments have been advanced, no evidence has been adduced, and no reasons have been given other than the normal, quite misleading fulminations of the Labor Party against the Opposition-these weird and wonderful claims about Opposition members being the friends of all these dreadful people who lurk around the corner and prey upon the weak and indefensible in our community. We have become very conditioned to that attack. I appreciated very much the reasoned contribution that was made to the debate by the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards). The honourable member for Charlton is always reasoned and interesting, but the honourable member for Stirling made a very valuable contribution to the debate, one that I appreciated very much. But I have to tell him that during the recent election campaign I found that this question of the Opposition's attitude towards the tax avoidance legislation that has been blocked in the Senate was not quite the winner for the Government that it thought. In fact, the public is getting pretty bored with the argument. By and large, the public has been convinced by a variety of sources, some within the Government, that, whilst it may have been easy to persuade people six or seven years ago that tax avoidance was a problem in our community, there is now a growing belief that the esoteric, artificial schemes have been effectively brought to an end. When people such as the former Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), the present and former Commissioners of Taxation and leading members of the legal and accounting professions run around saying so, it becomes obvious that the arguments being advanced by the Government amount to so much beating of the drum and are starting to wear a little thin. On behalf of the Opposition I say that if the Government imagines that it is onto some kind of electoral winner with this issue, it is wrong. I say to those members of the Australian Democrats who have voted with us on this issue previously that they ought not to be concerned about that part of their policy; they ought to be worried about their disastrous anti-American nuclear policies, which will do far more damage to the well-being of this country than the other attitudes they are adopting. I cannot condemn their attitudes on those matters strongly enough. Their attitudes on those issues are even worse than those of the left wing of the Australian Labor Party. However, I recognise that that really does not have anything to do with this amendment. Let me say, in conclusion, that the Opposition will give full and proper support to any legitimate anti-tax avoidance measures introduced by the Hawke Government. In that vein we give our support fully for the prospective operation of this legislation from the time that a warning was given. However, in accordance with the stance we have adopted as an opposition we see no reason at all, no evidence produced, no justification, no argument and absolutely no warrant at all for this legislation to operate from 1 July 1980. We reject that proposition. We will move an amendment in this Committee debate. If that amendment is not accepted by the Government the Opposition will vote against the third reading of this Bill. Mr Robert Brown —Shame! Shame! Mr HOWARD —It will not be a shame; it will be, in fact, a further demonstration that we will not be cowed by the McCarthyist tactics of the Labor Party on this issue. It ill-becomes the honourable member for Charlton or, indeed, anybody else to adopt in this place these McCarthyist tactics. It is a classic McCarthyist tactic that if one smears somebody enough, if one says something repeatedly enough, loudly enough and to enough people, sooner or later some of the mud will stick. Presumably, that is the tactic that the Government is embarked upon. It is a tactic we will not be intimidated by. I am encouraged by the experience that I had in the last election campaign in talking to people about this issue to feel that they are beginning to understand the proper stance that has been taken by the Opposition. They are starting to get a little bored by the rantings of the Government on this subject. I think the Parliament is getting a little bored by those rantings. Frankly, I think the Government is starting to lose the debate on this issue. If the Government imagines that we will be pushed out of the ring by these rantings and condemnations, it is completely wrong. I ask the Government to consider the fairness and the justice of our amendment, to support it and, in so doing, to pass an effective piece of anti-tax avoidance legislation. However, if the Government is not minded to accept it, the Opposition will, of course, in this and another place vote against the measure. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.39) — I am again appalled by the response the Opposition is making to this question, as I have been by the attitude it has adopted persistently over many years towards tax avoiders and tax evaders. The shadow Treasurer, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), has indicated that unless the Government is prepared to accept the amendment whereby this legislation would apply from 12 May 1982, instead of from the date that the Government intends it to apply from, namely, 1 July 1980 it will oppose the legislation. That does not surprise me. Nor does it surprise me that the Opposition will be seeking the support of its allies in the Senate. Again, I prevail upon the Australian Democrats and Senator Harradine in the Senate to improve their credibility on tax avoidance and evasion by voting with the Government for this legislation. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that the date the Opposition prefers for the operation of this legislation is 12 May 1982 because the day preceding that, 11 May 1982, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as the former Treasurer, issued a statement concerning the operation of these schemes. That is quite correct. I want to emphasise that the effect of that proposal would be to reduce very significantly the amount of revenue that would be picked up. I know that in the totality of these schemes the amount of revenue is not very great, but there is a definite question of principle involved here. The former Minister for Finance, Mr Dawkins, had the effect of stopping these practices when he made it very clear in one of his statements that people could start as many schemes as they liked but this Government, while it had the power to legislate, would ensure on every occasion that the shysters and the smarties, who were devising these schemes to rip off the Commonwealth Treasury, would be pursued. These shysters are ripping off all the honest taxpayers, including the honest businessmen taxpayers-the overwhelming majority of businessmen taxpayers in Australia, whom the Opposition should be protecting. Instead Opposition members are spending their time, energy and enthusiasm supporting, defending and protecting all the shysters. That is the role that Opposition members are adopting. They should get out into the community and try to defend their position before the genuine, legitimate Australian businessman. Mr Howard —We do. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Opposition members do not even know them. They know the shysters, but they do not know the genuine ones. If the Opposition were defending the genuine ones it would be making sure that their tax liability was reduced by picking up those thousands of millions of dollars from all the shysters-the ones it has been defending and protecting. The Opposition then prevails upon the independents and Democrats in the Senate to give their support. They gave the Opposition their support before. Let me remind the Australian people, and the Parliament as well, just exactly what was involved in that. In order to follow up and tighten the bottom of the harbour legislation, for which the Opposition was responsible, in order to collect the money that had been denied the Australian Government and the Australian people, we introduced legislation according to a very clear mandate that we had been given by the Australian people in March 1983 and which was reaffirmed in December 1984. That was a mandate to pick up that money. The Opposition knows how much that was. Had we indexed that money as we intended to do in the first place, we would have been picking up $840m. But in our largesse and our concern that the burden on these shysters should not be too great, we said we would not index it, we would only go for the real money value-the depreciated money value-that is, for $570m. Madam Chair, you well recall what happened in this place. The Opposition voted against that legislation. Opposition members did not have the numbers here to defeat it but with their allies in the Senate they got the numbers, so we did not pick up that $570m. We amended the legislation. We brought it back in again in order to seek to pick up $270m. They voted against it again and they got their allies in the Senate to vote against it and to defeat it. Finally, we amended the legislation again-in fact, we emasculated it. All we intended to do then was to tighten up the Opposition's legislation and pick up about $35m when it should have been $840m. What happened? Opposition members voted against it again in this chamber, and in conjunction and alliance with their allies in the Senate they defeated that legislation again. That was an amount in real terms of $840m that should have gone into the Commonwealth coffers to reduce the burden of taxation on the genuine pay as you earn taxpayer and the genuine business taxpayers who have been denied and repudiated by this Opposition, which has identified itself as a conservative Opposition, intent on applying its energies, whatever talents may be available to it, its time and sweat on defending the shysters-all the rip-off merchants. That is what is occurring. Why do not members of the Opposition re-examine their position and their credibility? Why do they not re-examine their reputation and their status before the Australian people? What happened to that once proud Liberal Party and to that once proud National Party? What a coalition of shyster defenders and protectors we have in this place at the present time! We have indicated that we will persist with our attempt to have this legislation operate from 1 July 1980. We will have it applying from that date because that is the significant date from which those types of schemes, which have not yet been covered by legislation but will be covered by this legislation, started to operate. Would you believe, Madam Chair, how much Opposition members want us to pick up as a result of their amendment? It would be $500,000. For those shysters that the Opposition has been protecting, that is pocket money, pin money. That is the amount which the shysters that the Opposition protects and defends give to their wives to do the midweek shopping. The former Commissioner of Taxation's report in December 1983 indicated that about 5,000 of these trust stripping operations have been undertaken at a total loss to revenue of between $350m and $400m. We have a clear, positive, definite and repeated mandate from the Australian people to pursue the shysters, and pursue those shysters we will. If the Opposition persists, as it is now doing, in its efforts to defend and protect them, it should get out around the hustings and the traps and defend its position. It will not do so because it will not be game to do it, because in their vengeance the honest taxpayers, the pay as you earn taxpayers and the honest businessmen taxpayers, will have their revenge on the Opposition as they have on the two previous occasions. I appeal to the Australian Democrats in the Senate. We need their support to pick up this money. They should support us if they wish to restore any semblance of the credibility which they once had in this nation. They said they would 'keep the bastards honest', as honourable members might recall. That was their slogan. It is not an expression which I choose to use, but I know it is a very common expression in Australia. Let us identify them. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.48) —It was very interesting to hear the previous speaker, the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), speak in that way about shysters and things like that. Honourable members opposite do not have to worry about it at all. Every one of them that I can see in the House, barring a few new members, are listed in Hansard as voting a man innocent when all the evidence said that he had been grossly involved in tax avoidance. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable gentleman will remember the standing order as to casting aspersions on members or impugning to them improper motives. Mr TUCKEY —I have not even mentioned his name, Madam Chair. The CHAIRMAN —I was warning the honourable gentleman before he reached that stage. Mr TUCKEY —Thank you, Madam Chair. I am attacking Government members for voting a person innocent when the evidence was that there had been avoidance and evasion. I do not think that that is a moral position which they are entitled to take and they should not take it. What is more, they are grandstanding on this issue. They are not worrying about the money. I can remember speaker after speaker in this place explaining to the Australian public and trying to convince them that on the grounds of equity the honest taxpayer-those are the words used by Government members time and again-had been robbed by devices of the past. Because of the actions of the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard)-- Mr Robert Brown —Our actions. Mr TUCKEY —No, because of his action and his legislation, $500m plus has come back into the Treasury. The Government has received that money. When is the Government going to give it back to the honest taxpayers it talks about? The Government has spent it; there has been no reimbursement to honest taxpayers. Honest taxpayers had it indicated to them that they might get some money back out of this. The Government wanted more money; it was not prepared to accept the equity argument and give the people back some money. Mr Cunningham —Get back to the Bill. Mr TUCKEY —That is the Bill; the Bill is about collecting taxes from people and the Government changing the laws after it has made the rules. Talking about taxpayers, let us look at today's Daily Telegraph, at what the Ombudsman has to say about taxpayers. The article states: Taxpayers are not treated fairly, with many suffering unjust and unreasonable delays in obtaining taxation reviews, the Federal Ombudsman said yesterday. The Ombudsman had received 1,677 complaints about the Taxation Office, the highest number of complaints he had had about anybody. The article continues: He revealed that more than 53,500 applications were waiting to be referred to the three Boards of Review at the end of the last financial year. Returning to the Bill-- The CHAIRMAN —The honourable gentleman will return to the amendment, which is on retrospectivity. Could you please address your remarks to the amendment before the House? Mr TUCKEY —Certainly. As I said, this Bill is about persecuting one sector of the community, when the Government is doing absolutely nothing for all those people who have genuine complaints about the way their returns have been assessed. When is it going to help those 53,000 people? Why is there this sort of legislation? Why is it just ignoring the sensible amendment put by this side, which makes it fair and reasonable for those people? Why is it not giving fair treatment to those 53,000 people? Fifty-three thousand people divided by those three Boards of Review-one would have to have one's problems the day one was born, or one would be dead before they were dealt with. Madam Chair, I will not continue any longer. I am well aware of the concern to see this matter dealt with, and I thank you for the time I have had. I had to stand and speak on these issues, particularly the fact that there are people in here who can vote one person innocent of his tax obligations and then want to criticise others in the general community. It does not wash with me. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.54) —With respect to the amendment the Opposition has moved, the issue it still has not addressed is the whole question of the structure of tax and the way the community accepts it. This is the point I made in the debate previously. I acknowledge the comments from the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). The issue which has to be addressed is, if we are going to have a tax system which works, it has to be seen as one in which there is equity. The problem which has arisen under our tax system is simply that those who are committed to paying tax have no choice, while those who have been avoiding tax have been allowed to get away with it. That is the fundamental point, and that is why there is an element of retrospectivity in this legislation. The issue which the Opposition has to face up to is that, unless we can show in the national Parliament, via retrospective legislation, that we are prepared to deal with those who sought through a blatant contrivance to avoid their tax obligations, we will have no trust from the rest of the community who are committed to paying tax and who want to take part in the financial system. That is the obligation we have in this place. That is why in this legislation, as the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) has said, if we are going to be serious about having an equitable tax system, we have to show with respect to this legislation that we are prepared to act against those people who have sought in a wilful and blatant way to avoid their tax commitments. That is why the element of retrospectivity is there. I say to the Opposition-and I think it will be demonstrated this weekend-that failure to do so means that we lose the support of the business community. That has happened, because we acknowledge that the current levels of tax are a burden on the community. I think Premier Cain will show in Victoria that he has the support of the business community. In effect, the problem we face is that if we do not show our determination to ensure that the tax laws are pursued and enforced, then the honest taxpayers have no incentive for being part of the system. That is the problem which developed under the previous Government. This Government believes that the way it is going about it in this legislation will deal with that problem, and that is why I oppose the amendment and support the Bill. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications)(10.57) —The amendment moved by the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) to omit 1 July 1980 and substitute 12 May 1982 is not acceptable to the Government. I go back to where the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown) finished, where he indicated that $9.5m of the $10m involved here would not be recovered if in fact the amendment was accepted. Only half a million dollars relates to the period 11 May 1982 to 28 April 1983. It is true, as indicated by the honourable member for Bennelong, that when he was Treasurer on 11 May 1982, he announced: Should existing legislation be found inadequate to strike down any scheme of the trust stripping type, the Government will introduce appropriate remedial legislation. It would be effective from 11 May 1982. It is worth tracing the history, because the honourable member for Bennelong said this morning that there was no prior warning and no justification for this Bill, except the zeal of the Government for stopping tax avoidance. The fact of the matter is that there was prior warning and, secondly, the one correct thing that the honourable member for Bennelong did say was that this Government certainly has the zeal for stopping tax avoidance and will continue down that track. After the statement by the former Treasurer, when the Hawke Labor Government came to office, on 28 April 1983 the then Minister for Finance, the present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), announced in unequivocal terms that this Government would employ retrospective legislation wherever necessary to ensure that tax sought to be avoided under any blatant tax avoidance scheme that comes to light during its term of office will be collected, irrespective of when the scheme was entered into. As the honourable member for Charlton indicated, that has been the position of those now in government for a long time. This Government quite clearly indicated that when it was in opposition; in the 1983 election it was our position absolutely, and it was our position in the last election. I must have spoken to different people during the last election campaign because certainly the feeling I had out there in the electorate was not the one that the honourable member for Bennelong had. In fact, the reflection of the views of the people in the community quite clearly was that they had had a gutful of tax avoidance. They were in fact prepared to say to this Government that the ordinary taxpayers of this country, the people who have no way out of paying tax, were not going to be treated in the way they had been in the past, when it was totally acceptable, and that this sort of contrived tax avoidance scheme was not going to be tolerated. In accordance with that policy, this legislation is directed at that new generation of trust stripping schemes which were entered into after 1 July 1980. After all, that is the date when it was first known that they were being used. I repeat that of the $10m placed at risk by that new generation of trust stripping schemes, $9.5m relates to schemes entered into prior to the former Treasurer's statement on 11 May 1982, and $0.5m relates to schemes entered into after that date. There has been no indication that trust stripping has been carried on after 28 April 1983, the date on which the then Minister for Finance announced the intention of the Government to employ retrospective legislation against the blatant tax avoidance schemes. The reason there is no evidence of that after the announcement by this Government of what it was going to do is that the tax avoidance industry believed what the Government was going to do. The industry had not taken any notice in the past, but it knew there was a government now in office which was fair dinkum about that matter, which was not going to tolerate the blatant tax avoidance which had gone on in this country for so long. The explosion of tax avoidance during the period of the Fraser Government is one of the greatest scandals that has taken place in the history of this Parliament. Accordingly, the announcement of the Government's policy on retrospective legislation was completely effective in stopping those schemes. The fact of the matter is that the Commissioner of Taxation has advised that the existing law may not be adequate to combat at least some variants of the new generation trust stripping arrangements but this legislation will ensure that there is not the slightest possibility that the scheme will succeed, and that the $10m, at risk will be recovered. This important legislation demonstrates clearly that this Government will move unequivocally to stop this type of practice in the future, and it will not be intimidated by this nonsense that because the legislation is retrospective we ought not proceed with it. The Government is committed to acting in pursuance of its retrospective policy, thereby ensuring that the tax avoidance industry will not operate again in this country. Amendment negatived. Bill agreed to. Bill reported without amendment; report adopted. Motion (by Mr Duffy))-by leave-put: That the Bill be now read a third time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Mildren) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 59 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R.Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J.Child, J. McHugh, J.Chynoweth, R. I. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J.Cohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P.Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Mountford, J. G.Dubois, S. G. O'Keefe, N. P.Duffy, M. J. O'Neil, L. R. T.Duncan, P. Price, L. R. S.Edwards, Ronald Punch, G. F.Fatin, W. F. Saunderson, J.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Scott, J. L.Free, R. V. Simmons, D. W.Gayler, J. Snow, J. H.Gear, G. Staples, P. R.Gorman, R. N. J. Theophanous, A. C.Grace, E. L. Tickner, R. E.Griffiths, A. G. Uren, T.Hand, G. L. West, S. J.Hayden, W. G. Willis, R.Holding, A. C. Wright, K. W.Howe, B. L. Young, M. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Andrew, J. N. Hunt, R. J. D.Beale, J. Jull, D. F.Blunt, C. W. Katter, R. C.Brown, N. A. Lloyd, B.Burr, M. A. McArthur, F. S.Cadman, A. G. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cameron, Donald McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G.Carlton, J. J. Millar, P. C.Cobb, M. R. Moore, J. C.Coleman, W. P. Nehl, G. B.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards,, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, DavidHodges, J. C. Webster, A. P.Hodgman, W. M. White. P. N. D.Howard, J. W. Scholes, G. G. D. Aldred, K. J. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 22 February, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 22 February, on motion by Dr Blewett: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr PORTER(Barker)(11.16) —The Opposition supports the Quarantine Amendment Bill 1985, which will make administrative changes to effect the transfer of the animal and plant quarantine sections from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. Those animal and plant sections will now be under the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine, who will be the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry. The human quarantine section will remain with the Department of Health and will be under the charge of the Director of Human Quarantine, the Chief Commonwealth Medical Officer, who is a deputy secretary of the Department of Health. In effect, what has occurred is the physical move of the animal and plant quarantine section from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. This move has already occurred. I have been advised that the actual number of staff in the three sections will not change and the classifications of those members of staff will also remain the same. Whilst the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) did not make it clear in his speech, also to be transferred to the responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry are the animal quarantine stations which are situated in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands facility. In addition, the actual work done within the States will continue to be undertaken by State quarantine officers under the existing arrangements whereby the Commonwealth reimburses the States for that work. I have taken the time to explain the details of the transfer because to date the public are unaware of the nature and extent of that transfer. Country people often have reason to raise quarantine issues of concern. I therefore believe it is important that they be made aware of the details of these changes in order that they will know to whom they can direct inquiries. The importance of effective quarantine arrangements cannot be understated. As an island continent with natural barriers to the import of diseases and pests, Australia has remained one of the few countries today free of serious animal plagues and plant pests and diseases. It is now generally recognised that the spread of animal and plant diseases in other parts of the world has been increasing, which highlights the need for an efficient and effective quarantine service in this country. Clearly, the increase over time in air travel, as a result in part of cheaper air fares, and the increase in trade poses significant additional threats to Australia's position as a relatively disease-free nation. The rural sector is particularly concerned about the growing risk of the introduction of exotic diseases and pests of livestock and plants. The importation of such diseases or pests could have a devastating effect on our primary industry. The fact that we do not have many of the disease problems known in other parts of the world also provides significant trade opportunities which would not otherwise be open to us. It is therefore essential, in order to protect our existing primary industry and our export opportunities, for us to continue to give quarantine a very high priority. The Senate Standing Committee on National Resources highlighted the problems to which I have referred in its report which was published some time ago-1979. That Committee, chaired by Senator Andrew Thomas, recommended the creation of an animal quarantine service to be located in the Department of Primary Industry. The Committee made that recommendation for two reasons: Firstly, to reflect what it considered to be the changing priorities of quarantine; and, secondly, effectively to link quarantine to the agricultural responsibilities of the Commonwealth. What are the changing priorities to which the Committee refers? They are based on the changing nature of quarantine which is now primarily concerned with preventing the entry of agricultural pests and diseases and not human diseases because the Committee considered that, at the port of entry, humans are now more important as vectors of animal and plant diseases than as vectors of human diseases. The Committee suggested that exotic human diseases are rarely discovered at ports of entry; they tend to appear later when the traveller is out in the community. The Committee made a large number of recommendations which I do not intend to recount today, but it will be recalled that as a result of this report a major publicity campaign was launched by the previous Government to increase the public's awareness of the importance of maintaining Australia's relative disease free status. If my memory serves me correctly, that campaign involved the expenditure of about $750,000. I am sure the House will recall Harry Butler's role in presenting those advertisements. The government of the day responded to the recommendation regarding the transfer of plant and animal quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry by indicating that it would be considered as part of a subsequent review to be undertaken of the administrative arrangements. That was late in 1980. Today those changes are being made. It just shows how slowly the wheels of government turn. The importance of having the policy-making divisions of animal and plant quarantine within the Department of Primary Industry relates to that Department's closer liaison with and knowledge of primary industry interests. In my view, the increased prospects of cross-fertilisation of ideas and concerns between the Department of Primary Industry and its quarantine sections will be to the advantage of both and will enhance the effectiveness of our quarantine arrangements. There has been a feeling in the bush that, by having the plant and animal quarantine sections within the Department of Health, we did not have the advantage of the cross-fertilisation to which I refer. With the transfer to the Department of Primary Industry, the quarantine sections will now have direct and immediate access to the full resources and information available within the Department of Primary Industry. Certainly one would expect that the important and detailed feed-back of developments overseas available to the Department of Primary Industry would assist the plant and animal quarantine sections now placed within that Department. I have already stated that a breakdown in our quarantine arrangements can have disastrous consequences for primary industry. One has only to look to the relatively recent experiences following the arrival in Australia of the sirex wasp and the lucerne aphid. The lucerne aphid alone has cost primary industry millions of dollars, both in lost production and in capital expenditure involved in the re-sowing of areas of Hunter River lucerne to new resistant varieties. Even now farmers still have large areas to re-sow. I am particularly aware of this problem because it seriously affected the farmers in my electorate. Indeed, I know it affects those in adjacent electorates and electorates further away-in New South Wales and Western Australia. However, this example does bring home the need for our quarantine people to be constantly on guard, and they are more likely to be effective with access to the fullest information possible. Another example which highlights the need for us to be constantly on guard was a matter I raised recently with the Minister for Health. In this case shipments of citrus from the United States of America sent to New Zealand were found in New Zealand to be infected with bean thrip. I understand bean thrip is an insect which could attack our extensive lucerne and clover stands. To overcome a bean thrip attack would cost millions of dollars in research and replanting. The reason this shipment was of particular concern was twofold: Firstly, I understand that the ship called at some Australian ports before travelling on to New Zealand with the infested cargo. Secondly, we also import citrus from the United States. Following this occurrence, I understand Australia now requires additional pre-export inspection and certification specifically for this pest. I could go on forever with similar examples which concern the primary industry sector. Another example which worries potato growers in my electorate and electorates in Victoria concerns the risk of importing a disease called potato cyst nematode from New Zealand. Apparently that disease is not present in Australia, but it is present in New Zealand. Local growers in Australia are very concerned that strict measures are taken to ensure that infected potatoes are not imported into this country and that, as it is a soil borne disease, other vegetable imports, packaging, and bags, such as onion and potato bags, which come into this country are clean. That, of course, leads to the question of how far we should go in ensuring diseases and pests are not allowed into the country. Obviously we cannot totally stop the flow of people or items of trade into the country. That, of course, is the only absolutely sure way that we can prevent disease from coming into this country. However, we can prohibit the import of particular products where the risk of disease or pest importation is too great. The question then becomes one of how low the level of risk has to be to be an acceptable risk. That is a matter which, clearly, must be judged on the facts of each case. Some countries use supposed health and quarantine regulations to impose an effective ban on imports. I know our own exports have been affected by such bans. In normal circumstances, I do not believe quarantine arrangements ought to be used in this way. It is an underhand way of imposing trade barriers. I am hopeful that areas of disagreement between producers and our quarantine service will be reduced by the transfer of responsibility to the Department of Primary Industry. The Opposition sees this transfer as a positive and long overdue move and supports the Bill. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.27) —I, too, rise to support the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I commend the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) for his comments on this Bill. It is a rare occasion in this House when honourable members on both sides support legislation such as this to the extent that this Bill is being supported here today. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Quarantine Act 1908 to provide for dual administration of the Act by two Ministers. The Quarantine Act has been in operation for a long time and is well overdue for reform. In accordance with the administrative arrangements order signed by the Governor-General on 13 December 1984, the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will administer sections 8A and 9 of the Quarantine Act, which relate to human quarantine, and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will administer those parts of the Quarantine Act that relate to animal and plant quarantine. In place of the existing Director of Quarantine, the proposed amendment provides for two directors of quarantine, a Director of Human Quarantine and a Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine. Most other changes are consequential to the provision of the two directors of quarantine, or are necessary to identify certain provisions of the Act applying to human quarantine only or to animal or plant quarantine only. The Bill also provides that the directors of quarantine may delegate their powers under the Quarantine Act. There are few countries in the world today as free of serious animal plagues, plant pests and disease as our country. As the honourable member for Barker pointed out, there has been an increase in the spread of animal and plant disease in recent times throughout the world. Therefore, it is imperative that measures are taken to protect the present Australian environment. The legislation is designed to put into practice measures designed to do just that. The changes also give effect to the election commitments given by the Government and carry out the Australian Labor Party's policy to transfer animal and plant quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry, a long overdue reform. The rural sector in Australia has long expressed an interest in seeing these elements of quarantine that relate to agriculture being more closely aligned with other agricultural activities. Recognition has been given to the changing nature of quarantine, which is now primarily concerned with preventing the entry of agricultural pests and diseases. When the Quarantine Act was introduced in 1908 the major concern in those days was, of course, directed to human disease. Being an island continent has served Australia well. However, with the greater movement of people there is an ever-increasing risk of the introduction of exotic diseases. As has been pointed out by other speakers in this debate, most of Australia's rural exports would be put at risk in the event of an outbreak of serious disease. The complexity of the process of risk assessment in animal quarantine can be appreciated if one considers the number of exotic diseases-or exotic strains of diseases already present, which can prove just as harmful-which threaten Australia and the wide variety of methods by which any one disease may be introduced. The most obvious means of introduction include infected animals, infected animal meat or other livestock products, semen and therapeutic products. In addition, the introduction of a disease may be effected by veterinary or farming equipment, animal stables, food containers, animal feed, straw, hay, et cetera. The pathology of the disease may render it very difficult to detect. For example, the sheep disease, scrapie, has an incubation period which may exceed four years; rabies may incubate for nine months. Disease may be harboured in animal products for extended periods. Newcastle disease, for instance, may survive in frozen poultry for 10 months. Swine fever virus has been known to survive in frozen pork for several years and the foot and mouth disease virus has survived on hay for periods of up to 15 weeks. The result of these factors is that animal quarantine ranges over a much wider area of trade than the laymen might appreciate and as a result is frequently misunderstood or opposed by the community at large. I refer to the report of the Senate Standing Committee on National Resources on the Adequacy of Quarantine from which much legislation has been drafted. The report made some 44 recommendations dealing with the Quarantine Act, the location of quarantine within the Commonwealth's administrative arrangements and other administrative arrangements relating to quarantine. It looked at general quarantine, plant quarantine, animal quarantine and quarantine facilities. A total of 44 recommendations were brought forward to be acted upon. If honourable members look at the explanatory notes of the Quarantine Amendment Bill which is before the House they will see that many of the recommendations in the report have been acted upon by this Government in this legislation. It was well and truly overdue. It is in the Labor Party platform and is something which the Labor Party has been pushing for for many years for the rural sector. Another interesting point has been made on page 64 of the report. When the report was being put together the Department of Health, understandably, was in favour of maintaining the status quo but the Committee, in looking at quarantine, came down with a different opinion. I read a small section of the report, on page 64, which to me goes to some of the political matters in relation to this: The Department of Health has made the point that Animal and Plant Quarantine is administered economically. While acknowledging this the Committee feels that the economy is not an absolute virtue when one considers the resources at risk. Figures made available to the Committee suggest a net annual operating cost of quarantine of $6.5-7.0m, half of which is met from quarantine charges. This was in 1979. The report continues: When set against a total Australian agricultural production in 1978-79- it has grown dramatically since- of $9892m (products of plant origin worth $4549m and animal products valued at $5343), this indicates that Australia is getting agricultural quarantine at bargain basement prices. That was in a period when the conservative government was in power, the government that allegedly looks after conservative and rural interests. The Committee was very scathing in its report about the amount of money that was being spent in relation to the amount of agricultural production. I strongly support this legislation and in doing so comment on one other matter. Over the last few weeks, in the election atmosphere in Victoria we have seen an outbreak of what I would consider a serious disease-it has been highlighted in many cartoons on the front page of the Age-and that is foot in mouth disease affecting the Leader of the Opposition in Victoria. I hope that on Saturday this disease is overcome by the people of Victoria-- Mr Lloyd —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. This is specific legislation relating to Australia's quarantine. It has nothing to do with the Victorian election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —The point of order is upheld. I ask the honourable member to remain relevant to the Bill. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take your point. I support the legislation and hope that on Saturday any disease in Victoria is eradicated. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(11.36) —I support the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I accept that it is generally conceded that the division of responsibilities for quarantine is universally accepted as being an advance. Obviously in most cases a division of responsibility would seem to be a retrograde step in administrative terms but, quite clearly, human, plant and animal quarantine are all subject to their own peculiarities. The Department of Health and the Department of Primary Industry will obviously have the particular concerns and specialties. Certainly we all hope that in this case a desirable result will be achieved. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) and the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), in speaking in this debate, alluded to particular instances where breaches of quarantine or breakdowns in the quarantine process have led to serious hardship to the rural community of this country. I do not want to speak so much about particular examples of where quarantine has been broken, but rather from a northern Australian context to look at how quarantine procedures might be enforced. Of course we have a vastly different situation in northern Australia from that which exists in the southern half of this continent. The thousands of kilometres of lonely northern coastline of this country lend themselves to illegal entry to Australia. Over the years many instances have been documented where this has taken place. At least two-thirds of the coastline of the Northern Territory is Aboriginal land and, of course, people other than Aboriginals who live in those areas are restricted from entering that land so that tends to make the coastline even more isolated than it would otherwise be. At times there are literally several hundred kilometres between settlements. It is true that people who live in remote areas seem to be able to keep a pretty good eye on what is going on around them, even though to people who live in the cities it may seem that vast distances are involved. However, information does tend to spread quickly, for example, by aeroplane or vessel. Generally speaking, somehow or other word does get around. There are many old and many more new air strips right along the northern coastline. There is really no way that full surveillance can be carried out of all of the airstrips and all of the thousands of miles of coastline. There are many rumoured landings. The previous Government established a system of surveillance after a considerable outcry in the north of Australia and, as I recall it, as a consequence of a drug runner's plane being forced down somewhere near Katherine. My impression-it can only be an impression because, although I move around the north a great deal, one has to gauge these things in a fairly subjective way-is that it certainly does not seem that any more aircraft are being used in coastal surveillance today. In fact, from my observations, there are perhaps rather fewer than there were some years ago. But my impression in a general sense is that the situation has improved with the establishment of the Coastal Protection Unit within the Australian Federal Police, although, again as I understand it, the responsibility was handed over without any additional manpower. However, I do not think that by any means the situation is ideal. In the north there has been a considerable argument about and support for a specialised coastguard force. But the most serious of the problems today is the ability to respond to sightings. It is all very well for a plane flying overhead somewhere between Darwin and Nhulunbuy-a distance of some 600 miles or 800-odd kilometres-to be able to see something happening, either an intrusion of an aircraft or, most frequently, vessels. But, if we are unable to respond effectively, what good are the sightings? It is true that these days the Royal Australian Navy has bigger and better boats, with the Fremantle class patrol boats, but there has been no increase at all, at least in my part of the world, in the numbers of craft available. I refer to a particular case which involved a sighting of wooden vessels off the northern coast of Bathurst and Melville Islands. The only response possible was to send out an 18-foot fibreglass emergency services dinghy, equipped with a hand-held spot light-it was at night time-a compass and a radio. In the event, when the dinghy reached the vessels, they were found to have on board, amongst other things of course, shovels, axes and seeds of corn, which seemed to indicate at least the possibility that a landing was to be made along the coast. The point is that prevention is not just better than cure in preventing landings; it is also considerably cheaper in the long run. If a sighting cannot result in the prevention of a landing, and the issue at stake is an exotic disease, such as the foot in mouth disease to which the honourable member for McMillan referred earlier, although I would say that perhaps the Premier of New South Wales could have been-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The same rule applies to the honourable member for the Northern Territory as applied to the honourable member for McMillan. Mr EVERINGHAM —Perhaps I should speak more quickly. I was saying that if the issue at stake was an exotic disease, the damage would have been done-I think the damage has been done this morning by the Premier-before surveillance was able to react. To clean up the introduction of disease through a landing would involve enormous cost and resources in comparison with a proper allocation right now of helicopter or hydrofoil facilities which could effectively respond, intercept and prevent such landings. The fact is that on the northern coastline, when we get away from centres such as Darwin, Nhulunbuy, the one centre in the Gulf, Karumba, Thursday Island, Cairns, Cooktown and the Western Australian coastal centres, there is really nothing in between. Something, other than just planes flying overhead, has to be done, not so that we can just have sightings but so that we can enforce in northern Australia the provisions of this legislation, which I support. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(11.45) — Rumour has it that some years ago a horse was delivered into Australia and remained in Australia under circumstances which have been talked about unofficially but which no one will acknowledge officially. I am not talking about ring-ins; I am talking about a horse which allegedly came into Australia with an exotic disease. The disease was discovered, recorded and even notified. The potentially dangerous event was the alleged failure of that notification to reach all the required destinations in the time it should have taken, which is only a few hours. Notification did not reach areas of government which required the information until some weeks later. Irrespective of whether that is true, Australia was fortunate that no danger resulted from this sort of tardiness caused by the problems in Australia of too many departments being involved with animal health. The Australian Customs Service is involved, the Department of Primary Industry is involved and the Department of Health is involved. The Quarantine Amendment Bill now before the Parliament brings animal and plant quarantine under the Department of Primary Industry. I hope this will mean a merging of animal and plant quarantine, formerly under the Department of Health, with the Bureau of Animal Health in the Department of Primary Industry, and the formation of a health and quarantine service for plants and animals. For all its talk about lower government spending, the previous Government failed to act on a Senate inquiry recommendation for reform. For many years organisations such as the Australian Veterinary Association Ltd, the Institute of Agricultural Science and the stock industry have recommended many reforms. But apparently the duplication of services, poor communication and a whole range of inefficiencies in administration were allowed to go on for years. Governments were happy to allow representatives from both the Department of Health and the Department of Primary Industry to travel to meetings and forums around Australia and overseas, with unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and inefficient duplication. Efficient livestock industries in Australia depend on freedom from serious exotic animal diseases. Recognising the importance of Australian rural exports, our producers are spared the costs of lost production and disease control of endemic and exotic diseases. This contrasts with policies in many other countries. The first defence against exotic diseases is the Australian quarantine service. An efficient and relevantly administered quarantine service, the type of service provided for in this Bill, is essential if Australia's primary industries are to continue marketing acceptable disease free products, which are rare enough in the world. For our exports to be disease free our imports-even people, as well as animals and plants-must be free of diseases not yet in Australia, insofar as that is possible. We put this Bill before the Parliament at a time when more and more people go to and come from overseas destinations, always with the possibility of making contact, through footwear or clothing or goods bought, with exotic diseases. The failure to detect and efficiently act upon the introduction of exotic animal disease would have disastrous consequences for all Australians. The cost to Australia would be millions of dollars. The outbreak of foot and mouth disease, Rift Valley fever and blue tongue disease would result in the immediate cessation of meat, wool and skin exports. It would cripple rural industries, devastate the economies in rural towns and would reach the cities. Much of our standard of living is dependent on primary industry exports which still make up 45 per cent of total exports. I am delighted that the Cain Labor Government in Victoria has recognised, through its Department of Agriculture, that, although the feral pig threat has not yet been great in that State, a close watch must be kept on the possible spread of exotic disease into Victoria through feral pigs. If re-elected, the present Victorian Government will co-operate, I understand, by taking part in a feral animal control field day in May that I am proposing. It will be held near the Victorian border in the electorate of Eden-Monaro. Of all the diseases we have talked about today, foot and mouth disease is by far the most important because of Australia's foot and mouth disease free status and the contagiousness of the virus, particularly in view of the large numbers of feral pigs and buffaloes in Australia. It is an extremely important consideration for the future of our rural industry. The feral pig, in particular, can move very quickly over long distances. To appreciate the importance of keeping foot and mouth disease out of Australia, it is necessary to understand how valuable is our foot and mouth disease free status in the export marketing of animal products. Australia and New Zealand are the only countries in the world with foot and mouth disease free status and livestock industries significantly dependent on exports. Australian exports to major meat customers-the United States, Japan, Korea and Canada-depend totally on the foot and mouth disease free status of Australia and the importing countries. Australia's major meat export competitors-the European Community, Argentina and Brazil, among others-are countries where foot and mouth disease is endemic. The structure of the Australian beef industry is determined by the preferred access to markets in the foot and mouth disease free countries. The Government is to be commended for introducing the Bill to Parliament. Moves can now be made to integrate quarantine services with relevant technical areas in the Department of Primary Industry. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa)(11.52) —I support the Quarantine Amendment Bill. The Quarantine Act was enacted in 1908. The changes that are to take place are very much for the good, particularly the proposal to move the responsibility for livestock quarantine from the Department of Health to the Department of Primary Industry. I am sure livestock quarantine will be administered in a much more efficient manner by the Department of Primary Industry. The changed procedures do not require additional funds. In fact, I believe that much duplication will be avoided. For that reason, the taxpayers of this country may even save some money, for a change. My interest in quarantine goes back a long way. It is interesting to note that when this country was first settled there were no cloven-footed animals here. There were only marsupials, people and some dogs. The animals that were here, such as kangaroos, had diseases peculiar to them. Since settlement, we Europeans have introduced a range of animals to support ourselves. Terrible animals such as rabbits were introduced, presumably to support us. Initially, also, animals such as the red fox were introduced for the landholders to hunt. The red fox is presently spreading rabies throughout Europe. The foxes have spread throughout this country and are now nothing more than a nuisance. They are covered in mange and spread that disease to sheepdogs. The fox is an animal that we could well do without. I do not need to tell the people of Australia how much damage the rabbit has done over the years. Although we now have enormous herds of cattle and flocks of sheep, we must remember that those animals are very vulnerable to diseases that we do not have here. The bluetongue virus, which affects sheep, is a major disease that we have managed to keep out of the country. The major disease affecting cloven-footed animals is foot and mouth disease. We have managed also to keep that disease out of the country. An enormous amount of praise is due to the people employed by the departments as quarantine officers throughout the country. Australians who travel overseas are always annoyed when the jumbo has to be fumigated when they arrive home, but I can assure them that that is a very necessary burden and a very small burden for us to carry if we are to keep these diseases away from our shores. We go to enormous cost to try to stop foot and mouth disease entering the country. The nearest country which has foot and mouth disease is Indonesia, where it is quite rife. Indonesia is really only a swim away from Australia, so it is amazing that foot and mouth disease has not already come into the country. The fact that it has not is basically due to the dedication of our quarantine officers and to the fact that people are prepared to declare their goods and not to bring in prohibited goods. Thus, we have been able to keep foot and mouth disease at bay. As the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) mentioned, the ever increasing smuggling of drugs into this country makes it much harder for us to stop foot and mouth disease entering. We should consider the enormous costs caused to the beef industry in Australia by the cattle tick. It was introduced from Indonesia through the Northern Territory and travelled rapidly through the sub-tropical regions to New South Wales. My family has been associated with this area of interest for many years. My grandfather, Dr S. S. Cameron, has the Cameron Laboratories of the Victorian Department of Agriculture at Werribee named after him; my father is a veterinary science graduate of Melbourne University; and I have been brought up on the land and have dealt with livestock for many years. It is always of interest to me to see the tremendous work that the departments do in this area. I was fortunate enough to visit the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory installation in Victoria, where roughly $350m has been spent. A high security, high risk laboratory has been established there for research into these diseases, so that they may be kept at bay. This will help the livestock producers of this country. Although the ANAHL installation is not the responsibility of the Department of Primary Industry but that of the Department of Science, it is still one of the most important installations that we have. I am one who did not support the introduction of live foot and mouth disease virus. I have never believed it necessary to introduce the live virus. The policy on both sides of the House is that the present policy will be reviewed in 1987. Foot and mouth disease is the major concern in all the effort and money that is expended in this area. It is to be understood that, if foot and mouth disease broke out, a total slaughter campaign would be imposed. If it broke out in a herd, as it did recently in the Northern Territory, Tasmania and New Zealand, all animals within a radius of a certain number of kilometres would automatically be slaughtered. The animals just outside that radius would be inoculated with a live virus to help stop the spread of the disease once detected and proved to be such. That process would be carried out as quickly as possible. The samples would be flown to London or South Africa to be tested. Of course, once the disease was brought under control, those inoculated animals also would be slaughtered. Thus, there has never been any reason, as far as I can see, for the introduction of live foot and mouth disease virus, other than so that a few scientists can dabble with it in experiments. I have always thought that they could go to some country that has foot and mouth disease. As previous speakers have mentioned, only a couple of countries in the world are free of the disease. The scientists have only to take a trip to Indonesia to do all the experiments on foot and mouth disease they want to do. The risk of live foot and mouth disease virus escaping from the ANAHL installation, although slim, is too big a risk to take. It is interesting to note the number of passengers who arrive in Australia and who have to be checked. Two and a half million people arrived in Australia last year. Roughly 300,000 people came by ship. Officers have to check these people and ensure that no diseases are being imported. The other thing of note I mention today is the fact that for the first time since 1952 live pigs have been imported into Australia. Only yesterday an announcement was made that consignments had arrived. This is being done through the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Stud cattle imports come into Australia that way and I believe that is what is happening with the pigs. Certainly many pigs have been imported. They will be spread throughout Australia. Of course, these animals are very expensive, prize stud animals that will go into improving our livestock throughout Australia. Not only pigs but also beef cattle have been imported into Australia, particularly from America and Canada, in the last few years. New Zealand, of course, has been used as a quarantine station for a number of years because it is free from foot and mouth disease. We have been importing live animals into New Zealand and Australian cattle breeders have been breeding cattle there. The time spent there acts as an incubation period for blue tongue and foot and mouth disease. The pregnancy period of a cow is roughly that of a human-nine months. Once the calves are born in New Zealand they can be brought to Australia. They are brought here disease free because they have served an incubation period in New Zealand. The deep freezing of semen has been developed by science in the last few years-human as well as animal semen. We read a lot today about in vitro fertilisation et cetera in humans. Of course, the experiments that are taking place on the human side of things these days happened many years ago with livestock, particularly with cattle. Australia has been at the forefront in the deep freezing of semen in liquid nitrogen. The semen is collected and processed in places such as France and England. Once the quarantine period has been undergone we are able to import the semen and rapidly improve the standard of our livestock. We have not had to import the live animal with the associated risk of its carrying a disease. I believe that the eradication of wild pigs is most important. I applaud the honourable member for Eden Monaro (Mr Snow) for his endeavours since he has been a member of parliament to get the Government to move on this front. I am not one who believes that we cannot eradicate wild pigs; I believe that we can. I have them running around the back of my property all the time. I go out and shoot them every second night of the week, trying to keep their numbers down. I believe that we can achieve anything with a concerted effort. We have proved this with brucella and with lepto, which we have practically eradicated, at enormous cost. Of course, it is not such a great cost when we consider the future. If we ever get an outbreak of foot and mouth disease it will be nearly impossible for us to control it while these huge numbers of wild, cloven-footed animals are running around Australia. The former member for Gippsland and Minister for Primary Industry, Mr Nixon, was very keen to get a scheme going to eradicate wild pigs but it never came to fruition. I believe that the present Government is keen to start such a scheme. I certainly urge the Government in its efforts in that area. I do not believe that it is beyond us to do that. I believe that we can do it with effort-of course, with the expenditure of money also. Perhaps once the current programs of brucella and lepto eradication are well and truly in hand we, as a nation, ought to look at the eradication of wild pigs. They now seem to affect every State in Australia. It is high time we tried to eliminate the problem. I also support the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in his concerns about the surveillance of our coastline. Being a Queenslander and representing a third of that State-although none of it touches the coastline-I certainly spend quite a bit of time flying up and down our coast. Queensland has an enormous coastline. It is very difficult to maintain proper surveillance of it. Our native birds are being exported in vast numbers. What is going out of the country can just as easily come into it. Previously I have mentioned drugs and people. The Torres Strait Act took a long while to come to fruition. A lot of it was tied up with we Queenslanders ensuring that the quarantine in that area was up to scratch, and that prospects of bringing diseases across from New Guinea and Indonesia were not heightened at all and that we continued to keep a very close watch in that area. I believe that we must help the Government by supporting continued surveillance. We want to see more patrol boats built. I know that there has been quite a reduction in the surveillance program but we must see that the program continues and is improved. It is interesting to note the types of animals that come into Australia. I think they represent a fairly good cross-section of members of this House! Last year, 63 circus animals came into the country. I think some of them may have made it into here! Thirty-five bees-there are a few queen bees buzzing around here-and 1,734 cats and dogs came into the country last year. Mr Hunt —Any tabbies? Mr IAN CAMERON —A few tabbies. From New Zealand came 2,800 head of cattle, which highlights what I was talking about previously-that New Zealand is used by Australia as a quarantine station. I wonder what else it might be used for now. After the kerfuffle that has been going on in the last few days, New Zealand may even stop our using it for quarantine purposes. Last year 79 head of cattle came from Canada and the United States of America. Nearly nine million fish came into the country. I know that we do not want some of the species. One of the species that was introduced, the carp, has practically eaten every sort of native fish we ever had in inland Australia and has taken over every waterhole. We certainly did not want that type of species introduced. Mr Hunt —The Chinese like them. Mr IAN CAMERON —A few Chinamen came in, too. Forty goats were imported into Australia last year, and there are a few of those in here! The record shows that 82 guinea pigs, 2,757 laboratory animals and 226 pigs, which I have mentioned before, entered Australia last year. Fourteen primates-there are probably a few of them here, too!-came into Australia last year. Fifty-four rabbits entered Australia. Of course they have multiplied. I do not know why we are still importing rabbits. I thought we would have had enough by now. Last year 127 sheep entered Australia. There are a few sheep here, too! I support the changes contained in the Bill. Certainly, as an opposition, we thank all the officers involved in this area. I look forward to working with them in the future. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(12.08) —The Quarantine Amendment Bill 1984, which is before the House, gives effect to Australian Labor Party policy and an election promise by this Government. It again demonstrates the great concern that this Government has for primary industry and for the primary producers of this country, as well as for the health of all Australians. This Bill, in effect, removes the anomaly of the Minister for Health being responsible for plant and animal quarantine areas when, if anything went wrong, the Minister for Primary Industry and the Department of Primary Industry probably would be left carrying the can. So, whilst the Minister for Health quite correctly retains responsibility for the human health and quarantine areas, I am sure that on this occasion the Minister for Health is quite glad to see the transfer of his responsibilities for plant and animal quarantine to the primary industry field. Before entering Parliament I worked on animal diseases with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in the Division of Animal Health in Parkville and may I say, somewhat tongue in cheek, that, were it not for the well-honed sense of judgment of the voters of Diamond Valley at the time of the previous election, I would probably now be working in the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory at Geelong. It is a front line in exotic disease control. Having worked on diseases such as bluetongue and akabane as well as pleuropneumonia, I am aware of the huge losses that Australia has sustained because of the introduction of exotic diseases into this country. Today, with jet travel and fast surface transport, we are obviously not as isolated as we were when the Quarantine Act of 1908 was first enacted. We live in a very fast world where diseases may not be evident on arrival because of the incubation period. The speed at which people and animals travel around the world presents great problems after their arrival on our soil. As has been pointed out, our long, uninhabited coastline is a constant soft spot in our vigilance to ensure that exotic diseases do not reach our shores. While the Department of Health is well set up to ensure effective quarantine measures at points of access to Australia, and has shown itself consistently over the years to be a very effective operation, the problems of animal and plant quarantine are extensive and the points of access to Australia are not so easily or readily defined. Obviously, an effective quarantine service requires not only extensive vigilance, but also effective laboratory, scientific and technological back-up operations. The Department of Primary Industry, in conjunction with the invaluable resources, skills and expertise of the workers at installations such as the ANAHL at Geelong, are in the best position to provide this for us. The gross value of agricultural commodities produced in Australia in 1981-82 was in excess of $12 billion. Obviously, without effective quarantine, all that is at risk. It is at risk both for domestic consumption and for our export markets. An important aspect of this Bill is the dual administration clauses. Clearly there are aspects of quarantine which require this interaction and I am pleased to see that the Government has acted responsibly and effectively to ensure that there are no grey areas of responsibility for quarantine control. However, the Toomer case, reported in the National Times last week, highlights a problem that can develop in these areas. Bill Toomer was effectively driven from the Public Service because it was alleged that he was over zealous in the execution of his duty. That simply brings me to the point that where our primary industries and the health of Australians are concerned, I do not believe that any person can be accused of being over zealous. Those who would attempt to short circuit quarantine regulations for financial gain or for speed of processing of their imports are very short-sighted and they constantly threaten our industries and the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Australians. I believe that while speaking of the very important installation at Geelong, ANAHL, it should be recognised that there has been continuing support and co-operation from the Cain Government. The siting and operation of this laboratory at Geelong is very important to the people of Victoria and to Australians generally. Obviously the partnership between the Cain Labor Government and the Federal Government works for the benefit of us all. In relation to ANAHL, I wish to make particular reference to the workers at that installation and to those in the Division of Animal Health in the CSIRO. Working with animal diseases is often dangerous to the individual worker and working with human diseases is almost always dangerous, but it is through their constant efforts and adherence to strict security regulations that we in this country are protected day after day. Unfortunately, public servants, including scientists, technicians, support staff and quarantine and health inspectors, are often subjected to ridicule and derision. I am glad that the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) saw fit to praise these people as well. We should remember the quiet way that these officers do their job and the value of that job to this country. I commend this Bill to the House. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(12.16) —I rise to support the Quarantine Amendment Bill and to support my colleagues the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron). The Opposition has shown its support for this legislation in the House. I note that the support has been bipartisan and, while I largely endorse the remarks made by the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), I was disappointed that he was not quite as gracious as the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) in acknowledging the fact that the Bill has had bipartisan support and has been part of the policy of both sides of this House. I rise to speak as a South Australian and I am bold enough to suggest that I rise with the endorsement of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is at the table and who, I am sure, would agree with me when I say that South Australians are among the most sensitive people in the country on the issue of quarantine. Indeed, South Australians can be forgiven for seeing themselves as rather a chosen people within a chosen land when it comes to the question of quarantine, particularly plant quarantine. It has been the enthusiasm of the South Australians to keep their State free from some of the diseases that plague the rest of Australia-fruit fly and phylloxera come instantly to mind-and their preparedness to commit State taxes to this task that have kept much of South Australia free from these particular diseases. While we are dealing with the question of quarantine, it is interesting to note that South Australia's move to its 150th year celebrations next year will involve the State in hosting what will be a major equestrian event. This event will put particular demands on the quarantine station at Torrens Island in South Australia, in the electorate of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). I am hesitant to digress, but I must explain to the House that the event is the sixth world three-day equestrian event and is being held at Gawler. The movement of horses into the State for this event will put additional demands on the Torrens Island station because the incubation period of particular animal diseases referred to by the honourable member for McMillan, will need to be met if these horses are to enter Australia safely. I shall speak but briefly to the provisions of the Bill because much of what I would want to say has been said already. All Australians are aware of the fact that we have an enormous coastline- 37,000 kilometres-to be policed in the interests of quarantine. I was interested and astonished to discover in preparing these notes that even the Australian Capital Territory has its own share of coastline, which I had not appreciated before, namely 35 kilometres at Jervis Bay. I said in my opening remarks that South Australians are committed to quarantine, but I concede gladly that all Australian are more aware than they have ever been before of the importance of plant and animal quarantine to the future prosperity of our nation. Indeed, a survey undertaken when the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) was Minister for Health showed that Australians are increasingly aware of the importance of quarantine. As a result of education programs undertaken, there were falls in the number of seizures of banned products entering Australia and a rise in the awareness of people about the importance of quarantine. I am pleased to see the issue of quarantine in relation to animals and plants being put into a separate section under the Department of Primary Industry. This Bill fulfils a promise that both parties had made to the electorate prior to the election. It is entirely appropriate that the question of plant and animal quarantine be under the Department of Primary Industry because it has a good deal more sympathy for and empathy with particular diseases that affect primary producers. The honourable member for Barker has outlined those diseases and I do not wish to go into them now. I wish to make three brief points. First, I alert both the Minister and the House to the need, as I see it, to tighten import inspections. The member for Barker has rightly said that it is abhorrent to use quarantine as a trade barrier and I believe that most people in the House would endorse that sentiment. But, of course, there is an enormous influx of tourists and of primary industry products into Australia and, as a result, there is a need to tighten our current import inspection procedures. I think of the illustration of the amount of citrus fruit now coming into Australia. I am aware of the number of representatives of citrus growers who have approached the Minister for Health, the honourable member for Barker and me seeking an assurance that those diseases which might be endemic in citrus entering Australia are carefully policed to see that they do not put the citrus industry in Australia at risk. I am also aware of the enormous explosion in tissue culture and of the amount of plant material coming into Australia for nursery work. There is a need for tightened import inspection procedures in that area. We are all aware of the increase in the number of imported foods and the fact that much of the pure food legislation is currently a State responsibility. The second matter I would like to mention is that since Australia, especially South Australia, enjoys a unique status as a fruit fly free and generally disease free area, we ought to be making greater use of our advantage. I press the Government to ensure greater recognition overseas of the certifiable fruit fly free and disease free status that Australia, particularly South Australia, enjoys. While it is abhorrent to use import restrictions as a trade barrier, it is every bit as abhorrent to be denied markets, if one is an exporter endeavouring to get into an overseas market. There are markets being denied to South Australian producers simply because people choose to use import restrictions in their countries to make it more difficult for South Australian producers to enter them. Mr Porter —Specifically Japan. Mr ANDREW —Yes. Finally, I plead with the Minister not to allow the nervous Nellies in his Party to restrict what ought to be some adventurous work being done in the area of fumigation and sterilisation. We are all aware of the risks inherent in the continued use of EDB as a fumigant, but there are some exciting possibilities for fumigation and sterilisation procedures if we are prepared to turn to gamma radiation. I do not wish people to be blase in their approach to gamma radiation, but I urge the Minister not to allow those nervous Nellies who may surround him to discourage him from undertaking the sort of adventurous work that ought to be undertaken. The work in brucellosis eradication is an accurate illustration of just how difficult it is to eradicate a disease once it becomes endemic in livestock or plant life. I am very pleased that this Bill is before the House. It highlights the importance of quarantine and the importance of legislation to streamline quarantine procedures. Without effective quarantine we will have further brucellosis-type endemic infections that we will then be needing to eradicate. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(12.23) —I should like to support the comment made by the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) that this is a bipartisan piece of legislation. I think that the whole House recognises how significant it is to make this shift of plant and animal quarantine to the Department of Primary Industry. It has been pleasing to note the spirit in which this legislation has been dealt with. The split in responsibility should ensure a greater likelihood of a concerted attack upon those areas of quarantine that relate to primary industry in particular. One matter on which I would like to comment, because it is of major significance to the people in my electorate and in the adjoining electorate of Burke, is the ongoing fear that potato growers have regarding the possible importation of two very serious plant diseases from New Zealand-golden cyst nematode and black wart. I know that the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) has a similar fear in his electorate. If the honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) were present, I am sure that he would feel the same way. This is a matter of concern. We recognise, of course, that restrictions are imposed upon us because of the conditions of the closer economic relations agreement with New Zealand; but it will be an ongoing fear, and obviously there will be great necessity to maintain the most rigid quarantine surveillance, because these diseases would be disastrous in areas such as mine. To the area which I represent, the potato growing industry has a significance to the economy which I cannot over emphasise. At this stage, at least $15m is going into Ballarat as a result of the work on potato farms. It is not just that. The industry also maintains a very large number of families, because the farms are not large. They are fairly small farms, and it is extremely intensive farming. Many of these people have been on the land from the last century. The families have held those farms for many decades. These people are greatly concerned that if there were to be a breakout at the point of importation for the processing of potatoes, this would have a disastrous effect upon their livelihood. Therefore, I am particularly pleased to see that we are now bringing plant and animal quarantine into the Department of Primary Industry. I am sure that there will be a continuing and co-operative relationship between the Department of Health and the Department of Primary Industry to ensure that quarantine is kept at the highest possible level. We also recognise that it is not only the importation of potatoes, even if just for processing in the major cities, which could possibly bring in the golden cyst nematode and black wart. If people are careless about travelling in these infected areas of New Zealand, they could unwittingly be the carriers of those diseases into Australia. That will be a continuing responsibility of the Department of Health. I do not wish to go over the ground covered by previous speakers. However, with regard to honey, I emphasise that the importation of pollen involves a considerable risk, and the honey farmers, not only in my area but throughout New South Wales and South Australia, have the same fear. They are conscious of the need to maintain the most rigorous quarantine surveillance. I only hope that as a result of the shift we shall find ourselves not in a diminished position but in a strengthened position concerning quarantine. For a long time I have felt that the Department of Primary Industry should have the responsibility for quarantine, and I am sure that honourable members on both sides of the House feel the same. I am pleased to add my support to the Bill. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(12.27) —in reply-I should like to take this opportunity to thank all honourable members who have participated in the debate for their bipartisan support for the Quarantine Amendment Bill. I should like to echo the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham) in noting the enormous success this country has had with quarantine over this century. As the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) pointed out, we have very difficult surveillance problems in the northern part of this country. Nevertheless, as the honourable member for McMillan said, we are one of the few countries in the world which are free from a whole range of plant and animal diseases. It is worth acknowledging at this point the very great achievements of quarantine in Australia through this century, and that the changes now being made are not as a result of any failures in quarantine but are a recognition of the new sorts of quarantine problems we are facing. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter), with his agricultural knowledge, gave us various examples, such as the problems of bean thrip, potato cyst nemotodes and citrus canker. I think that he would recognise the very effective actions that have been taken by quarantine to deal with these problems. We might say that eternal vigilance is the price of keeping this country free from foot and mouth disease. I think that this has been achieved by quarantine. As honourable members on both sides of the House have pointed out, this move is long overdue because of the great changes in emphasis in quarantine today compared with earlier decades. Luckily, human quarantine is no longer the great problem it was in the past, but animal and plant quarantine have become much more significant elements. The change the Government is making recognises that. Speakers on both sides of the House have said that the change is long overdue. I agree with that. I point out that the Hawke Labor Government, in its first three years, has honoured its promise to the rural community that it would make those changes in quarantine. In relation to the point raised by the honourable member for the Northern Territory about the problems of surveillance of that northern area, echoed by the honourable member for Maranoa, I think the honourable member for the Northern Territory accepts the point we all accept, which is that there is no way the Government can carry out complete surveillance across that whole northern area. The Government has to organise the most cost-effective surveillance it can produce and make use of all the latest technology in providing the most effective barriers across that whole northern area. I think both sides of the House realise this is a very difficult task. This Government has not only the surveillance under constant review but also the interception once illegal craft are sighted. To encourage the honourable member for the Northern Territory that the Government is constantly vigilant about this, I would like to inform him that this morning a vessel was sighted 46 miles north-west of Bathurst Island. It is suspected to be fishing illegally, and the interception response is already under way. So the Government is doing its best in what is, admittedly, a very difficult situation. With reference to a query raised by the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow), the final structure of plant and animal quarantine within primary industry is still under consideration, but there is a strong expectation that his desire that these plant and animal quarantines be amalgamated with the Bureau of Animal Health will be satisfied. Finally, let me echo strongly the points made by the honourable member for Barker and the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew). While the Government wants the most effective animal and plant quarantine it can have in this country, the Government also has to make sure it does not use those health and quarantine provisions as trade barriers. Those two things have been kept distinct. I welcome very much the bipartisan support. We want effective health and quarantine for animals and plants but we do not want to use those regulations, and will not use those regulations, simply as economic or trade barriers. I thank all honourable members for their part in this debate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Dr Blewett) read a third time. Debate resumed from 26 February, on motion by Ms Jakobsen: 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. Mr GRIFFITHS(Maribyrnong)(12.33) —I preface my remarks by referring to an article in today's edition of the Australian headed 'Coalition out-spends ALP on ads'. The article indicates, from figures compiled by the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal, that: The Liberal and National parties have spent more than $14m on political advertising on television and radio during the past 10 years-almost double the amount spent by the Labor Party in the same period. The reason I make reference to that report is my strongly held view that what is happening in terms of the insurance companies' campaign in Victoria against the Victorian Labor Government's proposed reforms to the workers compensation system is germane to that sort of article. The Insurance Council of Australia is alleged to have spent in the vicinity of $2m on a quite disgraceful and misleading campaign to bring attention to alleged deficiencies in the proposed reforms advocated by the Cain Labor Government. It is not only my partisan view that the campaign has been somewhat extreme. I refer to a report on page 39 of the 22 February edition of the National Times. Karen Kissane opens the article by saying: The insurance industry is pulling no punches in its frantic attempts to deflect the Cain government from its plan to take over Victoria's workers' compensation. Prime-time television advertisements designed to tug at the public's heartstrings lack only the violins. I have some concern about the campaign conducted by the Insurance Council of Australia, but I have also a concern about the campaign conducted by the Law Institute of Victoria. I will address my preliminary remarks to the campaign conducted by the insurance companies. Honourable members ought to be made aware that in Victoria 60 per cent of the 50 or so insurance companies working in the workers compensation system are overseas-owned. Also, in terms of individual companies, they have been significant contributors to Margaret Thatcher's British Conservative Party. For example, the Eagle Star Insurance Co. contributed in 1983 the sum of $24,000 to the Margaret Thatcher campaign; Guardian Royal Exchange Insurance contributed the sum of $50,000; C. E. Heath-I will return to this company a little later- contributed in the vicinity of $10,000; Phoenix Assurance Co., $19,500; Royal Insurance, $35,000; and, Sun Alliance Insurance, $35,000. This makes a total of $174,000. Mr Porter —So what, though? Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member shows by his ignorant interjection that he knows nothing about the insurance industry. The insurance companies have long argued that workers compensation is a particularly unrewarding area of involvement in insurance generally. In terms of the alleged unprofitability of that area of business activity by these insurance companies, I quote from a report from Reinsurance Magazine, dated 3 December 1984, a United Kingdom publication, headed 'Lights out at Heath'. I make the point that this is a trade journal. The writer is addressing the future of the C. E. Heath Insurance Co. I quote from that report: Then there is the worrying matter of the broker's important workers compensation business in Australia. If the Labor Party wins control of both Houses in the Victorian Elections expected next May, a single fund for workers compensation will almost certainly be set up in that State. Western Australia and South Australia, also important to Heath, could well fellow. According to estimates, workers compensation in Australia will contribute around #10m (33 per cent) of Heath's profits this year. That report brings to light two fundamental issues. Firstly, workers compensation insurance is not the difficult task often presented by insurance companies. If C.E. Heath is receiving 33 per cent of its world-wide operation's profit from workers compensation insurance in Australia, and if that amounts to #10m, it would be somewhat difficult successfully to put the argument that workers compensation does not, at least for some companies, provide a very high rate of return on investment. My concern with C. E. Heath's is particularly strong in that it contributed a very large amount to the Thatcher campaign and obviously that money has been taken out of the system in Australia. The reality is that ordinary business people and ordinary employees in Australia have been involved, however indirectly, in the funding of Margaret Thatcher's campaign. That is something about which to date the insurance companies have been silent. I note this report of comments made by Mr Trigg, the Insurance Council's spokesperson, on page 19 of today's Age: Mr Trigg denied the ICA had given money to any political party, although individual insurance companies could, and did make donations. 'That is their individual corporate choice,' he said. When Mr Trigg was asked about this a week or so ago he implicitly indicated that the individual insurance companies were not making donations to the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party. From my sources I am confident that each and every one of the insurance companies I have adverted to today has made significant donations. In fact, my sources within the insurance industry-quite senior sources I might add-described it in the following terms: 'They are taking it down in wheelbarrows'. That obviously indicates that a lot of money is going to the Liberal Party in Victoria, and I believe it is incumbent upon the managers of the various insurance companies to indicate to their policy holders the level of donations that they are making to the Liberal Party campaign in Victoria. In terms of the Insurance Council of Australia alone the campaign has been estimated to cost towards $2m, which is a significant amount. The Labor Party's ability to compete is put into some sort of context when one takes into account the fact that the expenditure of the coalition parties on election campaign advertising over the last 10 years has been almost double that of the Labor Party. In my submission, the activities of the Law Institute of Victoria and the Insurance Council of Australia indicate a conspiracy to defraud the business people and employees of the State of Victoria. Both campaigns have been predicated on the self-interest of the insurance companies, as indicated by the sort of information I have already provided. In my view the Law Institute of Victoria would be unable to keep a straight face if it had to argue that it had the best interests of the Victorian business and Victorian employees at heart. I hasten to add that, in terms of the proposed reforms, there is an agreement between the business people of Victoria and the trade union movement that the proposals are the best option for the future. The Law Institute and Insurance Council of Australia campaigns are reactionary and they are based on the narrowest self-interest of the participants. I should add a degree of bipartisanship to my comments on the Law Institute campaign. I do so by extracting a letter to the editor of the Age last week, headed 'Glib Information about Compensation'. It is from a Mr P. Mulvany, whom I know to be a senior partner in one of the largest workers compensation practices in Victoria. This letter, from a member of the Law Institute of Australia and practising lawyer in the relevant area, states: The campaign being conducted by the Law Institute of Victoria concerning the Victorian Government's intentions to reform the worker's compensation system is capable of two constructions. It is either a genuine attempt to inform the community about issues which it considers important or a cynical campaign to support the Liberal Party platform and its implicit preservation of the financial interest of lawyers and private insurance companies. As the official representative of lawyers one would assume the Law Institute is committed to the principal that all available evidence should be presented for those asked to make determinations. It is therefore surprising that in its 'election like' material, the Law Institute fails to fully inform the electorate of the facts about the Government's proposals. Of major concern is the glib information presented to the community about lump sums in workers' compensation and common law claims. Nowhere in its material does the Law Institute refer to the considerable body of reputable literature that criticises lump sums as a method of compensating personal injuries. The institute has failed to inform the community of the following: 1. That the average lump sum received by an injured worker is fractionally more than one year's average weekly earnings. 2. That there are currently considerable social, financial and judicial pressures that deprive workers of a free choice between a lump sum or weekly payments of compensation. 3. That to obtain a lump sum it is necessary to endure a process that involves medical mercenaries, prejudices as to ethnicity and gender and harrassment by insurance companies. It is unlikely that any of this material has been made available to the 62 per cent of respondents to the Law Institute survey who indicated they would prefer a lump sum rather than continuing income maintenance. If the material circulated by the Law Institute is an attempt to inform the community, then as a member and a personal injuries lawyer, I resent its ineptness. If indeed, it is an attempt to become involved in an election campaign then I resent both its involvement and its direction. That letter was signed by Paul Mulvany, a senior partner in the Melbourne legal firm of Maurice Blackburn and Co., a firm widely known in Victoria to specialise in the area of personal injuries and industrial law generally. In terms of the responses of the Law Institute and the Insurance Council of Australia it is worth pointing out that 15 per cent of the $800m that is involved in workers compensation in Victoria finds its way into the coffers of the legal fraternity. Fifteen per cent of $800m is quite a significant amount of money by any measure but, to put it into context, the Victorian workers compensation system is the single most expensive system in Australia. To the extent that it is the single most expensive system it is apparent that lawyers are taking a disproportionate share of moneys that ought to be more directed towards the interests of injured workers. Another factor that has arisen in the debate in Victoria is that the insurance companies have, I am reliably informed, intimidated their staff in an effort to ensure their attendance at political rallies designed to oppose the Cain Government's legislation. Mr McGauran —Where is your evidence? Mr GRIFFITHS —I shall be happy, upon clearing it, to quote the individual's name in this House, but I shall not do it, of course, without that individual's okay. I can see by the response that honourable members opposite are very excited about these comments. Mr McGauran —It is all hearsay. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) may be very surprised to know that most business people in the Victorian Parliament support the proposals. So I do not know to whom he is directing his remarks. Is he saying in this House that he will-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member for Gippsland has been in this House long enough to know that all interjections are out of order and I remind him that he is not in his seat. Mr GRIFFITHS —I would be happy to bring to the attention of the constituents of the honourable member for Gippsland the fact that he would put before their interests the interests of the Law Institute of Victoria. No doubt the honourable member for Gippsland might like to indicate whether he is a member of that august body. Mr McGauran —Yes. Mr GRIFFITHS —He is. Well, there we are. Before the member for Gippsland interjects in the future one would hope that he would bring to the attention of this House where he has a pecuniary interest in the subject before the House. The Insurance Council of Australia has taken a very hard line and, in my view, a quite intimidatory approach to its employees. It has, by way of intimidatory circulars, put pressure on employees to attend political rallies, something that we all ought to find abhorrent. Mr McGauran —Table them. Mr GRIFFITHS —The honourable member interjects and says that they ought to be tabled. As soon as they come into my possession that will certainly happen. I have been reliably informed by telephone conversations this morning that they are available and I give the undertaking to this House that they will be provided immediately they come into my possession. The Insurance Council campaign is not only directed towards maintaining its own position in the market but also it is a grossly misleading campaign and it relies on the basest sort of advertising that I have seen for a very long time. That is all part of politics; that is something that I will not necessarily lose any sleep over. But what I find objectionable is the fact that the campaign is grossly misleading. The insurance companies and the Law Institute of Victoria simply have not put the argument accurately and the letter that I read from a practising solicitor in that area is but one indication of the widespread concern about the tactics embraced by the Insurance Council and the Law Institute of Victoria. I put the fundamental issues as follows: The C. E. Heath insurance company, which is one example, gets 33 per cent or 10 million pounds of its world profit from Australia's workers compensation insurance. That money is substantially derived from its operations in Victoria. There is nothing said about that when the Insurance Council articulates the supposed concerns of its industry. The insurance companies that are mainly involved in this area in Victoria have used profits made from their Victorian and Australian operations to fund the Margaret Thatcher Conservative campaign in England. I am not sure how many business people in Australia would be upset about their money going to that end, but I am quite sure that at least a significant minority would object and certainly many employees in Victoria would object to money going that way. The Opposition once again tries to interject. It is always ready to support foreign monopolies against Australian interests. We are not cutting them out of the market. They will be invited to tender, as honourable members would know if they had read the literature, for part of the administration of the Victorian scheme. It is important to advert, and I will do so very briefly, to some aspects of the scheme in Victoria. As I have indicated, some $800m is involved in Victorian workers compensation insurance. It is the most expensive system in Australia. When the changeover takes place on 1 July the number of insurance companies acting in the field will drop from 51 to five. Therein lies the concern of the insurance companies. Some of the very large legal firms will be significantly affected. I believe that it is incumbent upon the spokespeople for the Law Institute of Victoria to indicate to Victorians what their pecuniary interest is in these areas. If one looks at the membership of the Council of the Law Institute of Victoria, it is my reasonably informed guess that a very large number of those individuals would have a direct pecuniary interest in matters that they have brought before the Victorian public, allegedly under the cloak of the interests of Victorian employees and businesses. It is incumbent upon them, in their public comments to indicate their own self-interest. It is anticipated that the Victorian proposals will create 25,000 new jobs. It is anticipated that they will save business in Victoria some $600m. I would like to see honourable members opposite argue against that as a reasonable objective. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Debate (on motion by Mr Beale) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(12.55) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. At the outset, I thank the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) for giving me this opportunity to introduce briefly this Bill to the House. The purpose of this Bill is to continue, with certain exceptions, the prohibition on the import of sugar and certain sugar products into Australia. The Bill now before honourable members contains as the schedule the text of the Sugar Agreement 1984. This Agreement commenced on 1 July 1984 and will terminate on 30 June 1989. The key features of the Agreement are the new arrangements for fixing the domestic sugar price and for the administration of some exceptions to the import embargo. The maximum price for bulk refined sugar of manufacturers grade will be adjusted every six months, based on an objective formula which takes into account movements in the consumer price index and the world market price for sugar. The maximum price change between any two six-monthly periods is limited to the movement in the CPI. The new formula brings domestic price movements more directly in line with world price movements. The new exemption arrangements permit the importation of sugar in packs of up to five kilograms or five litres and in consignments of up to one tonne or one thousand litres. Previous arrangements to allow sugar unavailable in Australia to be imported in larger quantities than these for special purposes are continued. These arrangements will streamline Customs procedures and eliminate the interpretation problems relating to speciality sugars that had earlier drawn adverse comment from the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Bill extends the prohibition on the import of sugar beyond the end of the agreement on 30 June 1989. The Government does not intend at this stage to remove the import embargo on sugar. Honourable members will be aware that the sugar industry is conducting a comprehensive review of its regulations and practices. The need for the embargo or alternative forms of protection will be discussed with Queensland and the industry in the light of the outcome of the review. There will be no financial impact from the passage of this Bill. It simply continues the embargo on the import of sugar and presents to the Parliament the latest in a series of domestic sugar agreements between the Commonwealth and Queensland governments. The Act will commence on the day on which it receives the royal assent. I commend the Bill to honourable members. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Before calling the honourable member for Deakin, I remind honourable members that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I am sure that the usual courtesies will be extended to him by honouable members. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(12.58) —Mr Deputy Speaker, would you please convey to the Speaker my congratulations on his re-election to the Chair. While on a personal note may I say that my father served in this House from 1946 to 1958. On 18 October 1983, during the condolence motion following his death, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the then Leader of the National Party of Australia, Mr Anthony, the honourable member for Parramatta (Mr John Brown) and the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) had some kind words to say about him. Today I am able, on behalf of my family, to record our appreciation for those remarks. The electors of Deakin have paid me a great tribute by electing me as their representative. Two former members have also served those constituents-Alan Jarman, the member from 1966 to 1983, had a distinguished parliamentary career and was deputy chairman of committees for seven years. On behalf of the residents of Deakin, I pay compliment to his long and outstanding period of service. John Saunderson, who now sits opposite as the member for Aston, was the member for Deakin between 1983 and 1984 and also made a contribution to the Deakin community. It is an honour to serve in the Parliament of Australia because, despite our imperfections and our critics, this nation has a proud tradition. Few countries in the world can match our achievements in the growth of individual liberties and rights and the development of a broadly based prosperity for most of our people. Few countries, at least on a per capita basis, can boast of having produced such outstanding inventors, scientists, artists, writers, sportsmen and sportswomen. The growth of the market economy in the nineteenth century made possible our prosperity and our achievements. Indeed, at the turn of the century and into the 1920s we were one of the two or three wealthiest nations in the world. In more recent times, however, our market economy has been subject to some threat and so have our liberties and relative prosperity. The development of markets led to the rise of democratic capitalism, broadened private property rights and the expansion of individual freedoms. This historic success of democratic capitalism as an economic system has brought an unprecedented standard of living to those who live under it. Private property rights protect the freedom of the individual to contract his property and his labour. Property rights are part of civil rights that are essential to individual freedom and, in the form of freedom to contract, constitute the overriding principle of a free market economy. The widening of civil rights also brought with it the right to participate in the exercise of political power and the development of representative government. The sustained economic growth also brought with it in our just and compassionate society the emergence of so-called social rights, represented by, in financial terms, redistribution of portions of the wealth of the society to those in genuine need. The phrase 'social rights' is, however, a misnomer; 'social claims' being more appropriate. A government may recognise a social claim in legislation but repeal can take place at any time. Although social claims involve an inevitable curtailment of civil rights and individual freedom it was and is a price that is paid so that those truly in need in our community may be sustained. Mr Deputy Speaker, the ever increasing advancement of social claims has, however, weakened the vitality of our nation. reduced initiative, imperilled our international competitiveness, curtailed our free market economy and created pockets of privilege for certain articulate and politically powerful groups in our community. The rising tide of taxes, deficits and foreign debt has debased our currency and lowered our relative standard of living. In plain terms, we are allowing governments to conduct our affairs so that we live beyond our means. Furthermore, we are permitting governments to implement policies that undermine the family, which is the basis of any civilised society. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is my profound conviction that if we are to maintain our free, humane and prosperous society the spread of social claims must be curtailed. We must start by putting our national finances in order. For years now the public has been delivering a clear message to us that taxes are too high and tax reform is necessary. Budget deficits and overseas government borrowings must be brought under control if we are to keep real interest rates down and meet the cost of our foreign debt. Government debt means the expropriation of future taxation, our children's taxation, to pay the interest and repay the capital. Since our children are not a party to this obligation being imposed on them by governments, still being too young to be involved in the political process, one wonders whether they will be prepared to honour the arrangement when they are involved in politics. We should reflect on what they might do with our old age pensions in order to reduce the burden we have placed on them. We cannot cut taxes and eliminate government debt without dealing with one of the most difficult and politically sensitive problems of all, curtailing the growth of government expenditure, but it is inescapable. We cannot blame our Public Service for this situation because it is trying to give effect to our promises. We can only accept our responsibilities to trim spending growth by eliminating those pockets of privilege in our society while maintaining services to those in our community truly in need. Furthermore, the family unit, then subject to less tax than previously, would assume responsibilities now being carried by governments. One of the major pockets of privilege in our society is the job protection cartel. The trade union movement, operating within the law, has a valid and vital role to play in our society. But in the last 20 years the collective power of the trade unions has far surpassed that needed to perform its role and that power has been given to it by governments and industrial tribunals of which the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission is the largest. It is one of the great ironies of our time that the Commission, which was established to protect the weak, the poor and the helpless, is now positively discriminating against them. Its deliberations, far, far from the relevant information generated in labour markets, have imposed on our society rigidity in our wage structure that is creating two classes-haves and have-nots-destroying our international competitiveness, allowing strikes to become too easy and too rewarding, permitting productivity gains to be allocated to the workers rather than spread through the community by lower prices, encouraging demarcation disputes and allowing the promulgation of awards that are unenforceable if broken by the unions and enforceable if broken by employers. Freedom for the working man began when he became able to contract for his labour with his employer. In a free society, with a free market economy, the cost of labour must reflect the realities of the marketplace. The generation of millions of new jobs in private enterprise in the United States in the last few years has been made possible by the willingness of employees to adjust to market conditions. An effective wage fixing system to protect real living standards, as noted by the Governor-General, accomplishes the opposite by denying customers real market prices, by causing unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, to rise and by saddling our hundreds of thousands of small businesses with inflexible work rules that result in close-downs. Phrases such as 'comparative wage justice' have no meaning in a free economy. If we are to have a dynamic, flexible and growing economy we must modify the wage fixing policies of the Arbitration Commission and restore a proper balance between employer and employee to enable labour market forces to operate. Sensible tax and appropriate family and welfare policies should ensure that the decent working people of Australia will respond to a free labour market and those of us who have worked on the shop floor with those people have a real admiration for their qualities and their ability to innovate and get a good job done. If we are to redress the social claims imbalance, not only is a freer labour market needed, but we must move towards freer commercial markets. Collusion between major economic groups in our community, such as government, business and unions, is not necessarily in the national interest. In our educated community there are bound to be genuine differences of opinion on how to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number. Corporate state arrangements mean in practice that the least controversial and the least effective course of action is taken. Social claims are also made by business groups taking the form of demands for protection, grants, bounties and subsidies. These create further pockets of privilege and deny consumers the benefits of forcing these groups to be more competitive. Furthermore, as our current account deficit difficulty presently indicates, we can only preserve our relative living standards, regrettably significantly reduced in recent weeks, by being competitive in world markets. We must not allow our resource industries to bear a disproportionate burden in our international trade. There is a further need to free our commercial markets by deregulation. As the private sector can testify, the continued weight of government regulations is taking more and more time, costing more and more money and sapping more and more incentive. The deadening hand of the state needs to be lifted from many of its own statutory bodies by disposing of them to the private sector, concurrently ensuring that no monopolistic structures are allowed to prevail. Competition in free markets is the key to greater efficiency and greater consumer benefits. Social claims in the community area, where dynamic forces squeeze more and more concessions from compliant and weak governments, are undermining the basis of our democracy and our position as a free people. It is distressing to cite the recent disruption in the ANZUS alliance as an example. It is, however, inescapable that, by bowing to a minority pressure group, we have jeopardised our national security. We are intricately involved in the United States defense system, mainly through our mainland bases, and the ramifications of further disturbances in the alliance would be widespread. It should be noted that the present mutual reliance gives us the right to contribute to the nuclear disarmament debate in a constructive way. In education, Mr Deputy Speaker, social claims from vocal minority groups are leading to a deterioration in education standards and a growing discrepancy in those standards between public and private schools. Although we have new words to identify objectives in education, there is no fundamental need for those standards set in the past to be altered. We may have new words, like communications and computers, but those two Cs are no different from the old three Rs-reading and writing are the basis for communications and arithmetic is counting or computing. Academic excellence should be the major goal of education, yet the lack of literacy and numeracy in teenagers, no doubt contributing to their inability to find jobs, is alarming. Pressures to avoid accountability to permit further delegation of the education process to schools and teachers at a local level, to eliminate external examinations, to adjust downwards the marks of those students who attend what are regarded as good schools and to adjust upwards the marks of those students who attend what are regarded as bad schools, all of which have been tried and rejected in the United States over the last two decades as creating a tide of mediocrity must be resisted if we are to preserve and enhance our education standards, leading to greater workforce opportunities for our children. The family is the basic unit of our civilised society and most Australians see their current life- styles as being built around the family, the household and the work that provides the necessary support. Over the last decade we have allowed social claims to persuade governments to introduce policies that are weakening the fabric of the family structure and eroding its standards of behaviour. Those standards were built on freedom and security. Yet increased government interference is threatening freedom and government social programs, subject to change either by regulation or at the whim of the bureaucracy, provide only a most uneasy security. We need to protect and promote the stability of the family, leaving it free to take advantage of opportunities and to resolve its own problems. We need to provide policies that enable the family to prosper together and not give benefits that encourage it to split apart. One of our prime objectives must be to fashion financial policies that reduce taxation for the family, adjust real wages to be competitive, and give maximum incentives for the family to provide for its own welfare. Mr Deputy Speaker, we, in politics, have promised too much and delivered too little. We have taxed too much, spent too much and interfered too much in social problems that can be better resolved outside government by improved education, economic development, technological progress and allowing entrepreneurs to conduct their own affairs. It is now time to curtail the social claims that are reducing our relative standard of living and eroding our community structures. We need to allow the free market economy which has created substantial prosperity for our society to work effectively and without interference, as it is now doing in some other western democracies. We must get our financial house in order, stop using taxpayers' money to buy votes for us, eliminate the pockets of privilege in our society, redress the balance between the trade union movement and those who employ its members, eliminate inefficient enterprises, become more competitive internationally, and protect only those in genuine need. We must stand fast against social claims in the community area and resist policies that weaken education standards and family values. These, then, are my signposts, my directions. Whether in opposition, by influencing government to follow them or by changing public perceptions to reflect them, or in government, in making policies to embrace them, if I can do that for as long as the electors of Deakin ask me to represent them, I will feel that my contribution to national affairs has been worth while. Mr SAUNDERSON(Aston)(1.19) —I congratulate the previous speaker, the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale), on his maiden speech, although I noticed that members of the National Party of Australia were a bit quiet with some of their 'hear, hears' when he was talking about doing away with bounties and other such things. Nevertheless, I am sure that he will be contributing further to this Parliament. In talking to the Address-in-Reply motion, one has to consider that the Government is moving into its second term. We can look back at what it achieved in the 20-odd months of its first term but we should not think that we are the only ones who have something to offer. We should, in fact, look at the performance of other governments to see what they have done and what we can learn from them. One of the governments whose performance we need to look at very carefully is the Cain Labor Government in Victoria. It is just completing its first term of office and I think that we can learn a lot from the way that it has operated within Victoria. When it came to Government in 1982 it replaced a government which had been in office since 1956. That Government had allowed the State to run down totally. It had been corrupt; it had involved itself in land deals, about which most of us will recall the enormous publicity at that time; it had sold off most of the public housing stock and depleted facilities which the general community required. Public transport and public utilities were in a total mess. Government administration had become lax and inefficient. The Cain Government, like our Government, faced enormous problems, and not just with getting the system working again. When it came to office, unemployment was extremely high, particularly amongst the young. It set out on a two-pronged attack. Firstly, it looked at a way of reinvigorating the public enterprises that existed in Victoria. It has had some enormous successes in the terms of improving those facilities. Probably the most successful has been in the public transport area. It has reinvigorated the whole public transport system, modernised its management and, more importantly, achieved the things it promised it would. There had been promises from the previous Government for some 15 years to build a transport centre in the area where I live, Box Hill, but in fact it never got around to it. Yet the Cain Labor Government has been able not only to promise to do it but also to do it. It has completed and opened a modern transport system which has improved the services in the eastern suburbs. The Government has not just concentrated on the public enterprise side of transport; it has increased significantly the number of bus routes, both in public and private bus services. The community can take advantage of the improved train services and bus services and the requirement for people to use their motor vehicles to travel everywhere within the eastern suburbs to a great degree has been lessened by the performance of the Cain Government. The Government also looked at inefficiencies within the Government system itself and set about reorganising the quasi-government organisations that had sprung up under the previous administration, which had no idea of how to govern. Those qangos were eliminated by the Cain Government and such things as water and sewerage have been co-ordinated and put into the one administration-another fine example of the Cain Government's efficiency in administration. It has improved the services of the Government Insurance Office and is now moving towards improving workers compensation for Victorians. That will have a two-fold benefit; it will not just improve services for the workers but, in fact, it will improve the competitiveness of private enterprise, particularly small business people. Workers compensation is a very expensive part of the cost of employment. The proposition from the Cain Government will bring about very great reductions in the cost of workers compensation and will lift the competitiveness of private enterprise. The Cain Government did not just look at its administration, although it knew it was extremely important. Under the guidance of its Treasurer, Rob Jolly, it has lifted the economic position of Victoria tremendously. But when it came into office, as I said earlier, it was also faced with the problem of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. It introduced the employment initiative program, a program which is extremely successful and which has now been taken over by our community employment program, which is also proving successful. That employment initiative program laid the framework so that Victoria now has the lowest unemployment of any State. That program showed us what could be done. It provided the Federal Government with the knowledge that, when applied nationally, it would work very effectively, and our CEP program has in fact worked well. Because the employment initiative program was in train the administration of the CEP program has been easier in Victoria because the Government knew what was required. But the Cain Government is still not satisfied-neither are we-that enough has been done in the area of employment. Currently it is looking at the introduction of a youth guarantee scheme. That will promise every youth that he or she can have either school work or a training program. That is a problem that the Federal Liberal Opposition and the Victorian Liberal Opposition have failed to tackle. It is okay for people to come in to the House with platitudes and slogans about free market trade not only in the market-place but also in employment, and all those sorts of things, but it does not address the problem of how to provide jobs. The Liberals in Victoria have come up with a scheme they call the youth employment scheme, YES. It is supposed to mean 'Yes, you can get a job', but it really means 'Yes, we can cut your wages in half', because that is really what it does. It means we can all have a job but we cannot really afford to live on it. Mr Shipton —Do you want jobs or don't you want jobs? Mr SAUNDERSON —Of course we want jobs but we want the sorts of jobs that we are offering and that the Cain Government is offering-real jobs with real wages. Evidence clearly shows that when a government introduces programs which simply reduce the cost of employment by cutting wages all that happens is that people who are currently in permanent employment in fact lose jobs and employers employ people on cheaper wages. It does nothing to satisfy the need for new jobs. In looking three years ahead we have to look at what things need to be done. We know that improvements can be made in our Government's administration. We have taken steps in our first term of office and we know that we have to take more. But we also know that it is important to look at the basic infrastructure of society, and put our effort into ensuring that that is improved. In order to do that, we need the co-operation of all areas of the community. As everyone in this House would know, the Hawke Government has been extremely successful in getting the co-operation of the community in a consensus approach. The situation in Victoria has been exactly the same. The Cain Government has shown that it is able to work with all areas of the community and it listens to all the things that people have to say and takes them into account when it implements its programs. It has a real concern for the community at large, and it has shown that by the effort it has put not only into trying to resolve the unemployment problem but also into the provision of community services. Just down the road from my house is a vacant block of land which has been there for 15 years. Another of the promises that the Liberals trotted out every three years was: 'Yes, we are going to build a geriatric assessment centre out your way. Yes, there is the block of land'. Every three years they would put up a little sign indicating where it would be. Mr Shipton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask you whether on this Address-in-Reply debate it is in order for the honourable member to make a cheap political speech on the Victorian election campaign. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Higgins that Mr Speaker is very firm on frivolous points of order. I suggest he does not try it again. Mr SAUNDERSON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your election to your office. Opposition members do not like to listen to comparisons of good and bad government because they know that the Federal Government and the Cain Government have shown themselves to be very good governments compared to the former Federal Liberal-National Party Government and the former Victorian Liberal Government. The vacant block of land in my area, at the end of my road, was the site for a geriatric centre which the former Victorian Government promised to build so that the aged people, in particular, in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, would have the facilities that they required. Fifteen years they have been waiting. The Cain Government, almost as soon as it came into office, began the work. The building, on that block of land, is just nearing completion and will soon be in operation. As I said, the people in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne, particularly the aged people, will gain a tremendous benefit from that service being provided. The Cain Government has put enormous effort into trying to build up again the stocks of public housing, stocks that had been criminally sold off by the previous Administration so that thousands of people in Victoria could not get decent housing at decent rates. The Cain Government has started the reversal of that process and the increased funding under the new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will ensure that the Cain Government will be able to continue its program of improving the public housing stock. Child care is another area in which the Cain Government has moved effectively. We have assisted by providing capital to allow new child care centres to be opened but the Cain Government has ensured that additional funding for the staffing of those centres is being made available. In all those areas we have something to learn from the way that the Cain Government has operated. We can see all the things it has done. If we take notice of those things, it will only enhance our chances of having a good record at the end of this term of office. I reiterate that some of the problems the Opposition has are caused, perhaps, because it lacks the planned policy approach that the Labor Party adopts. Its leaders tend to lose their concentration and make mistakes in their speeches. We had Malcolm Fraser in 1983 telling everyone to put money under their beds and that the communists were everywhere. Of course, that cost him dearly in the election in 1983 when the public rejected his approach. Before we went to the polls recently Andrew lost his cool a couple of times and called people crooks. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman will address the Leader of the Opposition by his correct name. Mr SAUNDERSON —The Leader of the Opposition lost his cool a few times and called people crooks and other such things. The community made its judgment and, of course, the Opposition lost at the polls in December. We won the last election and we are in government for three years. That is why we are making speeches from this side of the chamber. The Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, Mr Kennett, is having difficulty too. He knows his policies are not winning any votes and, as one of my colleagues said earlier today, he has a problem with foot in mouth disease. He has not only virtually accused the Victorian Premier of being a child molester but also accused the Victorian caucus of being a death squad. It will go out and shoot all those people in Victoria who do not vote for the Government! Mr Shipton —Madam Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the words 'child molester'. Mr SAUNDERSON —I withdraw those words. People voted for the Australian Labor Party in 1983 because they saw that it had clearly laid out policies and responsible leaders who do not make verbal assaults on their opposition. I think the result in Victoria will be pretty much the same. People will support a government which has shown itself to be sound and efficient and which clearly has a concern for the community rather than an opposition with policies which are obviously not sound and a leader who cannot be sure of providing a strong performance. We won in December and the John Cain Government will win this Saturday. That will ensure that the living standard of the people in Victoria will continue over the next four years to improve. The Cain Government's co-operation with the Federal Government has been an enormous success and has enabled many of our programs to be implemented without the sort of confrontation we get from some of the Premiers who are in opposition to our political party. We have made a commitment to implement the program that we have started. We have also given a commitment in the area of peace and disarmament. The Cain Government has shown a fine example of this with its declaration of a nuclear-free State. That Government has a clear conscience in the way it approaches peace and disarmament. The national Government has given a strong commitment to pursue that approach. People can look at the approach of the State Government on this matter with pride. In summary, Madam Deputy Speaker, I refer to the reduction in Australia's inflation rate from double digits under the previous Government to single digits. The inflation rate is less than half the previous rate, interest rates have stabilised and the housing industry has been boosted by our initiatives and programs. Victoria has had just as much of a success story. Unemployment, as I said earlier, is now the lowest in the country. Inflation is at the same level. We can only congratulate the Cain Government on its fine performance over the three years. We are sure that it will be in government for four years and the Victorian people will do well. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the next speaker, the honourable member for Braddon, I remind the House that this is a maiden speech, and I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies. Mr MILES(Braddon)(1.38) —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I at this stage congratulate you on your election. As well, I ask you to pass on my congratulations to Mr Speaker. I quote: We have mineral wealth; the capacity to feed ourselves twenty times over; a small population; a healthy climate; and plenty of space, but in the past decade Australia has shown every inclination to self-destruct. That is a quotation from last Saturday's Weekend Australian Focus article 'What's Gone Wrong with Australia?' I think if we read carefully the signs in Australia at this present time in history we could almost say that we are facing the dieback social problems of Australia. As previous speakers have alluded to, Australia was once number one in the world per capita income table. We have dropped down to twelfth and now to sixteenth position, and it is estimated that, unless we do something about our society, we will drop further down as we approach the year 2000. The series of articles which followed described Australian society in a very factual manner. This was in contrast to the broad generalisations in the Governor-General's Speech that were used to describe the progress made by the Thirty-third Parliament which lasted for only 21 months. It further convinces me that the perspectives so frequently given by this present Government are a gross distortion of the Australia being experienced by families and individuals in our cities, in the leafy streets of suburbia and in the rural regions of far horizons where the miners, farmers, timber fellers and labourers sweat and toil to produce approximately 80 per cent of Australia's export income-the products that are vital if we are to maintain our present living standards. As one receiving input from various forms of media, and in talking to fellow Australians, I cannot but become acutely aware that a strong, largely unconscious search is being undertaken to identify those values and principles that will take us to our bicentennial and into the twenty-first century with a sense of hope and dignity. I refer honourable members to the editorial of today's Australian which is headed: 'Defending the basic values of our society' I would like to read a small section of that editorial: It goes without saying that economic questions, unemployment and inflation, remain at the forefront of our political debate. But it is equally true that once the voters come to believe their government has lost its zeal for defending the values on which society depends they will look elsewhere for leadership. The regaining of that trust which it is now losing must be the Federal Government's most urgent priority. Australians are looking for those values and principles that make strong yet humble individuals, independently-minded yet community-conscious people, fulfilled yet ever-developing individuals who will make this an even greater nation. People are tired of a smorgasbord approach to life whereby their leaders appear to be as lost and unpredictable as the next person in society, where education systems prefer to leave children to pick the fruit from the trees of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values as they best see fit and where governments prefer to govern by popularity ratings rather than by conviction. As a nation we would do well to focus our minds on those values that are embodied in the concepts of God, Queen, country and flag and on the principles of justice, integrity, humility and mutual respect-God because he is the source of all things in this universe; the Queen because the monarchy represents the system which has governed this country very well for 197 years and because there resides within the monarchy an amount of wisdom which is passed on from one generation to another and which cannot be passed on in any other form; our country because it is our lifeblood and we ought to be totally committed to it; and our flag because it represents so many of the things which we in Australia stand for. When nations and their leaders do not give priority to these values, there is no consistency of behaviour and they become tossed like a cork on the oceans. I believe the recent ANZUS and MX missile crisis illustrates well the lack of commitment by this Government to the defence of this country and a lack of integrity in meeting our obligations. The Liberal Party and the coalition parties know where they stand. They fully support the ANZUS Treaty and they are unequivocal on meeting its obligations. Honourable members would no doubt be aware of the strong team of five Liberals who represent Tasmania in this House. This situation began in 1975 when all seats were won by the Liberals and, if this Parliament runs its full term, the record of 12 years of unbroken Liberal representation of all seats in a State will be an enviable one. Although the members of the team have changed, I assure the House that the same team spirit generated in the past nine years is as strong as ever. I thank in particular Ray Groom and his wife Jill for the help and the work done in the seat of Braddon and wish them all happiness in the future. My electorate of Braddon contains some of the most beautiful scenery and some of the richest agricultural land in Australia. It comprises eight main towns, namely, the city of Devonport, which I am pleased to say is now entirely in Braddon following the recent redistribution; my home town of Ulverstone; the beautiful town of Penguin; the geographical centre of the electorate, Burnie; Somerset; Wynyard, the town that needs its airport upgraded so that the region and the west coast of Tasmania can be adequately serviced for the next decade; Stanley, the picturesque town nestled at the foot of an old volcanic plug known as the Nut; and Smithton, which services one of the best dairying areas in Australia, if not the best. Each of these centres has rich grazing and cropping hinterland that produces a wide range of vegetables, fat lambs and cattle which are processed for the Australian market, exported or marketed locally. Lying midway between Victoria and Tasmania is King Island which has a unique life style. If one wants a quiet, relaxing holiday away from smog, telephones and crowds of people, I can thoroughly recommend it. The hard working people of Braddon are self-motivated, resourceful and enterprising and are linked by strong family bonds. They cherish the freedom that comes from having work and having been in families and are deeply concerned about those unemployed and others who cannot experience the security of happiness and acceptance of being part of the family. At this point I would like to thank the people of Braddon for the honour and privilege of being their representative in Canberra. They can be assured that I will champion their collective interests and promote a future for Australia that gives Tasmania, and any other State for that matter, a fair go. Loyalty to representing the needs and aspirations of north-west coasters, Tasmanians and Australians will be my goal. At the moment some very deep concerns and even crises are being experienced by people within my electorate. I mention the plight of the young and the middle aged people who are without work; the frustrations of young families involved in the dairying industry who, through no fault of their own, are at this moment facing severe financial hardship; and the employees of contracting industries who do not have the necessary skills or personal attributes to make the change. But at present the assets test is causing widespread anxiety. Family after family in my electorate believes this is a travesty of justice. Where is the justice? This Government talks a lot about equity but it does not talk a lot about justice. Where is the justice when a person can have a piece of real estate worth $200,000, $300,000 or $1m in any of the larger cities or popular tourist resorts of Australia and receive the pension, but a small business person or a farmer with a property worth $150,000 cannot? Where is the justice? If people believe that only those of Liberal persuasion are being affected, they are quite wrong. I met two people in my electorate during the campaign, both of them waterside workers, who said: 'I have never voted Liberal before in my life but because of the assets test I am going to change'. It is affecting many people throughout our community. The Government prides itself on striving for equality but in so doing it ignores a far higher value; that is, justice. I think its concept of equality is the sharing of miseries. The ideology of this Government is simply based on a misguided assumption that people are equal. Quite frankly, people are not equal, not because of the family they are born into as such but due to their make-up at birth. No amount of government interference will ever change that diversity. It is from that fundamental diversity of people that the richness of individuality develops and provides a nation with a heart and a soul. The assets test, while being sold on the basis of achieving equality, is designed mainly to reduce gradually the capacity of families and individuals to live independently of governments. Other evidence of this Government's uncaring socialist policies is seen in its determination to make government all powerful and families pawns to be manipulated on the chess board of history. I mention the following that this Government pursues with this aim: Creating a large bureaucracy that has to be sustained by taxpayers; increasing taxes by over 22 per cent in 1983-84, the largest increase by an Australian government in 40 years; incurring large deficits to fund the expansion of programs alien to the long term well-being of the overwhelming majority of Australians. The debt this country is building is mortgaging the future of young Australians who not only will have the normal commitments of buying a car or a house but also will have the national debt to pay. Ordinary Australians have come to realise that big government does not mean better government and bigger bureaucracies do not mean better services. The Government is acutely aware of the need to raise more revenue. It is for this purpose, and this purpose only, I believe, that the tax summit has been called for July after the suggestion was proposed to our Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) by a journalist in the heat of the campaign. This illustrates the vulnerability of leaders to being tossed about by the latest idea unless they act according to principle. Recently considerable exposure has been given to the problem of drug addiction. This problem is a natural consequence of a philosophy that there is no right or wrong-or, if it feels good, do it. That philosophy has been rampant for many years in a large proportion of the population and is based only on a principle of self-interest and self-indulgence. The prime educators, the parents of this great nation of the last 25 years or so, have been bombarded by such conflicting evidence and advice from so-called experts on how to bring up their children that they have opted for a position which can be summed up in comments like these: 'Well, you are old enough to know what is right; go and have a good time' or 'You go and find your own way in life'. This has been done under the guise of allowing our young people to develop independently and with freedom. In the schools many topics once discussed within a framework of knowing right and wrong are now debated and discussed as if there are no ground rules, indicating that our long cultural heritage has been devoid of any long lasting guiding principles, which is simply not the case. The student has to work it out for himself or herself without any guidance, and so often the unsaid thought is: 'Be it on your own head.' It is not my prerogative to tell you what is right or wrong. After all, who am I, or anyone else for that matter, to tell somebody what to do?' That is the stance the teachers have been taking. In general they are just reflecting the attitudes presented by our leaders in our society. In trying to help our young people stand on their own feet we have created a situation of the blind leading the blind and the uneducated leading the inexperienced as youngsters talk amongst themselves in an endeavour to find out those constants that will help them make their way in life. In a general way many adults in our community have abdicated their responsibilities or at least shied away from the tough decisions required to make this nation strong from within the hearts and minds of its people. When young people, and other people for that matter, choose what they like with no regard for mutual respect or accountability to others, we are shocked at the huge social cost. That is the reaction we have. Let me just remind honourable members of some of the things in our society which we are deeply disturbed about: Heroin addition, vandalism, breaking and entering, burglary, the so-called poor attitudes of some school leavers, single parent families, and unemployment. No amount of education of the type that we have had and no amount of money allocated by this Parliament or any government will solve many of these problems. One has only to look at the newspaper comments last week about the social situation here in the Australian Capital Territory. It is the best educated community in Australia with the highest incomes in Australia; yet it has the biggest drug problem. That illustrates the problem. We have to get at something in the heart and soul of the people. It will not matter how much money we put into education; that will not solve the problem. I quote a famous former member for my electorate, Dame Enid Lyons: The problems of government are not of blue books, not problems of statistics, but problems of human hearts and human feelings. Yet it is not the role of government to force people to change attitudes by legislation. If the leaders of this great nation desire to change attitudes and values they should do so by convincing a majority of people before legislating and not after. Let me illustrate by using two examples of recent times how this present Government ignored this fundamental principle of a free democracy, legislated first and then tried to convince the people second. First, in an area of Tasmania which was formerly part of my electorate it used all the force of the law to override the express wishes of Tasmanians by preventing a hydro-dam being built. This was seen to be all the more unprincipled when, during the last election, it was not prepared to act in the same manner over Daintree Rainforest. Where is such a government's integrity? Secondly, there has been the opening of the floodgates to pornography and violent videos. I have listened to some of the new Opposition members talking about family matters, and I just trust that members on the Government side will do everything they can to look after families and not do what this Government did in its last term. The subsequent outcry clearly illustrates the people were not convinced by, are not convinced by, and indeed are strongly opposed to, such a change in permitted standards. It was left to the States, not the Government, to express the wishes of the people. That is a tragedy. In conclusion, Mr Speaker, let us remember that the only authority governments have is dependent on the mutual co-operation of the people, that the only power that governments have is given by the consent of the people, that the only money governments have is provided by the people, and that each time this House passes new legislation it affects the lives of men, women and children. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Bill returned from the Senate without amendment. Debate resumed. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(1.58) —Mr Speaker, I congratulate the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) on his maiden speech. This is my first speech as the member for Calwell, a newly-created seat in Victoria. Before I go on to the main theme of my speech I want to say something about the great Arthur Calwell, after whom the seat has been named. Arthur Calwell was, of course, the leader of the Australian Labor Party for many years. He was in fact a man of enormous principle and dedication. He was a man who put up the philosophy of the Labor Party and supported that philosophy even when that philosophy was electorally unpopular, as it was in the early days of opposition to the Vietnam war. Arthur Calwell was a man of deep compassion for the poor and the underprivileged in our community. He was a person who believed that the democratic socialist philosophy of the Labor Party could be brought into play in such a way that it could bring about a fairer and more just society. Arthur Calwell was also the acknowledged architect during the Chifley Government of Australia's post-war immigration program. That Australian Labor Party immigration program, which was continued by successive conservative governments, was based on courage and vision. The consequence was the building of Australia into a multicultural society through the impact of the successive waves of migration. This is the most enduring testament of the work of the great Arthur Calwell. I believe that it is particularly appropriate that the first member for Calwell is himself a migrant and a person who came to Australia as a child under the program initiated by Arthur Calwell. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The honourable member for Calwell will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Mr PEACOCK —Will the Prime Minister call an immediate meeting of the ANZUS Council-that is, at the Foreign and Defence Minister level-so that all three alliance partners can work together to prevent the utter destruction of the ANZUS alliance, which is, as we have said, fundamental to our nation's security interests? I remind the Prime Minister that Article VII of the ANZUS Treaty provides that 'the Council should be so organised as to be able to meet at any time'. Mr HAWKE —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I assure him that discussions took place with our friends in the United States of America when I was there about what are the best sorts of things to do to ensure that relations between Australia and the United States can be maintained. We are concerned also with trying to maintain relations between Australia and New Zealand at the operative levels. The question of the calling of a meeting of the ANZUS Council, to which the honourable gentleman referred, is also under consideration. We are handling this aspect of the matter, as indeed all others, in a way which, by our calculations and those of our friends, is best calculated to minimise the damage to the trilateral relationship which may occur. I assure the Leader of the Opposition that, as a government, we will be doing nothing which will exacerbate the real difficulties which exist. In that respect we are at one with the Administration of the United States. I am quite prepared to keep the Leader of the Opposition informed of developments in this regard. I hope and indeed believe from his reaction that he would not want to see anything done which unduly damaged the relationship. We all want to get back to the most effective operation between the three of us. I am more than pleased to give him an undertaking that I will keep him informed of what develops. Mr O'KEEFE —My question is directed to the Treasurer. The Victorian Leader of the Opposition has claimed that he would finance nearly a billion dollars worth of election promises by cutting general administration expenses. These include some very substantial items of funding provided by the Commonwealth Government for specific purposes. Will the Treasurer comment on the propriety of this approach? Mr KEATING —I have had the opportunity of examining reports on the Victorian Liberal Party's document on the cost of its election promises. It is a most extraordinary document indeed. Mr Kennett has made over-- Mr Donald Cameron —Mr Speaker, I take a point of order. It was quietly drawn to your attention that this is a matter not pertaining to the responsibilities of the Treasurer of Australia. Why are you allowing it at the moment if it concerns Victoria? Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Moreton had been listening he would have heard that the question contained a reference to Commonwealth special purpose grants. Mr KEATING —Mr Kennett has made over 400 promises to the Victorian electors, costing around one billion dollars. When asked the obvious question 'Where is the money coming from?', he said that he would save $100m or $200m each year by cutting back on general administration expenses. He instanced the rise of general administration expenses under the current Victorian Government. He has made a quite fundamental accounting error in seeking to imply, having seen general administration expenses rise in the Budget accounts and said that they should rise by only a certain proportion or by a certain percentage rate, that the gap could be offset against savings to cover his promises. Part and parcel of those administration expenses are major items which are not primarily administrative and which a State government could not legally appropriate to any other use, a conspicuous example being the Commonwealth employment funds of around $120m which are allocated to the States for employment projects. These sums are not primarily administrative and it would be illegal for any State to misappropriate them for any other purpose. Another example is the superannuation of State employees, which adds up to $80m. Again these funds belong to the contributors. What we have in Victoria is the prospect of the Victorian Leader of the Opposition, were he to become Premier, contemplating breaking the law by misappropriating Commonwealth funds from general expenditure so that he may cover a plethora of irresponsible election promises which he has no hope of covering. In conclusion, I quote from an article on this very point in the Age newspaper. Tim Colebatch of that newspaper said: The fact remains that the Liberals' policies do not add up. I concur fully and completely with that conclusion. Mr SINCLAIR —I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of the New Zealand Government's position that nuclear ships are not welcome in New Zealand ports and the British Prime Minister's position that no British naval ships would visit New Zealand while this policy prevailed, could he advise the House what steps he and his Government are taking to ensure that defence co-operation and the exchange of intelligence under the five-power arrangements between Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore and Britain do not terminate in the same way as they have under ANZUS and in the defence relationship between New Zealand and the United States of America? Mr HAWKE —I shall make just two points in regard to the question asked by the Leader of the National Party of Australia. Firstly, I remind him that I said yesterday that we will take every step, as far as possible within the province of this Government, to ensure that, as a result of the decision that has been made by the United States, the position of Australia is not prejudiced in any way whatsoever. The Minister for Defence's answer to a question asked by the right honourable gentleman yesterday also made it clear that we would be more than prepared to brief him and the Leader of the Opposition as to what was being done to ensure that the proprieties and Australia's interests were protected. I assure the right honourable gentleman that, in this other area to which he referred, the Minister for Defence will be holding the appropriate discussions. If any action has to be taken which is necessary in the circumstances it will be taken according to the same principles. In other words, our principles are the same in that area; that is, Australia's interests and the contributions that it can make in the region will be protected. If there is any consequential flow-over into that region from the action that has been taken by the United States in regard to New Zealand, that will be taken into account in precisely the same way. Mr BRUMBY —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House whether Victoria has shared in a national improvement under the Australian Labor Party? Can he indicate what are the future prospects for the Victorian labour market? Mr WILLIS —All honourable members would be aware that, since the Hawke Government has been in office, this country has experienced a very strong economic recovery and great improvement in the labour market. I am very pleased to say that Victoria has shared more than proportionately in that improvement. Over the past year Victoria has experienced the fastest rate of employment growth of any mainland State. A total of 67,000 new jobs have been generated over the year to January 1985, representing a 4.1 per cent increase compared with an increase nationally of just under 3 per cent. With only 26 per cent of the Australian labour force, Victoria has accounted for 38 per cent of employment growth in Australia over the past year. That, obviously, is a very good record on the employment side. On the other side of that coin, unemployment in Victoria has also improved very substantially-it has fallen by more than 21 per cent or about 13 per cent over the past year. The unemployment rate in Victoria has fallen by almost one and a half percentage points in the past year and currently stands at 7.8 per cent, which is the lowest of all Australian States and the only State below the national unemployment rate. In regard to young people, the number of young unemployed teenagers looking for full time work has fallen by 20 per cent over the year to January 1985. The unemployment rate amongst these young job seekers is the lowest rate for all Australian States and represents a fall of almost 7 per centage points in that unemployment rate. With regard to employment and unemployment there is no doubt that the State of Victoria has performed very well. Indeed, even with regard to industrial disputation, there has been a dramatic improvement in that State. In 1981 it had the second highest level of industrial disputation. In the year to November 1984 it was the second lowest in the country and over the last two years the number of days lost due to industrial disputes in Victoria has virtually been halved. So on both the employment and industrial relations side there has been a tremendously good performance by the Victorian Government. I would like to say that on the basis of the policies which have been put forward by the Cain Government for its next period of office, and those that have been put forward by the Opposition, there can be no doubt that a re-election of the Cain Government is essential for the continuance of this very good performance in Victoria. In particular, let me say that the policy of the youth guarantee, which has been announced by the Cain Government, will be a very considerable improvement for young people, providing a guarantee to all 15 and 18-year-olds that there will be a job, education or training for them. That, indeed, is a very dramatic policy and one which offers infinitely more for young people than the idiotic youth employment scheme put forward by the Kennett Opposition, a policy which is totally ill-conceived, which would cover only one-third of the work force, which would probably result in higher rates of wages for some juniors because it has been so ill-conceived and would, almost certainly, result in the displacement of many adults by juniors. The YES is definitely a no no. I am sure the people of Victoria will see that and vote accordingly on Saturday. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether the Foreign Minister or any other Minister wrote to him expressing concern about the MX decision before the meeting between himself, the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence on 16 November 1983, which I remind him was the meeting which the Prime Minister has consistently represented as being the occasion from which his first undertaking to the Americans to assist in the MX missile tests flowed? Mr HAWKE —As I have made clear on a number of occasions in this place, I am not prepared to go to the contents of correspondence between Ministers and myself. It is a practice that I have consistently followed and I am sure that my predecessors in office did the same thing. Mr LEO McLEAY —Has the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs seen reports in the media regarding the deportation of the Gonaseelan family? Could the Minister advise the House whether these reports are accurate? Mr HURFORD —I can tell the honourable member for Grayndler that I have seen these reports. They are accurate as far as they go, but I do not think by any stretch of the imagination one can say that the reports, whether they are from the ethnic affairs writer of the Sydney Morning Herald today or in the electronic media on other occasions, have been balanced. I think it is of value to the House if I give the facts about this case because I hope that there is applicability to a lot of other cases in which members have a great interest. Mr Ray Gonaseelan is a South African of Indian origin. He arrived in this country over two years ago with his wife and two children. He travelled on a visa which gave him temporary residence in this country for three months. Before he left South Africa, as with all the others who travel on this sort of visa, he signed an undertaking that he would not look for and would not request a change of status. Then, like so many others, he sought to queue jump-that is what change of status is, it is queue jumping over those who are legitimately applying to come to this country. There are over a million inquiries each year for which 70,000 places are available. First of all, he tried family reunion. He was visiting members of his wife's family, but he did not come within our necessarily strict guidelines if we are going to manage to keep our intake into this country at manageable levels with the million inquiries that we are receiving. He then sought to come into this country under the status of a refugee. Former Ministers for immigration and many others in this House will know that we have an advisory committee called the DORS Committee-the Determination of Refugee Status Committee-to help the Minister in determining whether a person is a legitimate refugee. I can tell honourable members that I have faith in this Committee. I have seen the results of its work. I am glad to see that one of the former Ministers, the honourable member for Warringah, is nodding to say that he, too, has faith in that Committee. The Committee thoroughly investigated. It did not use just those who were friends of the South African Government in determining whether or not this person was a refugee; it used sources such as our own mission sources in South Africa. The Committee rejected his claim in the advice that it gave me. Then Mr Gonaseelan tried on compassionate grounds. He used the fact that medical treatment was required for one of his children. That was thoroughly investigated and one of the medical advisers in the Department of Health advised me that the sort of treatment necessary for the complaint was readily available in South Africa. So when the ethnic affairs writer of the Sydney Morning Herald and the television reporters mainly list the claims made by people such as this without giving any idea of whether those claims are substantiated, and then merely list that the Department and the Minister have rejected those claims, I do not believe they are giving a balanced report. I make an appeal to them in this sensitive area to make some effort to find out what the balance is. I would also say to the House that every one here, I believe, has sympathy for the victims of the regime in South Africa and its apartheid policies. I withdraw in favour of no one. I have been there, seen what is going on, been to treason trials and so on, but there is no way in the world that we can be a haven for everybody who comes here. We need to go through the necessary processes to see whether people are genuine or not. I am sure that I will have the support, if not of the mediocre members of the Opposition front bench who are making these noises at present, of the vast majority of this House if I say that the guidelines will be administered with firmness, but with sensitivity too. Mr MACPHEE —My question is directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I ask: Did his correspondence with the Prime Minister in late 1983 result from advice to him from the United States Administration that it believed the Prime Minister had, before 16 November 1983, agreed to Australian co-operation in the testing of the MX missile? Mr HAYDEN —For answer to question see answer of Prime Minister to last question. Mr MAHER —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs proposing to visit Sri Lanka to assess personally the civil unrest in that nation? If so, will the Minister ensure that he receives briefings from both Singalese and Tamil sources? Mr HAYDEN —A little later in the year-I think some time in May according to planning now on hand-I propose to visit the Indian sub-continent. I am looking forward to officially visiting Sri Lanka during that visit. Of course, I will take the opportunity of informing myself as well as I can on the most unfortunate communal disturbances which are taking place there. I have received many direct approaches from representatives of the Tamil population of Sri Lanka, less so from the Sri Lankan community. The Department of Foreign Affairs maintains a monitoring watch on what is developing in Sri Lanka from both our national representation there and contacts which we have. Should the honourable member have any suggestions on how I can better inform myself on this matter-I have no doubt from the volume of correspondence I have received from him on every other matter that he will be as helpful on this matter as he is on other matters-he should contact me. Mr N. A. BROWN —The Attorney-General may be aware that in answer to a question this morning the New South Wales Attorney-General said that he had had discussions with the Commonwealth Attorney-General concerning the authentication of the Age tapes and the granting of immunities for police officers involved in making the tapes-that is clearly a Federal matter as the New South Wales Attorney said-and that, I use his words, 'until the Commonwealth Attorney-General makes up his mind there is nothing further that I can say about it'. I ask the Attorney-General: When will he make up his mind about the granting of immunities? In the course of making up his mind, will he include a consideration of those tapes relating to the Cessna-Milner drug case and the events surrounding it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is true that there have been discussions between the Attorney-General of New South Wales and me on what is regarded as the authenticity of the Age tapes. The honourable gentleman would know that the matter arose last year and was investigated by Mr Temby, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who furnished a report to this Parliament. That report indicated that the Australian Federal Police were aware of some interceptions by the New South Wales police in the period, surprisingly, when the honourable gentleman was Attorney-General, in 1981-82. Mr N. A. Brown —Acting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Apparently nothing was done when he was Acting Attorney-General. It is obvious that if there were interceptions by the New South Wales police they were illegal. That is the position. The Director of Public Prosecutions has suggested that the matter be referred to Mr Justice Stewart to investigate further the question of authenticity. As I understand the position, Mr Justice Stewart has sought to interview 31 New South Wales police officers. Of course, they are under the control of the New South Wales Government. The New South Wales Police officers have indicated, through their solicitors, that they are not prepared to assist in the inquiry or to give any evidence unless they are granted indemnity in respect of their illegal interceptions. Mr Howard —I don't blame them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Although the honourable gentleman is saying that he does not blame them, the question is: Can one make one law for one person and another law for another? Mr MacKellar —The New South Wales Government is- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is not a matter for the New South Wales Government; it is a matter for me. That is the question I am considering at present on the basis that the people involved are police officers who are bound to give their utmost service to the lawful enforcement of justice in Australia. They have information which they feel would be of benefit but they were not prepared to give it earlier. They are now prepared to give it on the basis that they do not suffer any penalty. There is no guarantee that they would suffer any penalty from the point of view of strict evidence that may be admitted against them. That is my dilemma at present. The average citizen in Australia may ask: If police officers are granted indemnity, because they can intercept anybody's conversation, why should the law be enforced against other people and not the police officers? Mr Howard —So you still think the tapes are fakes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What the Government has to look at is what is being put to me at present both by Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby. Irrespective of what further evidence is given, it is not likely to lead to the prosecution of any person. I make that point in answer to the honourable member's interjection. The other point I make is this: Mr Temby is of one view and Mr Justice Stewart is of another view, which certainly does not help me. I think there are further avenues that might be explored and it is convenient now, as the honourable member has asked the question today, to say that I had a discussion with Mr Justice Stewart this morning and he is prepared to explore further the other avenues on the basis that all the evidence available can be given to him. Mr MILTON —Will the Attorney-General inform the House of the total cost of providing information under the Freedom of Information Act for all departments for the last financial year? Will he also indicate what proportion of this figure is a result of parliamentarians seeking information under the Act? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I cannot answer that question to the extent that the honourable gentleman may want me to; I will try to get further information for him. However, I can say that requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act are escalating each month. At present they are running at a rate of 3,000 a month. This year the number of requests will perhaps total some 36,000. Last year they totalled 19,000. Last year the cost of answering the requests was $17m, so it is working out at an average of about $900 per request. It surprised me to find out that the amount we have collected from charges is $13,000. So there is a fair gap between what it is costing us to provide the information and what we are collecting. Let me make it very clear that a number of requests are made to enable people to correct their records. The bodies most involved in the provision of information under the Act are the Australian Taxation Office, and the departments of Veterans' Affairs, Social Security, Defence and Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Those five account for about 50 per cent of all requests. I think it is a matter that the Government may have to look at, not so much from the point of view of denying any information but from the point of how much it is costing. Perhaps the information sought can be given in a much easier fashion than by the present method. I understand that some parliamentarians make use of the provisions of the Act. About 100 requests have been made. One significant request made recently was by a former parliamentarian, Mr Newman, the former member for Bass. Mr Goodluck —A good member too. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, that is why he is no longer here! The Government may have to pursue the matter a bit further because Mr Newman has asked for all documents relating to all the travel expenses of Ministers over two years. I understand that the information sought involves 10,000 pages and it relates to every particular. I understand the cost-- Mr Goodluck —There is still no aspersion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not making any aspersions. It is well known that any honourable member can have information on the cost that is incurred during ministerial trips but the gentleman asked for all documents-every single document. Mr Goodluck —Somebody said something against him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Newman is no longer a member of parliament. I make the point that the cost of providing that information will run into many thousands of dollars. The question arises: Would Mr Newman be prepared to pay for the cost of providing the information? Mr N. A. Brown —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you make a ruling as to whether it is proper for a Minister, either the Attorney-General or anyone else, to reveal publicly in this manner details of requests under the Freedom of Information Act made by ordinary private citizens? Mr SPEAKER —I accept that the honourable member for Menzies has asked a serious question. I think he will realise that there are a number of facets to his query. I ask him to allow me to consider the matter and advise the House accordingly when I have done so. I think he will appreciate that to answer that sort of question off the top of my head may lead me into error. Mr TUCKEY —Is the Attorney-General aware of an article headline on page 1 of the Australian Financial Review of 22 February which refers to the intention of the Ministerial Council for Companies and Securities to introduce legislation 'in the current sitting of Federal Parliament' which will require extensive disclosure of financial information by private companies irrespective of their appointment of an auditor? I ask him whether he is further aware that the newspaper states: Public company competitors of private concerns would relish the access to this . . . financial data. I ask the Attorney-General: When will the Government introduce this legislation? Is it to be included in the legislation referred to by the Special Minister of State as legislation 'to reduce accounting and annual reporting obligations for most companies'? What benefit is expected for the general public from this gross invasion of business privacy? Why was this proposal deleted from the Ministerial Council Press release relating to these matters? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not aware of the details to the extent that the honourable gentleman mentions them. He will appreciate that the Ministerial Council virtually puts us, as the national Parliament, in a position of legislating in accordance with its wishes. I attended the last meeting of the Council. It had made a number of earlier decisions which I thought were made on the basis of giving business much more freedom and not imposing obligations to furnish as many documents as were required by the respective State corporate affairs commissions. I am surprised that the honourable member has some report of which I am not aware and which, from the thrust of the question, indicates that private companies will be required to furnish details which could help their competitors. My information is that, particularly as about 80 per cent of the companies concerned are proprietary companies, the intention is to improve the capacity of those companies or corporations to comply with requirements by making it easier for them to furnish their annual returns et cetera. I will take on board what the honourable gentleman has said. I have no intention of doing anything contrary to the wishes of the Ministerial Council, but I am not aware of that position. I have attended only one meeting, as the Council meets only every three months. I am not aware of that position. It seems to run counter to the whole thrust of what the Council is about, if the honourable gentleman's information is correct. Mr Peacock —You can knock it on the head. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is not the point. The difficulty that we find with this what is called uniform companies legislation is that we have to have uniformity and consensus, and when it is there we are expected to draft the legislation. Mr Peacock —You don't have to agree. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I do not have to agree. I have never participated in such a discussion. I make the point that, whilst this is a newspaper report, the Australian Financial Review usually has good access to leaks. Mr Tuckey —Are you against it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to have a good look at it from the point of view that we are not in the business of trying to impede corporate affairs being conducted in a very efficient way. There is criticism of too much red tape and too much regulation. I am anxious to try to remove that. Mr Peacock —We will help you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know. But perhaps we should look at introducing some national legislation, with the Council's consent, particularly in the securities area. That would certainly help the business community more than having the nonsense that has been thrust on us, in that we have to sit back and wait for six State Attorneys-I am not criticising them-to come to some agreement, with all the delay, the excess administration and the burden that imposes, because the previous Government would not accept uniform legislation. Mrs KELLY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories. The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has recently granted a public broadcasting licence in Canberra to a racing and sporting organisation sponsored by the Australian Capital Territory Gaming and Liquor Authority. Can the Minister inform the House whether the Tribunal ignored licensing criteria guidelines in this case? Mr DUFFY —I am aware that, as the honourable member has indicated, the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal has offered a category S public broadcasting licence to Canberra and District Racing and Sporting Broadcasters. There were three other applicants, as the honourable member is aware. The ABT report noted that all applicants, with one exception, had presented a good case for the granting of a licence. The licence was awarded to the Canberra and District Racing and Sporting Broadcasters primarily because of the fact that the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal: . . . found that there is a lower level of unmet need within the overall community and less demonstrated support for CSPR's-- which was one of the applicants- proposed service than that of CDRSB. I indicate to the honourable member and to all honourable members that the granting of a licence in this case, and in all other cases, is a matter for the Tribunal and not for the Minister. The Government accepts that this is essential if the Tribunal is to be perceived as an independent body, and I have no further comment to make on the matter. Mr IAN CAMERON —I ask a question of the Minister for Primary Industry. Will the devaluation of the Australian dollar and the resulting pressure on borrowings to meet advance wheat payments result in any change to the guaranteed minimum price for wheat prior to October 1985? Mr KERIN —I am not quite sure whether this is a question for the Treasurer or for me. The Australian Wheat Board has issued a statement on this matter and I draw the honourable member's attention to that. It states that the devaluation of the Australian dollar causes the Australian Wheat Board no concern. The Board is engaged in sophisticated actions with respect to futures trading and foreign exchange cover. If the honourable member wants some detailed response to his question, I will certainly provide it to him. Mr GRIFFITHS —Can the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services indicate what initiatives the Government has taken to enhance the urban environment and residential amenity of Melbourne's western and north-western suburbs? Mr UREN —My Department has been particularly involved in two major programs. The first program, which we commenced in the first year of our Government, was the regional community development program. In that program we work in co-operation with the State Government and local government to carry out schemes and projects to examine the social and physical infrastructure of regions. I am pleased to say that, arising out of those studies, yesterday I announced; jointly with my colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Victorian Ministers for Planning and Environment and Water Supply and nine projects under the natural areas enhancement scheme that will help to develop the surrounds and foreshores of the Maribyrnong River, Kororoit Creek and also Merri Creek in Melbourne's western and north-western region. Honourable members opposite appear not to be interested in areas that are being enhanced. The Maribyrnong River has been exploited over the years by past governments and government departments, as well as the private sector. I am pleased and proud to say that this Government has made a contribution of $2.14m and that the State Government and local councils have contributed $350,000. This will create employment for another 179 workers. The Commonwealth Government is working with State and local governments to overcome many of the social problems of the western region of Melbourne. People have been deprived of areas such as the foreshores of the Maribyrnong River in the past. Our Government is involved with people and is concerned to alleviate social problems and provide recreational opportunities. The western region of Melbourne has been exploited by all governments and by private enterprise in the past. Commonwealth departments, in particular, have alienated large areas of the river foreshores. The Government, working with the Victorian Government and local government authorities, intends to ensure that those foreshores are used in the interests of the people. Regrettably, in the past, particularly when conservative governments which had very little concern for the social and recreational problems of people have been involved, there was very little recognition of the need for recreation areas for people in the western region of Melbourne. Such areas should be set aside for the people. This Government is concerned with people, their living environment and the improved recreational environment for the people of western Melbourne. Mr BURR —My question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the difference of opinion between the Treasurer and the Prime Minister over the discounting of wage adjustments for inflation caused by exchange rates, can the Prime Minister clarify exactly what views the Government will put to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission on this matter? Mr HAWKE —Any lack of clarity is not as between the Treasurer and myself, but in the mind of the honourable member. The issue involved in the honourable member's question is an important one and I want to deal with it with the seriousness that it deserves. We need to understand that the inflationary impact of what is happening to our currency is not just a question of its relationship with the United States dollar, but also one of its relationship with the currencies in the rest of the world. The honourable member will appreciate that the movement of the dollar against the rest of the world's currencies has not been as great as it has been against the United States dollar. It is the case that if the trade weighted index to which I refer remained permanently at its present level-no one at this stage can say whether it will-there could be a significant increase in the price of some internationally traded goods. I also remind the honourable gentleman of the fact that only about 15 per cent of our demand is imported, so we have to put that perspective against it. While the direct price effects of the devaluation cannot be avoided, we will be concerned to ensure that they do not contribute to a renewal of an inflationary cycle which, as a result of the very successful economic policy of this Government, has been arrested. The people of Australia are enjoying the fact that the level of inflation in this country now as a result of our efforts is less than half that which we inherited from the previous Government. It has to be understood that discounting of wage indexation, which is the subject of the honourable member's question, is only one of a number of means of avoiding a second round of inflation which can flow from the cause to which the honourable member referred. This Government will take these matters seriously into account. It is not only the question of discounting which has to be considered. A number of other methods are available to government to meet this problem. As I am sure the honourable member will appreciate, in respect of the current case, it is not relevant because the prices that are reflected in the two quarters indexes that are before the Commission are not affected by devaluation. The issue will not arise until September of this year. I say, as did the Treasurer, that anything the Government does in formulating its position in regard to not only the wage case, but also any other decisions we take, will at all times be consistent with two criteria: The general objectives of economic policy of trying to have an environment in which there is growth with low levels of inflation; and, consistent with that, the objective of ensuring the total maintenance of the prices and incomes accord. Mr MILDREN —I remind the Minister for Primary Industry of the commitment given by the Prime Minister in his recent rural policy speech during the election campaign to raise the level of funding for rural research. When does the Government intend to implement this commitment? Mr KERIN —First, I remind honourable members that the Government has already increased government rural research funding in my portfolio by $5m in each of our past two Budgets. Those decisions have raised our research funding from $23m to $33m a year. Also today a report was tabled in the Senate as a response to a Senate committee's inquiry into research and extension services. This was also recently agreed to by Cabinet. We have also established the national soil conservation program. It has been funded to the extent of $4m this year. We have also decided to establish a bureau of rural resources under my Department. We have vigorously pursued the need to establish management regimes for our fisheries to protect the resource and to bring some stability to the fishing industry. Each of these three proposals also involves research funding and co-ordination. To answer the honourable gentleman's question more specifically, I am pleased to announce that the Government has adopted the objective of raising, within five years, the level of industry and Commonwealth contributions to research to 0.5 per cent of gross value of production of industries included in rural industries research funds. This decision establishes an objective to be met by government in partnership with industry. Most research under the rural research trust funds is now at a level of about 0.25 per cent of gross value of production, about half of the 0.5 per cent envisaged. So it follows that in the next five years the Government's contribution to rural research funding will be able to increase so long as the relevant industries are prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the Government's new funding objective and policy. We are also taking steps to ensure that the funds are spent effectively. To this end, I intend to introduce in this session of Parliament the Australian Meat and Live-stock Corporation Research and Development Bill and the Rural Industries Research Bill. Mr PEACOCK —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General will recall that he answered a question on Tuesday about the proposed move to Canberra of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation headquarters and ASIO staff. In the course of the answer, he said: They had a meeting and decided by a majority, we were told, that they would not transfer to Canberra. Has the Attorney-General had an opportunity to refresh his memory on this matter? Can he now confirm that he was advised that, at the meeting of ASIO staff, the staff resolved by an overwhelming majority that the move to Canberra should proceed? Will the Attorney-General also confirm that he has received advice from the Director-General of ASIO that the need to proceed with the transfer is urgent and that any delay would prejudice the operational efficiency of ASIO and national security itself and throw into chaos both ASIO staff and the transfer of personnel and equipment? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I did have a meeting with two representatives of ASIO staff who told me that on a national basis-I emphasise that-it was felt that the move to Canberra should proceed. Mr Peacock —Should proceed? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes. It was felt on a national basis that the move to Canberra should proceed. I am delighted to know that they recorded that conversation with me and gave a copy to the Leader of the Opposition. When the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of me earlier this week he had the decided advantage of me. I must say that the minutes they gave him probably did not encompass all those matters. Let me come to the most interesting point. In this day and age of freedom of information, why should I not tell the Leader of the Opposition what happened when the Director-General of ASIO saw me yesterday. I said: 'Mr Director-General, I understand that the staff of ASIO feel that, on a national basis, they should come to Canberra'. He said: 'Yes, that is right'. I said: 'What about on a Melbourne basis?' 'Well', he said, '98 per cent favour the move to Canberra'. I asked: 'Does that mean that 98 per cent of them are going to come? 'Oh, no', he said, 'less than 50 per cent want to come'. I said: 'That would appear to make a rather severe indentation into the staff we have at headquarters'. 'Yes', he said, 'It would, but, in the interests of ASIO, we think we should come to Canberra'. I said: 'The Government is trying to look at the interests of the nation from the point of view of security. If we lose more than half the staff that are in Melbourne, do you think we could overcome the problem?' He said something like this: 'A number of them have made arrangements to buy milkbars and other businesses. They desperately want, as apparently happens--' Mr Howard —You are making a joke of this. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am not. The honourable member knows more about this than we will ever know. I will plead innocence, but the honourable member knows a fair bit. What I am trying to say is this: The Government set out to say that it is important that we talk about the security services being in Canberra. The staff of ASIO in Melbourne, as I told the House earlier this week, decided that they did not want to move. They decided further-this is the problem the Government faced-that they would want what are called termination payments, which would run into millions of dollars. The Government has to look at the national interest from the point of view of security. If security is the paramount consideration, why cannot the whole staff come to Canberra? That is the issue about which the Leader of the Opposition was fair enough to ask. It is very clear that because the staff have been in Melbourne so long-there is nothing wrong with this-and because they have family and domestic considerations, they do not feel that they are able to meet the Government's wishes to come to Canberra. That is the position. I am presently in the position, for the first time, of asking the Cabinet how it looks at the situation. Quite frankly, while it is very fair of ASIO to say that 98 per cent of its staff are in favour of the move, less than 50 per cent are in favour of moving. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Criminology Research Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971, I present the Australian Institute of Criminology annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 52 of the National Companies and Securities Commission Act 1979, I present the National Companies and Securities Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 93 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982, I present the freedom of information second 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 KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) — Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1983-84. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Industry and Commerce annual report for 1983-84. The report was made available to all honourable members during the parliamentary recess. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Steel Industry Authority Act 1983, I present the Steel Industry Authority annual report for the year ended 30 June 1984. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 1969, I present the Independent Schools (Loan Guarantee) Act 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 DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 63M of the Audit Act 1901, I present the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority annual report and interim financial statements for 1983-84, together with the Australian Capital Territory Schools Authority financial statements for 1982-83. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Housing Loans Insurance Act 1965, I present the Housing Loans Insurance Corporation annual report for the year ended June 1984. The report was made available to honourable members during the recess. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Social Welfare Policy Secretariat 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 BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Resources and Energy annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Snowy Mountains Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 45 of the Pipeline Authority Act 1973, I present the Pipeline Authority annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —Pursuant to section 31 of the Atomic Energy Act 1953, I present the Australian Atomic Energy Commission annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 79ZH of the Broadcasting and Television Act 1942, I present the Special Broadcasting Service annual report for 1983-84. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Cocos (Keeling) Islands annual reports for 1982-83 and 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 44 of the Australian Film Commission Act 1975, I present the Australian Film Commission annual report for 1984. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr LEO McLEAY —I do-most grievously, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LEO McLEAY —My attention has been drawn to remarks that were made yesterday in this House, recorded on page 309 of Hansard, by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The honourable member was speaking about a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Expenditure that was brought down in this House. I have not been misrepresented in the first part of those remarks, but I need to put the matter into context. The honourable member for O'Connor said: I am deeply concerned that although the then Chairman, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), was an excellent chairman, when the Parliament rose an interim report was submitted to the Parliament relating to the affairs of the Aboriginal Development Commission. It was stated in that report that a confidential report would be made to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) regarding matters arising from that inquiry. My continual requests for information throughout the recess indicated to me-- that is, to the honourable member for O'Connor- that this had not been done-- that is, the report had not been transmitted to the Minister. He then said: I put it on record that this is a matter of great urgency. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must proceed to where he was personally misrepresented. I appreciate that he is making his point, but it is a bit detailed. Mr LEO McLEAY —I am pointing out where I have been misrepresented. Further on in the honourable member's remarks he misrepresents me again. I will deal with the first misrepresentation. In the report that the Standing Committee on Expenditure brought down and in the tabling statement that I made, I said: It is expected that this report will be followed by two further reports-- one of which would be a confidential report to the Minister. That report was tabled on 5 October. On 11 October, as honourable members will recall, the House was dissolved. The House did not go into recess, as the honourable member for O'Connor thought it did. As most honourable members would be aware, when the House is dissolved all the committees of the House disappear. There are no more committees, there are no more committee chairmen and there are no more committee members. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member is making his point quite well, but he is using too many words. Mr LEO McLEAY —Mr Speaker, for the honourable member for O'Connor to suggest that I should have forwarded this confidential report to the Minister is to suggest that the Minister and I would have indulged in a conspiracy to pervert the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives and, indeed, if one takes account of Pettifer's citation on page 581 of the-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is now starting to pervert the Standing Orders. He makes his explanation by indulgence, but he is now proceeding to debate the matter. I think that he mentioned that he had another point of personal explanation over a misrepresentation. I suggest that he proceed to that or else resume his seat. Mr LEO McLEAY —The second point is that the honourable member for O'Connor goes on to say: On the other hand, the Chairman of the Committee-- that is, myself- is a Government member and, of course, the Minister-- that is, the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs- is naturally closely associated with him. I do not think that the Minister needed to wait to see that report. Quite clearly he should have got the information and taken some action on it-- Mr Tuckey —Hear, hear! Mr LEO McLEAY —The honourable member for O'Connor says: 'Hear, hear!' For me to have taken that course of action would have meant that I would have had to transgress the Standing Orders of the House in that I would have been required to transmit to the Minister- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is once more debating the matter. Mr Charles —No, he is not. He is explaining. Mr SPEAKER —It is not a matter of explanation. The honourable member for Grayndler denies the allegation; that is where he is misrepresented. There is no need for further debate on the matter. Mr Holding —How can he tell you how he has been misrepresented if he does not tell you what was said? Mr SPEAKER —He has already shown how he has been misrepresented and he has denied the allegation. I hope that the honourable member for Grayndler is about to round off his remarks. Mr LEO McLEAY —Mr Speaker, I seek your indulgence and your advice on this matter. For a member to allege that a member and a Minister were involved in a matter which is not only against the Standing Orders but also, if one takes into account what Pettifer had to say, in contempt of the House, I think is probably a more serious allegation- Mr SPEAKER —Order! What the honourable member is doing is raising a point of order. I point out to him that a personal explanation is not a means of dealing with that aspect. There are other avenues open to him, so I ask the honourable member to round off his remarks; I think he has made his point. Mr LEO McLEAY —My point is- and I guess that, if a point of order is needed, I will raise it-that it would seem to me that for a person to suggest that a Minister and the chairman of a committee- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Grayndler is defying the Chair. Mr LEO McLEAY —But the honourable member for O'Connor has accused me of being in contempt of the House. Surely I should have a chance to put my point. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There are other means of dealing with that. It should not be dealt with by means of a personal explanation to correct a misrepresentation. Mr LEO McLEAY —Mr Speaker, I was asking whether I could seek your guidance on a more appropriate manner in which to raise this matter. Mr SPEAKER —If the honourable member cares to see me afterwards, I will advise him about this, but a personal explanation is not the way to do it. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been mispresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do, Mr Speaker, by the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay). Mr SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member that indulgence but he must realise that this is to deal with misrepresentation. Mr TUCKEY —Certainly, Mr Speaker. The point I wish to make is that time and again in that speech I was at great pains not to criticise the Chairman or suggest that he had been at fault in any way, as he has claimed. My whole attack was on the total inadequacy of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) to look after taxpayers' money-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor has exceeded his indulgence. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister may proceed. Mr HOLDING —I refer to the statement of the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) where, having referred to allegations in respect of the acts of the Standing Committee on Expenditure, to which your attention has been drawn, he went on to say- On the other hand, the Chairman of the Committee is a Government member and, of course, the Minister is naturally closely associated with him. I do not think that the Minister needed to wait to see the report. Quite clearly he should have gotten that information and taken some action on it. The implication in that is that there was some sort of complicity between the Chairman and myself. Mr Tuckey —No, there is not. Mr HOLDING —Well, that was clearly the implication, but if the honourable member says it is not, I will accept that. But also I will say this: When the report was published I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee asking him to forward me a copy of the report. He subsequently called upon me to point out the constitutional difficulties in which he found himself in that as the House had been prorogued he was not able to present the report. The statements made by the honourable member for O'Connor are without foundation and are typical of the contemptible smears that he continually makes of members of this place. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister should not have made that last remark. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications and Acting Minister for Territories) —by leave-Following the practice established by my predecessors, I wish to inform honourable members of the updated estimated cost of the new Parliament House. The updated building budget is $513m and the updated non-building items budget is $131m-both figures being in August 1984 dollars. Both updated budgets include the earlier approved estimated cost of the extensions to the building required to accommodate the additional senators and members. The additional accommodation is being provided within the construction program by means of extensions to the eastern and western wings of the building which had been provisionally planned for in the original design competition submission. The project is now entering its most intensive phase with employment on the site in excess of 800 and expected to peak at over 1,200. As more of the structure of the building is completed the emphasis is moving to the finishes and interior fitting-out of the building. This stage of the work and the build up in the provision of non-building items, which cover furniture, communications, sound and vision equipment and a range of other facilities, mean that the economic benefits of the project are extending well beyond Canberra. Honourable members will also be pleased to know that the target opening date for the building of early 1988 is still considered achievable, despite the industrial dispute which closed the site for 14 weeks during 1984 and the significant additional scope of work involved in the building extensions. The finalisation of an industrial agreement covering the period through to the completion of the project should provide the basis for industrial harmony on the site. It is essential, however, that all parties involved in the project co-operate during the remaining years if the project is to achieve the scheduled completion date. 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 Ewen Cameron,Mr Peter Fisher,Mr Hawker,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton and 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 Drummond. 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 Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority, the decision of the Hawke Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with deep concern, and deplore the decision of the Government, to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become even more widespread during the period of the inquiry. We request the Federal Government to immediately re-enact the previous laws which banned the entry into Australia and the sale of hard-core pornography and violence in video and publication form. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Tim Fischer and Mr Peter Fisher. 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 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 Donald Cameron and Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully shows: That we, electors of the Commonwealth of Australia, view with extreme concern and express forthwith our complete abhorrence of the relaxation of the former Federal laws concerning censorship classifications to allow publication and importation of hardcore pornography. Therefore we, the undersigned, do fervently request the Federal Government to repeal the ''A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinances'' as they affect publications and videos. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: That whereas recent Government actions will lower the standard of censorship in Australia, beginning in the Australian Capital Territory; And whereas the availability of pornographic materials will promote violence, promiscuity and unfaithfulness in marriage, resulting in a weakened and vulnerable society; And whereas those who choose not to utilize pornographic materials must live in the depraved society created by those who do; We therefore pray that the Government, which rightly protects people from physical harm from such things as unproven and doubtful medications, will similarly provide protection from psychological, social and spiritual harm brought about by pornographic materials, and specifically, that those materials recently classified as Category 1 and Category 2 will be refused classification and totally banned. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public enquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4A of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ''X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully 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. 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 the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the potential noise hazards to residents of Sandgate, Shorncliffe, Brighton and Nudgee Beach (including 4000 aged people) will become intolerable when the new Brisbane Airport is operative in 1987, if protective action is not taken. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Federal Government will, when the redeveloped Brisbane Airport becomes operative ensure 1. No jet aircraft use the 32' 14' crosswind runway; 2. That the Department maintain the curfew on the runway from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. and calls on the Government to: 3. introduce a six months trial period if the policy to lift the curfew is adhered to, to enable residents to voice their opinions on such a curfew before Government policy is finalised. Curfew from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. by Mrs Darling. 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 reject the Remuneration Tribunal's travel entitlement to de facto wives of Parliamentarians and the ABC's Commissioners decision to allow the de facto and homosexual partners of ABC staff to travel at public expense, and that the Government should 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, (3) Protect Australians and those who enter into de jure (legal) marriages, and their families, from exploitation and the encroachment of immoral regulations and Acts into the traditional and Christian forms of life. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Fisher. 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 (undersigned citizens of Australia) respectfully showeth- Our protest to the withdrawal of Grant-in-Aid funding to the Homebush West Community Centre which operates under the auspices of the Uniting Church Board for Social Responsibility. That this Centre fulfils a most essential community development role and personal service in our community. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that The Minister reinstates this funding to enable the Homebush West Community Centre to continue its development and support activities. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Maher. To the 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 represent 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 humble petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We urge the Government to declare a moratorium on uranium mining and treatment in Australia. We urge the Government to repudiate any commitment of a non-Labor Government to the mining, processing or export of Australian uranium. We urge the Government not to permit the mining, processing or export of uranium pursuant to agreements entered into contrary to Australian Labor Party policy; and We urge the Government to discontinue the Roxby uranium mine development. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The 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 humble petition of the citizens of Queensland respectfully shows: last year, over 3,300 people died on Australian roads; alcohol is a factor in 50% of road deaths; alcohol advertisements do not show the perils of driving after drinking alcohol; alcohol advertisements are glamorous and increase their effect on teenagers, indicating drinking alcohol as the social pastime; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Parliament will legislate to ban the advertising of alcohol from commercial television and radio. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) — Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damage to Australia's national interests by the Government's failure to act as a responsible partner in the Western Alliance. 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 MACPHEE(Goldstein)(3.12) —We must remember that the ANZUS situation, which is now in a state of grave disrepair, is of consequence to the entire Western alliance. There is no doubt that ANZUS is an integral part of the Western alliance, and it is seen to be such by other countries, whether they are formally in the alliance or non-aligned in the Third World. The damage which has been done essentially represents a failure on the part of the Australian Government to understand the nature of its relationship with our ANZUS partners. It represents a failure to understand the need for public harmony and for private honesty. The first manifestation of this was when the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) began to be critical of the United States as though it was United States intransigence which had kept the super-powers from arms control talks. The facts are that the Americans proposed the strategic arms reduction program, suggesting that the number of arms be cut by half, or even more. The Soviet Union refused to negotiate on that basis. But which country did our Foreign Minister rebuke? It was not the Soviet Union but the United States. It was our ally which was publicly criticised, not once but on several occasions, in Australia, in Geneva and at the United Nations. In the Foreign Minister's Geneva speech, he laid down conditions for the continuation of United States bases on Australian soil. He did this without regard to the facts, and without regard to the delicacy of the United States position in trying to get the Soviet Union to the arms control table. The Foreign Minister jeopardised the United States chances of not only getting the Soviet Union to the negotiating table, but making progress when they finally got there. We all know how angry the Americans were. Australian journalists, politicians, officials and business people were told privately, and it has been reported very widely in American newspapers as well as in Australia. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) knew how angry the Americans were because his friend the Secretary of State, Mr Shultz, rang and told him. The Prime Minister spoke to the Foreign Minister, and he induced the Foreign Minister to release a Press statement saying that he was talking about a hypothetical situation. But the Foreign Minister, as a result of that and other public criticisms of the United States, is no longer trusted by the United States. He said publicly what he should have said privately. With the ANZUS Council and other avenues open to him, he had many opportunities to express his disquiet. Had he done so, the Americans would then have explained to him what the facts were, and he would have understood that the Americans did not deserve his castigation; rather, they deserved his support. The Foreign Minister personally appointed as Ambassador for Disarmament Mr Butler, who was formerly his principal private secretary. Mr Hayden —No. Mr MACPHEE —I apologise. He was with Mr Whitlam. But it was an appointment of a person well known to the Foreign Minister and an appointment of a person who has immersed himself for many years in questions of arms control. Mr Butler has been quoted favourably by the Opposition in previous debates on this matter or on the matter of MX missiles. I shall quote him again. On AM on 5 February, he said: A good part of United States current policies, both in the areas of space and in the area of MX development, has been brought about because of what the Soviet Union has done. The Soviet Union has got massive capacity in long-range intercontinental missiles of the kind that MX represents and they've already involved themselves in considerable 'Star Wars' research. Our position is that deterrence is necessary so that there is no nuclear war. Bill Hayden has said repeatedly that we regret that and I think we all regret that. But what we do within that framework of deterrence-and it's the only framework we can operate in at the moment-what we do is seek, with an activity that I believe is second to none, to try to get both super powers to drastically reduce the amount of nuclear weapons that they have. We believe that many utterances of the Foreign Minister and his Ambassador reflect a sensible position in terms of the role of deterrence in bringing about arms reduction consultations. We believe that the Ambassador was correct in principle and in his approach. But what we find has happened is that despite the Foreign Minister's personal conviction of the need to proceed via the deterrence path, he and the Prime Minister have deserted that position. In fact, one of the consequences will be to leave the Ambassador for Disarmament in a less effective position in disarmament talks in which he is currently engaged in Geneva. I have said that the Americans doubt the reliability of the Foreign Minister because of his public utterances. He gave them a public warning at the United Nations in October last year that Australia was demanding from the United States more progress on arms control in return for the continuation of United States bases on Australian soil. The effect of that foolish statement was that the Foreign Minister was trying to bargain with our ally to force the United States to make concessions to the Soviet Union. I contrast that with what Mr Whitlam did when he was Prime Minister. I remember his saying very firmly that he was elected on a promise to remove the United States bases, but on finding out what the basis did he said: 'That is one promise that I am proud to break'. There are several reports of a meeting of the Victorian Branch of the Australian Labor Party on 25 March 1973 which Mr Whitlam addressed. Mr Whitlam made a powerful speech and, as a result, the meeting defeated a resolution calling for all United States bases in Australia to be abolished. Mr Whitlam is quoted as saying about the bases: They help to see that the great Powers do not have the ignorance and suspicion of each other that leads to war. Mr Whitlam said: These bases allay suspicion and remove ignorance. That is an extremely important thing for a Labor Prime Minister to have done; to have set out to confront his own Party with the facts and to get it to change its policy. Contrast that with the approach of the present Government.The Minister for Foreign Affairs has made remarks with distinct tones of anti-Americanism-certainly no criticism of the Soviets, but an apparent castigation of the Americans. Again, let us contrast that with the approach of Mr Whitlam at that time. Mr Whitlam said, at the same meeting, and again this was widely quoted: Don't blame the Yanks for everything we don't like in this country. With regard to the Federal Labor platform, he said it was essential that the Party back the Government. The present Minister for Foreign Affairs fought very hard against the left wing of his Party in respect of uranium exports. He then, however, apparently felt that he had to mouth some of the left wing's concern about the American bases. He ought to have taken on his left wing in the way Mr Whitlam did on that issue. He ought not to have spoken out against the United States in the way in which he did, saying that unless they speeded up their endeavours to get arms control talks under way there might be some question about the future of the American bases. He lacked finesse and a sense of history, and he humiliated and weakened our most important ally. The situation got worse. All the while the Americans were saying: 'We are not happy about Mr Scholes as Minister for Defence; we are not happy about Mr Hayden as Minister for Foreign Affairs; but we do have a relationship with the Prime Minister'. What was the second glaring example of the Government's misunderstanding of its responsibilities? Along it came, in the form of the MX controversy. The Minister for Foreign Affairs and the new Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) upheld publicly a sensible decision of the Government, which in fact was the same decision made by the previous Government, to facilitate the monitoring of the MX missile tests. Editorial, political, military and public opinion urged the Government not to renege on its commitment to the United States. The media cuttings are several metres thick, but I use one example from the Melbourne Herald, which enthusiastically endorsed the Government at the last election. I am bound to say that it must be rapidly changing its mind. On 4 February, before the Prime Minister unilaterally reversed the commitment which he and his Government had made to the United States, under the heading 'MX: the Left lifts off', it says: Mr Hawke, jointly with Foreign Minister Bill Hayden and the then Defence Minister, Gordon Scholes, agreed in November, 1983, to honour a promise of the previous Fraser Government to support test flights by two unarmed American missiles. The missiles will be launched in California and will be programmed to touch down in international waters off Tasmania. Australia will provide staging facilities in Sydney for aircraft monitoring the flights. That, in our view, was not an unreasonable decision. The US is our major defence partner, and while that does not mean Australia should follow blindly wherever the Pentagon may choose to lead, co-operation in military programs that do not compromise our national interests are a necessary contribution to the alliance. Mr Hawke was right to offer our support. For precisely those reasons, he was wrong to withdraw his Government's support. He should have done what Mr Whitlam did in respect of the American bases. The effect of the decision to reverse the commitment which his Government had made, and the Fraser Government before that had made, is to rebuff the Americans just as strongly as did New Zealand in denying port facilities to United States vessels. In many ways it was worse, because it came on top of the New Zealand decision. I was in the Sinai, talking to the Australian, New Zealand and American troops, when news came through of the Prime Minister's unilateral reversal of his commitment on the MX missiles. That very morning American officers were saying to me 'What is an ally in the light of what New Zealand has done?'. Having come back from a trip to see Australian and other troops in operation I arrived back in a helicopter, and an American officer met me with a cable which he had just been given from Washington, announcing the Prime Minister's decision. He did not have to say anything to me; his face revealed what he thought, and the cable spoke for itself-what indeed is an ally? We know that that is what the Americans privately think. We know that publicly Mr Shultz again got the Prime Minister and the Australian Government off the hook. There was even an argument about the passing of a joint communique between the two. It is very much a public friendship. It is now being widely said in the United States as well that Australia is being let off the hook because of the importance which the Americans place on friendship with us, but everyone knows that they do not now have confidence in this Government. When we look at the Los Angeles Times of 7 February we see that that is exactly what is said there: The move by Shultz avoided embarrassing Hawke as he prepares to meet today with President Reagan at the White House. Let no one be fooled: the Prime Minister comes in and quotes statements by the President and the Secretary of State as though everything is normal. The Prime Minister's predecessor as the President of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, Albert Monk, once said to me: 'A person lets me down only once'. I am afraid it is true of nations as well, and the Americans must feel and do feel that they have been let down by Australia. The third manifestation of the Government's lack of understanding of its obligations under ANZUS is in respect of New Zealand itself, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) made some very powerful points about that yesterday. The Prime Minister of New Zealand, when he was elected, made statements which this Labor Government-which might have had some affinity with the New Zealand Government-might have privately said to him were going to jeopardise trilateral arrangements, a trilateral treaty. It cannot be said that what happens between Wellington and Washington is only for them. We do not have to run errands for the United States; we have to run errands for ourselves. We have to privately and forcefully tell the New Zealanders what the consequences are for them, for us and for the United States of the action they have taken. The Government failed in its obligations there, as it failed in its obligations to Australia and ANZUS, and to all those other nations in our part of the world and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers who rest on the stability of this alliance. The Government stands condemned and ANZUS is in tatters, as much because of the neglect of this Government as because of the actions of the New Zealand Government. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.27) —The proposal before the House is a very serious one. It has obviously been carefully considered and soberly constructed by the Opposition in its presentation. It makes a very grave charge against the Government; it accuses it of failure to act as a responsible partner in the Western alliance. By any measure, that is an extraordinarily grave charge to level against a government. It is not far short of the charge of recklessness, almost of treasonable conduct. So, one would reasonably anticipate that there would have been outlined a substantial body of evidence to support that allegation. What did we get? Some comment I made in respect of the comprehensive test ban treaty, and our initiatives on that matter in Geneva, was alleged to have upset the United States. Yet our initiatives on that matter resulted in the United States positively moving from a negative vote to an abstention. In international terms, at multilateral forums on such matters, that is significant. There was some sort of moan about the change in the MX tests, but the United States made the change to the arrangements for the tests, so the arrangements were quite satisfactory to it. Then the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs cast doubt on my reliability in the view of the United States. The United States itself has released a statement which has made it clear that it repudiates any such suggestion, and it did that before Christmas. There we have it: A limping, haggard, unconvincing litany of manufactured whinges. Whoever Opposition members claim to speak for, they cannot claim to speak for the United States. Their whining has been refuted as flimsy and as pathetic. By whom? By the declarations from the United States by the Chief Executive of the United States Administration, President Reagan. Let me remind the House of what President Reagan had to say at the White House on 7 February this year, at the time of the departure of the Australian Prime Minister (Mr Hawke): Australia is a reliable ally, an important trading partner, a trusted friend and a fellow democracy. He said of Australia and the United States: We've stood together through trials and tribulations. We've rejoiced together in triumph . . . As a key ally and a vital voice in world affairs, Australia makes a significant contribution to the way we approach international challenges. I repeat the words 'as a key ally'. What does this mishmash, this contrived posturing of the Opposition, declare? It declares that we have failed to act as a responsible partner in the Western alliance. The President of the United States has declared that we are a faithful ally and a vital voice in world affairs and that we make a significant contribution to the way the United States approaches international affairs. This concocted nonsense has been cobbled together in desperation by this very desperate Opposition. On ANZUS we are told, en passant, that it is in tatters; it no longer stands. This is what the American Secretary of State for East Asia, Mr Wolfowitz, had to say at a Press conference in Washington on 7 February: I think ANZUS is a treaty we view as intact. We would like to keep it intact. It's certainly very strong and solid with the Australians. I have no more to say of a very lengthy series of declarations of firm commitment by the United States to its relationship with Australia-a commitment declared positively and unambiguously by the United States Administration. In the light of all of that and in the light of this repudiation of the Opposition's cheap, contrived misrepresentation, one must ask oneself some questions about the motivation of the Opposition. Is the Opposition trying to undermine the confidence of this community or undermine the conviction of the United States about Australia at a very delicate time, at a very difficult time? We acknowledge that it is a time of difficulty and we have conveyed our concerns to the United States and New Zealand about the present situation in respect of ANZUS. Just because we are not shouting abuse from the rooftops and hurling invective across the aisle at one or other party to the Treaty, a member of the alliance, the Opposition feels that insufficient is being done. The proper and effective way to approach this sort of problem is to have continuous exchange between all three parties. There is no doubt about our concern in respect of ANZUS and the present situation; there is no doubt about our commitment and the undilutable quality of that commitment. Both on public record and in private discourse we have made that clear. We would hope that somewhere along the line, somehow, we will be successful in persuading the Government of New Zealand to change its tack, to adopt the sorts of courses we have adopted and persist with or, as the United States says, to rejoin active participation in the Treaty and its obligations. Members of the Opposition simply believe that if they hee and haw long enough their jackass antics will be taken seriously. It will not be long before we get blamed for the turmoil in Burkinosaso or the breakdown in Chad, or perhaps soon we will get retrospectively the blame for the football war in Central America. This is a futile and pathetic effort by the Opposition to try to poison the mind of the Australian public, to try to sow seeds of doubt that the Labor Government is anti-alliance, anti-Western and anti-American. The Americans have made it clear that the Labor Government is none of those things-that it is trusted, it is supported, it is endorsed and, more than that, it is influential within the associations it has with the United States and other countries. There has been, understandably, a great deal of focus on ANZUS. We have said on many occasions that it is a keystone to our defence and international political arrangements. But, by definition, using the English language parsed properly, 'keystone' means that it is one and that there are other keystones. Why is not some attention being given to those other keystones of our relationships? The world is much bigger than just the immediate area in question. It is extremely important but it is not the beginning and end or the totality of all of our concerns. For instance, we have key interests with the Association of South East Asian Nations. That is not covered by ANZUS. Is it suggested that that is a matter of indifference, of inconsequence? Nor is Papua New Guinea covered by ANZUS, but it is extremely important, as is the five power agreement. So too are commerce and diplomacy critical on the wider canvas for a country such as Australia. Then, of course, there is Australia's engagement under the defence co-operation program. That has been sustained by a succession of governments in this country. Political colour, conservative or Labor, is a matter of indifference; it has been supported. It was supported by the Whitlam Labor Government and by the Fraser Government, and it is being supported by the Hawke Government. This year we will be spending nearly $50m on defence co-operation in our region. About $18m of that will go to Papua New Guinea. The ASEAN countries will receive nearly $24m. Most of the remainder is to be distributed in the south west Pacific. As I say, it is focussed on our neighbouring South East Asian and South Pacific regions. The broad objective of the defence co-operation program is to promote the national independence of the participating countries. We participate on a regular basis in a large number of combined military exercises on either a bilateral basis or a multilateral basis. We carry out those exercises with other allies. We conduct with the United States land, air and maritime exercises which aim at improving inter-operability with our ally-air defences, air-submarine warfare, control of shipping, general training, et cetera. Under the five-power defence arrangements we exercise with the United Kingdom, Malaysia, Singapore and New Zealand. We exercise also with regional countries, such as Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia and Thailand, and with old Commonwealth countries, such as the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand. From that outline we can see that the relationship within the alliance is not only as the Americans describe in respect of ANZUS-a very strong, enduring and viable thing insofar as the association between Australia and the United States is concerned. It is much more comprehensive than that. We do make a substantial and enduring contribution to what might be more generally described as the Western alliance. On critical tests this Government has stood up and been successful on the issues that really count. Let me take the issue of United States facilities in Australia, a subject of considerable disputation in this community. The Prime Minister and I stood up publicly, in the democratic forum-something foreign to members of the conservative parties-at the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party, and in any other forum available to us in this country for months on end, as we still do, to argue the justification for those facilities. We proposed and promoted them and we declared their essential linkage in policies such as those concerning deterrence and verification. I have said before that we wish it was a happier world to live in with no nuclear weapons or the threat of them and with arms control effectively in place. We aim at that very praiseworthy objective. We do not pretend to have a monopoly on this sort of thing but we would like a little credit for work we have done. In the meantime, living in an imperfect world, we have responsibilities in respect of those facilities. That is why we have defended them-we have done so with considerable success-and why we will continue to do so. But it has not been easy. It has not been easy because this issue suddenly exploded on an unsuspecting and totally uninformed Australian public. That is remarkable because one of those facilities had been in this country for two decades and the other one for a decade and a half-Pine Gap and Nurrungar. Why was the public unsuspecting and ill-informed? Whenever the Liberals in government were challenged on this issue and asked to explain what these facilities were about, instead of arguing the moral justification of them-the moral justification which I find unchallengeable; that is why I argue it-they scuttled into some cowardly funk hole stamped 'secrecy'. That is why we had an unprepared public. For the Liberals it was too hard to explain and too difficult to defend, so they retreated to the cowards' defence of secrecy. That is where the genesis of this mindless muddling through, which has epitomised Liberal-National Party administration in foreign affairs, came into being and continues today. We got out there and argued this case. Until Hawke and Hayden and their colleagues got out there and talked about deterrence and about verification and took on by the sharp tusks the opponents they were confronted with, no one had heard that debate in this country and it will continue. But it will continue sensibly because, at the same time, we will pursue that ultimate objective of effective nuclear arms control at mutually stable levels. We support a freeze. We support reductions. We will do all we can to try to work towards that end. It is hard work. It requires great diligence. It requires competent people such as those in the arms control and disarmament branch of the Department of Foreign Affairs, which scarcely existed before I became Minister for Foreign Affairs. Two officers were working part time on it and now there is the best part of a dozen. Our ambassador for Disarmament in Geneva is working at this. Having said all of those things, I come to the relative measures. Who is the keeper of all this virtue, this patriotic fervour that we have heard so much about in the last few days? We have been hearing about the inviolability of the ANZUS alliance. Only the conservatives know how to behave with the Americans! Let me tell honourable members what Mr Renouf had to say in his book of anecdotal experience, about the visit of the former Prime Minister to the United States of America. He said: The sourness of the relationship between the two governments carried over into 1979 when Prime Minister Fraser accused the US of not adequately protecting Australia's interests in the MTN, a weird charge coming from a man whose professed policy vis-a-vis the US was independence, and hinted that if Australia did not receive treatment in the MTN which she regarded as adequate, the future of the US defence facilities in Australia could be jeopardised. So here we have honourable members opposite applying their form of leverage. It is all right when they engage in a non-virtuous form of conduct, using the description that they have used. That is a principle in itself. It is humbug. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Debate resumed. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(3.43) —Before the interruption of the debate, I was talking about what a great honour it is for me to represent the electorate of Calwell, which has been named after the great Arthur Calwell. I was talking about the contribution that Arthur Calwell made to the Labor movement and to the Australian nation. But I also want to thank the people in my electorate who worked hard in assisting me in the recent election and also those who have worked to bring together the forces of the Australian Labor Party in Calwell. As honourable members know, it is one of the most depressed areas in Australia in terms of poverty and unemployment. I can assure Labor Party supporters and the people of my electorate that I will be working hard to get rid of the stigma of the deprived west of Melbourne by trying to bring as many services as possible to that area. We must banish from our society the monstrous injustice whereby people have unequal opportunities and achievements in life as a consequence of living in deprived socio-economic and cultural circumstances. That basically has been the thrust of the Governor-General's message in relation to the Labor Government-our commitment to continuing the process of achieving greater fairness and greater equality in this country. In this regard one cannot achieve the task simply through the Federal Government; one needs the assistance of State governments. I want to say something about the importance of the tremendous work of the Cain Labor Government in achieving this goal, in seeking to establish a more just and prosperous community in that State. I have been amazed at the base and outrageous attacks which have been made on the Cain Labor Government in the last three weeks, especially by certain vested interests who seek to exploit and undermine the people of Victoria. Those interests who are spending all this money in this outrageous campaign are, in my view, beyond contempt because of their attitudes. I shall demonstrate by the facts that I shall put before this House that the Cain Labor Government has an outstanding record of achievement and that the John Cain leadership has brought to Victoria a compassion and sensitivity to the wishes of the people which is unparalleled. This humanitarian approach is encapsulated in all the economic and social programs of the Cain Government. Let me illustrate this with one example. The Cain Government has just announced a $10m anti-poverty program. It is the first government in Australia to announce a specific anti-poverty campaign of this kind. Given that aspects of the recession remain with us, can there be any more important goal for a government to pursue than to protect the neediest and poorest section of the community? Part of this program is a new housing plan announced by the excellent Victorian Minister of Housing, Mr Cathie. Under this scheme, low income families are to be given the chance to own their own homes. In his statement Mr Cathie said that the scheme would be run in co-operation with private banks and building societies and would provide at least $100m in loans to households earning up to 120 per cent of average weekly earnings. Under this proposal, 2,000 families will be assisted each year. Mr Cathie said that the scheme was based on a successful $20m pilot program run by the Ministry of Housing last year. The scheme attracted 12,000 applicants for 450 loans. Mr Cathie is quoted in the Age as saying: We see it as a scheme for getting a lot of people successfully into home ownership, virtually without government subsidy. This scheme illustrates the general philosophy of the Cain Labor Government: Satisfying the needs of the people with the maximum economic responsibility. This is clearly seen when we examine the record of economic achievement by the Cain Government. I remind the House that the Cain Government was elected at the height of the recession which had been brought on this country and that State by the outrageous policies of the previous State Liberal Government, led by Mr Thompson, and of course in the midst of the extraordinary, tough, monetarist policies of the Fraser Government at the Federal level. Faced with this virtually insurmountable problem- Mr Goodluck —Ah! Dr THEOPHANOUS —I suppose you are proud of the quarter of a million unemployed you created in your last year. Is that what you are saying? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member will address the Chair. Dr THEOPHANOUS —Faced with this virtually insurmountable problem of mass unemployment and a negative growth situation, the Cain Labor Government proceeded to put down policies based on a philosophy of expansion, a counter-cyclic economic policy to try to drag the State of Victoria out of recession, and it was successful. Indeed it could be said that the Victorian example set the pattern for the Federal Labor Government; that is, expansion during a time of recession based on a responsible approach to economic management. This has been an outstanding success in the creation of jobs, in the reduction of inflation and interest rates and in making inroads into the elimination of poverty. The record of the Cain Government on these matters is the best in Australia. For example, unemployment is now at the lowest level of any State of Australia. The level of youth unemployment is also at the lowest level in Australia. A greater degree of industrial peace, stimulation of the housing industry and encouragement of new industries, especially those utilising new and advanced technology, have all led to a massive economic recovery in Victoria. Unemployment, and particularly youth unemployment, have been successfully reduced by the Cain Government through capital works and targeted employment programs. Both the 1982 and 1983 State Budgets provided a substantial boost to employment through increased spending on capital works, especially housing. It has been estimated that the 1982 Budget alone led to the creation of over 200,000 jobs. The 1983 Budget provided a 43 per cent increase in capital spending. In 1982, $30m was directed towards job creation in the public sector and the non-profit private sector through the employment initiative program. An estimated 3,450 jobs were created, 92 per cent of which went to long term unemployed people. This employment initiative program is well known and provided the model for the Federal Government's community employment program which has been a spectacular success in dealing with the problem of unemployment. Overall, then, since the Cain Government came to power in Victoria, a quarter of a million new jobs have been created. Over 25,000 have gone to people aged between 15 and 24 years. The Cain Labor Government also has an excellent record in relation to programs to assist manufacturing industry. These programs were developed against the background of an enormous rundown in manufacturing, with the impact of the recession. It should be remembered that during this period, employment in manufacturing severely contracted-that is, the period merely before the Cain Government-with the loss of thousands of jobs in Melbourne and Victoria generally. The State Government acted immediately to try to redress the situation, by providing incentives for manufacturing investment and support for those industries facing immediate danger. Last year the Government outlined an economic strategy for Victoria based on a 10-year program, the first such long term program that has ever been developed for Victoria. In that economic strategy, the most important aspects related to industry policy. The new policy was described in these terms: Consequently there are four major thrusts in the new state and regional industry policies. The first of these is to assist smaller firms in the State's manufacturing and tertiary industries to upgrade their entrepreneurial skills and improve the level of innovation, design, technology and marketing. The second is to assist those small to medium sized firms which do have a competitive advantage to fully realise the growth potential of this. The third is to assist those firms in slow-growing or declining industries to develop and implement strategies to re-orient their activities into those areas in which they can achieve a competitive advantage as a basis for long term growth. The fourth is to assist regions to develop and implement strategies to capitalise on the region's competitive strengths so as to increase their rates of growth and to lessen their dependence on firms supplying slow-growing or declining markets. In addition, the Government issued new guidelines for lending by the Victorian Economic Development Corporation. The result is that a greater proportion of financial assistance for Victorian industry is targeted towards industries using new and advanced technology, export industries and tourism. Also, by cutting the red tape of approving major private sector investment projects, the Victorian Government has facilitated more than 50 projects in Victoria's manufacturing and commercial sectors, with a value of over $150m. Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition to the matters mentioned here, the Victorian Government has adopted an expansion of the apprenticeship system for young people. This has been done, firstly, by encouraging employers through exemptions from payroll tax for the first year of apprenticeships; secondly, by increasing travel and accommodation subsidies to apprentices; and thirdly and most importantly, by producing a scheme whereby more apprentices are taken up in State Government agencies year after year, and so directly training more people. Consistent with this highly responsible expansionary approach to economic management, the Victorian Government has established the best system of accountability that has ever existed in the State. We have had not only a complete overhaul of the budgeting procedures for the State of Victoria through the establishment of the Department of Management and Budget, but also the establishment of bodies which have played a big role in ensuring that the public money is used in the most responsible fashion. The Government has been able, through the establishment of the State development program, to fund projects involving large scale capital works-projects which have had a very significant impact on the provision of infrastructure in Victoria. The Cain Government committed itself to supplying $400m over three years for development projects. It has met that target. Let me mention some of the excellent projects which have been funded under this program: The Holmsglen College of Technical and Further Education, the Broadmeadows Court House, the Glen Waverley Police Academy, the Forensic Science Laboratory, the Box Hill Transport Centre, the Webb Dock rail link and the western trunk sewer. I use these examples because they present part of the spectrum of projects which the Victorian Government has adopted in this very positive strategy. Mr McVeigh —What has it done for the dairy farmers? Dr THEOPHANOUS —A lot more than the honourable member ever did when he was in power. When the Cain Labor Government came into power in 1982, the situation of housing in Victoria was absolutely disastrous. Housing commencements were at the lowest for many years. The public housing lists had grown over the years without any sympathy or concern on the part of the previous Liberal Government, which had become complacent and insensitive to the voice of the people, and especially to the poorer section of the community. From the spending of $127m in the last year of the Liberal Government-that is, 1981-82-housing spending was boosted in 1982-83 to $227m and in 1983-84 to $270m. As mentioned earlier, the Cain Government proposes to boost housing even further in the current Budget and to introduce schemes which will assist those people who relied on public housing, and also low income families seeking to purchase private housing. The housing proposals of the Victorian Government are based on the recognition that there is a needy section of the community which is reliant on public housing and public accommodation at low rentals. The argument that this public housing stock be sold off, which has been put forward by the infamous Mr Kennett and his team, would be absolutely disastrous to people in poverty, who would not be in a position to purchase these homes and flats. It is just another example of the anti-people policies which have been proposed by the extreme right wing which has now seized control of what was once the great Liberal Party in Victoria. The many Australians of migrant background who live in Melbourne and the whole of Victoria have received an enormous boost from the work of the Cain Labor Government, and especially the Minister for Ethnic Affairs, Peter Spyker. All ethnic groups in Victoria know of his untiring efforts to promote a genuinely multicultural Australia. The Victorian Ethnic Affairs Commission was established under his guidance and has been a major force in involving ethnic communities in the decision-making processes-so that it may have an active and effective voice on the issues that concern them. In the last two years, $500,000 per annum has been made available to ethnic community groups through grants from the Commission. In addition, there has been a substantial increase in ethnic teacher aids and in community language and bilingual teachers in Victorian schools. These teachers and teacher aids cover a wide range of ethnic group languages, including Spanish, Italian, Maltese, Greek, Turkish and Arabic. There have been big changes in the curriculums in schools, to promote the idea of multiculturalism and knowledge of different cultures. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Cain Government's approach contrasts with that the Opposition Leader, Mr Kennett, who does not have any understanding of the needs of the people. In particular, he has no sympathy for the plight of the disadvantaged, the poor, the homeless and the unemployed. His proposals for massive reductions in the public sector will have only one result: That is a dramatic reduction in the quality and quantity of the services available to the people, especially in education, health, welfare and transport. Mr Duncan —The standard of living will crash. Dr THEOPHANOUS —As the honourable member says, the standard of living will crash. But it is not just a recipe for massive reductions of the services available to the bulk of the people. What will it do to employment? It is also a recipe for massive increases in unemployment. The massive reductions in public sector spending proposed by Mr Kennett will result in these big increases in unemployment. If the people of Victoria want to see thousands of people thrown out of work, as occurred during the Fraser and Thompson period, they will elect Mr Kennett, whose economics are even more mad, more irrational, than those of Malcolm Fraser. It is the economics of confrontation based on conflict between the private and public sectors of the economy. If Mr Kennett were, God forbid, to be placed in charge of the Victorian economy, both sectors would suffer, with hefty unemployment. The solution to the current unemployment situation, particularly youth unemployment, is not the regressive scheme proposed by Mr Kennett of cutting wages in half for young people. The Cain Labor Government's plan to more positively assist young unemployed people is the only realistic approach. By creating more apprenticeships, by increasing places at TAFE colleges and by making available the option of participating in work-study schemes the Cain Government aims to create real job opportunities and the chance to gain useful skills and education, which it has guaranteed for all young people. This is the way to assist those young people tragically hit by the problem of long term unemployment, without exploiting them in the manner that Mr Kennett proposes an without endangering the job security of those workers currently employed. Contrast the humane, rational approach of the Cain Government with the incoherent and inhumane program promoted by the Kennett Liberal Party, the aggressively insensitive approach of the Opposition Leader, who does not seem to recognise that there are poor and unemployed people in the community. Surely any rational person, any swinging voter who is considering the situation, will vote Labor on Saturday. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(4.02) —The Governor-General's Speech is traditionally one which sets out the vision of Australia towards which the Government of the day is working. It also gives the Opposition the opportunity to set out what it is seeking to do. What marks the speech that this Government provided for the Governor-General is that it has no vision, no perspective, no sense of planning for the future. It is the speech of a government that is already aging after less than two years in office, disheartened by its election failure, stale, expedient, lacking leadership and lacking direction. The Government promises to create an Australia which is stronger, fairer and more equitable. These are the Government's words. But what the Australian people see and suffer day after day are the consequences of broken pledges, the consequences of lack of leadership, the consequences of policies which already have created and will continue to create a nation which is becoming increasingly weak, unfair and more inequitable. Where is there any strength in a faltering economy and a crippled currency? Where is there any strength in a once powerful alliance now in disarray? Where is the fairness in a nation which cannot provide work for so many despairing young people? Where is the equity in a nation whose government seeks to punish the enterprising and the thrifty with assets tests and superannuation taxes? Where is leadership in a government riven by faction and a Prime Minister without authority'? At the beginning of this Thirty-fourth Parliament allow me to reaffirm our principles, the philosophy of government for which the people of Australia gave us a mandate for all but five years of the last three decades. These are the principles and philosophy we will continue to pursue in this Parliament. In those many years of government the coalition has always stood for, and will continue to stand for, the right to individual freedom and endeavour; the encouragement of enterprise, effort and excellence, and the recognition of every Australian's inalienable right to be rewarded for these qualities; and, so as a consequence, a total commitment to a nation in which private enterprise is the keystone of progress, free of intrusive and unnecessary government regulation. We stand for, and will continue to stand for, a just and fair society which encourages the adventurous and protects the disadvantaged; a society which demands that the government acts in the interests of all Australians, without surrendering to pressure groups or factions; and, finally, the creation of a nation aware of its international responsibilities, and responding positively to them in the pursuit of national security and world peace. In this context I want to concentrate on what we believe to be the major issues now confronting us, and to which we seek to apply long standing and traditional values. Those issues include industrial relations, the plight of the rural community, the state of the economy, the burden of taxation and national security. The Government boasts of having achieved 'national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction' in its first term of office, and yet in the past three months Australia has seen the most bitter industrial turmoil since the Government took office in March 1983. There have been strikes by train drivers, waterside and meat workers and food preservers and violence in the building industry. Millions of dollars have been lost by the Government, importers, retailers and industry because of Public Service bans. If all this turmoil and bitterness reflects a spirit of national reconciliation the word has lost its meaning. What it now means is that the Government has lost any influence it might have had on the union movement. What will follow in the coming year is increasing turbulence, increasing losses in domestic productivity and exports, accompanied at the same time by increasingly strident demands for higher wages. What we are seeing is the beginning of terminal fragility in the much vaunted accord of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). In employment and industrial relations matters the results of the Government's philosophical inconsistencies are clear. On the one hand the Government has pursued deregulation of the financial system, and the coalition applauds the steps taken so far. In particular, we support the floating of the Australian dollar, a measure which has the potential to enhance Australia's international competitiveness and therefore stimulate employment growth. But whatever positive potential the floating dollar possessed has been negated by the Government's ignorant and irresponsible adherence to the centralised wage-fixing system and the Government's support for full consumer price index linked wage rises. This is not the act of a government concerned with sound economic management or the maximisation of employment growth. It is the act of a government concerned first, and above all, to please and appease its power base-the trade union movement. To put it mildly, it is most unfortunate for Australia that the Government has no wages policy to replace the prices and incomes accord. The coalition's policy, on the other hand, is clear and positive. The nation's wage fixing and dispute settlement procedures need fundamental reform. We believe that the way ahead, the best course for Australia, is to decentralise these procedures. To this end our policy is directed to promoting a greater measure of collective bargaining between employers and employees, and to enhancing the accountability of all parties to agreements reached in this way within a decentralised system. As a first step we plan to change the present Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission into a new industrial tribunal with powers to fix minimum wages only, foster the resolution of disputes, enforce decisions contractually and promote a positive restructuring of the trade union movement. It is patently absurd for the Government to free the financial system on the one hand but shackle the industrial relations system on the other. The consequences of this inconsistency will become harmfully evident this year. The dole queues will fail to shorten, those already employed will clamour, with the Government's encouragement, for higher wages with little reference to productivity or industry's capacity to pay, and Australia's international competitiveness will be dealt a further blow. It is employment growth-the creation of more jobs for the hundreds of thousands of Australians seeking work-that will suffer at the hands of this Government's inadequate employment and industrial relations policies. The Governor-General's Speech makes scant reference to that part of the Australian community which has always been a major contributor to the nation's prosperity and progress. The farmers, wool growers, rice growers and cattlemen and the producers of cotton, fruit, grapes and oilseeds are virtually overlooked in this Government's speech as put to the House and to the people by the Governor-General. Those primary producers are dedicated and purposeful men and women and they and their families create a significant proportion of Australia's export income. They are dismissed in the Governor-General's Speech in only four meaningless paragraphs. The Government, speaking through His Excellency, said: A major report on primary industry to the year 2000 will be developed this year. Measures will be taken to assist the restructuring and revitalization of industries such as fishing, sugar and dairying which are facing long term, market related, structural difficulties. There is no need to wait for yet another report on primary industry to know what is happening to it. Any member of the National Party of Australia or the Liberal Party of Australia can tell honourable members opposite that now. The man on the land will find little comfort in an acknowledgment of market related structural difficulties when, for example, he learns next week that the predicted average annual farm income this year will be $6,598, which is a sum equal to less than one-third of the average weekly wage. The average farmer will find this out from a paper prepared by the Livestock and Grain Producers Association of New South Wales, which has prepared a 94-page document for yet another summit in Canberra next Tuesday. What is happening to Australia's rural industry is catastrophic. The LGPA paper states that unless the Government acts immediately more than 300,000 jobs could be lost on Australia's farms and rural properties in the next three years. This is at a time when the proportion of farmers already living below the poverty line-I stress below the poverty line-is between 15 and 20 per cent, according to a recent survey by the University of New South Wales School of Geography. In the city of Sydney and its suburbs the average is between 7 and 10 per cent. All of this is largely due to rising costs which are largely State and Federal government charges and taxes, transport imposts, grain handling and inspection fees and electricity and irrigation charges. These are only some of the dimensions of a rural decline which the Prime Minister seeks to arrest by yet another summit. On the other hand, our policies are already firmly in place. Among them are these initiatives: An expansion of the role of the Primary Industry Bank of Australia; an underwriting scheme for the sugar industry; export inspection charges to be borne by the Commonwealth; and income equalisation deposits to be restored as an effective means of equalising variable incomes, with tax being paid only in the year of withdrawal. We spelt them out in greater detail in the last election campaign but they are some of them. To turn to the nation's broader economic prospects, there is equally no comfort. While we welcome the increased business and manufacturing activity of the past 18 months, we do not accept that, as the Governor-General's Speech claims, it is the strongest economic performance for decades. Despite the euphoric attitude of the Prime Minister and the so-called world's greatest Treasurer, there are others in the Government-I stress in the Government-who take a far more realistic view. I will quote them. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button, has described as patchy what is perceived as some kind of miraculous economic recovery brought about by the Labor Government. Less than two weeks ago the former Minister for Finance and present Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) was even more frank. Speaking on 19 February to the Australian Insurance Association, the Minister said that these problems remain: Firstly, major debt and balance of payment problems; secondly, unemployment at far too high a level; thirdly, a poor trade performance; and, fourthly, stagnation of manufacturing industry. Yet nowhere in the Governor-General's Speech is there any strategy, any plan, any blueprint for solving the serious far-reaching structural problems which are embedded in the Government's economic performance. Taxation is one of these problems. At least the Government has recognised this. As suggested to the Prime Minister by a Perth radio announcer, he is calling yet another summit. Sometimes I wonder whether Australia will eventually have even more summits than the Himalayas. But will the summit address one of the basic causes of high taxation, that is, increasing government expenditure? Of course not. The Government's philosophy is for more expenditure, not less, and more bureaucratic intervention, not less. We have said time and again that if expenditure cannot be brought down, taxation cannot be brought down. Government members know as well as I do that there will be no preparedness to wind back expenditure and get a real reduction in taxation. The summit is being called as just another means of raising more revenue from the Australian people and trying to go through a staged performance of what is already planned. Apart from broadening the tax base, which we favour, it appears that the Treasurer has now discovered that he can add 10 per cent to everything except the Australian dollar. Apart from broadening the tax base, capital gains taxes, death duties and gift duties are all to be considered. The summit will be a talkfest for the Government to find more revenue. There will be no cuts in government expenditure because the Government's philosophy is for more expenditure, not less, and more bureacratic intervention, not less. Our position on the achievement of economic growth is clear and unequivocal. It depends on the productivity of the private sector. That is the engine of real prosperity and more jobs. A strong private sector creates productivity and profits. It stimulates investment and generates not only more jobs but also permanent jobs, in contrast to the cosmetic concepts such as the Government's proposed new enterprise initiatives scheme. The prosperity of Australia has always been founded on a strong private sector-in the factories, in business and commerce and on the land-unshackled by government regulation and not discouraged by government charges and taxes. That is what we stand for and it is markedly in contrast with what the Government proffers. We also stand for a nation recognised internationally, at least until recently, as a good friend to its allies, reliable in a crisis and dedicated to the pursuit of peace and disarmament. We have demonstrated this again over the past week or so. We have demonstrated to the people of Australia that the present Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, in a futile attempt to paper over the deep factional and ideological divisions in the Labor Party, has placed party and personal survival beyond fundamental responsibility-the fundamental reponsibility for the security and survival of Australia as a nation. That is a charge on which this coalition will never be found guilty, as this Government has been. We also stand for a caring and compassionate society which takes into account, as we approach 200 years of white settlement, the special needs of the people who were here before we came; a society which takes into account the special needs of the people who have come here, many of them fleeing tyranny and oppression, to enrich Australian life with the diversity of their skills and cultures; a society which believes that the benefits of education should be equally shared; a society in which the creativity of our painters, writers, actors and musicians can be stimulated to the pursuit of even greater excellence. Our political philosophy totally embraces a sense of vision, a deep concern to create a better, more equitable society with benefits and obligations equally shared and differences resolved by negotiation, not by confrontation. Our vision is to ensure that no single powerful group, be it big unions, big business or big government, so dominates society that it is harmful to those Australians who cannot muster such strength. We are not the tools of the trade union movement; nor do we, in denying that the Government speaks on behalf of the Australian people when it is manipulated by the trade union movement, go on a trade union bash. We stand to identify those elements within the trade union movement that would walk the Government towards programs that are not in the best interests of all Australians. As I have indicated, in standing for a fairer, more just and more equitable society, we are looking after those who do not have access, through powerful organs such as the ACTU, straight to the Cabinet room at Budget time to do special deals for themselves. Our vision is to create a nation in which all Australians can share a sense of national pride, in which we can play a part in its achievements and they can play it equally. In seeking those achievements, all Australians can prosper in the nation's growing strength and fulfil their aspirations for a richer life. That is our vision, and our task is to make that vision a reality. In contrast to what is transpiring today, we will not fail that vision. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Before calling the honourable member for Makin, I draw to the attention of honourable members the fact that this is the honourable member's maiden speech in this House. I ask all honourable members to extend to him the normal courtesies and to remain silent. Mr DUNCAN(Makin)(4.22) —I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the other Deputy Speakers on your re-election to your important office. I also place on record my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his re-election to the highest office in this House. I was fascinated to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) a few moments ago. I had been told about his acting capacity and it was very interesting to see it. It is a pity that radio actors went out many years ago. Perhaps it is about time we had television in this chamber so that all Australians could have the-- Mr Tuckey —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take a point of order. I am sorry, but there is another rule pertaining to maiden speeches. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor is not in his right place. There is no point of order. Mr Tuckey —Just a little warning. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will return to his seat if he wishes to be heard. Mr DUNCAN —Thank you for your protection, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was saying that it may well be about time we thought about getting television in the chamber so that the people of Australian would be able to see the acting we have seen in the House in the past few minutes. I noticed also that the Leader of the Opposition has some new speech writers who are refugees from the Fraser years. They are former Fraser staffers. I am surprised that they did not know that farm costs doubled under the Liberals between l977 and 1982. I am surprised that, in writing the speech that was just delivered, they did not mention that the wages explosion of 1981-82 occurred under the Liberal Party Administration of Prime Minister Fraser. I am surprised that they did not mention that farm costs this year are only 4.6 per cent, compared with 11 per cent under the Liberals in 1982-83. I am very surprised also that they did not record some of the other aspects of the disasters that occurred during the years of Fraserism. That is the fact of the matter, and next time the Leader of the Opposition speaks in the Parliament he would do well to mention a few more of the facts instead of going on with the sort of hypocrisy that we heard in the last 20 minutes or so. I have the great privilege to represent in this Parliament the electorate of Makin. I am its first member. I take this opportunity to thank the electors of Makin for the confidence they have shown in me and the Labor Government. I can assure them that I will do my very best to see that they receive vigorous representation in this place. Makin is named after the Hon. Norman Makin, a man who was a truly distinguished Australian. He represented the people of South Australia, first as the Labor member for Hindmarsh and later as the Labor member for Sturt and the Labor member for Bonython, for a total of 36 years. I understand that he was the third longest serving member of this House. He was the member for Hindmarsh from 1919 to 1946. During that period he was a Temporary Chairman of Committees from 1923 to 1929, again in 1936, and from 1956 to 1961. He was the Speaker under the Scullin Government from 1929 to 1931. Norman Makin also was a Minister in both the Curtin and Chifley governments. He was Minister for the Navy and Minister for Munitions from 1941 to 1946. He was Acting Minister for External Affairs in 1945. He was a member of the Production Executive of the War Cabinet from 1941 to 1946 and was a member of the Australian Advisory War Council from 1940 to 1945. In 1946, Makin resigned from this Parliament to become the first Australian Ambassador to the United Nations and to the United States, a post he held until the appointment was terminated by the Menzies Government in 1951. During that time he served as the first President of the United Nations Security Council in 1946 and 1947. He was awarded the United Nations peace medal in recognition of his leadership. In 1954 Norman Makin returned to this Parliament as the member for Sturt. In 1956 he was re-elected as the member for Bonython, a seat which he held for the Australian Labor Party until 1963. During that time he was once again a Temporary Chairman of Committees. In 1980 Norman Makin was awarded the Order of Australia and he died in 1982. He was a lifelong member of the Australian Labor Party. I met him on many occasions, especially during my time as Attorney-General in the Dunstan Government. I found from my discussions with him that we had many shared beliefs. His lifelong fight against poverty and inequality and his interest in achieving peace were common aims for us both and we each shared great faith in and admiration for Don Dunstan, the then Premier of South Australia. Although Norman Makin was a very old man when I knew him, it was my privilege to do so. It is my particular honour to represent the electorate that now bears his name. The Makin electorate is typical of average Australia. It has a high proportion of young families. It has a high proportion of home owners and home purchasers. It has a high proportion of medium wage and salary earners. It is a high growth area. But the electorate of Makin is not without its problems. First, there is the problem of housing interest rates which most people in my electorate, to a greater or lesser extent, bear. A particular problem in relation to that is the attempt by some of the major trading banks in recent times to talk up housing interest rates. We have already seen attempts to do this in the last couple of months. The issue affects many of my constituents and I will return to it in a few moments. Secondly, in some parts of the electorate there are still high levels of unemployment, especially amongst young people. Fortunately for these people, the Labor Party has been returned to government and they will be able to look forward with more certainty to some improvement in the situation in which they find themselves through no fault of their own. The achievements of the Hawke Labor Government in reducing the levels of unemployment have been very considerable. I will do all I can to ensure that unemployment is reduced further and that full employment in this country is again achieved. As I mentioned, many of my constituents are young home buyers. They have benefited greatly from the economic recovery and have been assisted directly by the Government's first home owners scheme. Others have been assisted by the substantial allocation of Federal money to public housing under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The electors of Makin have also been assisted in the area of public housing by the far-sighted housing policies of the Bannon Labor Government which for the past two years has allocated 100 per cent of its loan funds to public housing. In this way, it has played a major role in promoting recovery in the building industry which, in turn, has had flow-on effects throughout the South Australian economy and, importantly, has increased the stock of public housing in the State by over 7,000. When this and the low interest housing loans provided by the South Australian Government for low income earners are taken into account, it is easy to see the advantages that Labor governments bring to ordinary Australians. Home owners and purchasers have also benefited from the economic policies of the Hawke Labor Government. The reduction in inflation and home loan interest rates have been significant aspects of the economic recovery. As I have said, however, some of the major trading banks have not been acting as responsibly as they might in relation to interest rates on home loans. It is clear that some of them are more interested in maintaining high profits than in providing adequate funds to enable home buyers to have access to loans at reasonable rates of interest. There are a number of reasons why increases in home loan interest rates should be resisted. First, the banks are experiencing high profit levels and near record liquidity. In fact, the net operating profits of the four major trading banks alone was almost $750m in 1983-83. Preliminary figures for 1983-84 suggest that profits will be in the area of $1,000m. Second, real interest rates are at an historically high level. Third, the recent establishment of the national secondary mortgage market will give a substantial boost to available home loan funds. This in turn should exert strong downward pressures on home loan interest rates. It appears that the banks have realised this and have purposely remained silent on the advantages which will accrue from the secondary mortgage market. Instead, they are trying to make it appear inevitable that interest rates will rise. It appears that they are promoting a strategy to make sure that any subsequent falls in home loan interest rates will be compensated by earlier rises, thus overcoming any potential losses to bank income. Honourable members might like to reflect on the outcry we would hear from the benches opposite if the trade unions tried this sort of ramp. An interest rate rise of one per cent would increase monthly repayments for home buyers with a $50,000 loan at 11.5 per cent by about $10 a week. Wage and salary earners would need to receive increases in their pay packets of at least $12 before tax to compensate for such a rise. There is no doubt that any hike in housing interest rates would lead to inflationary pressures and demands for wage increases to compensate and would put the survival of the prices and income accord in real jeopardy. It is disappointing that some banks have taken the attitude they have during a period when economic stability is required to ensure that the benefits of recovery are not dissipated. The attitude and approach of the building societies and other non-bank financial institutions, such as the credit unions, have been far more responsible. Some banks seem to want the privileges of both deregulation and the old, regulated financial system without taking the responsibility offered to them by deregulation. The Australian people would be much better off if these banks accepted the responsibility they have as leaders in the financial system and, from the process of deregulation, used their influence to ensure the stability and orderly development of the Australian economy. It was the sorts of problems I have been talking about that led me to make a move from State to Federal politics. It had become apparent to me, expecially during the years of the recession, that it is simply not possible to effect any real change at the State level, other than at the margins, in the standard of living of ordinary Australians. Jobs, unemployment and the economy at large are affected most at the national level. As a State member of parliament who represented a strong working class electorate, I have been increasingly angry at some of the injustices that I saw on an almost daily basis. I can see no reason why, in a country which is as well endowed and rich as Australia, there are people who are homeless, people who are living in the streets or in caravans, in sheds or in the backyards of friends and neighbours and in cars, or who are crowded three or four families to a house in some cases and who, in some instances, live without hot water and heating because electricity costs are too high. I can see no reason why elderly people must spend two weeks at home and go out only once per pension cheque because they cannot catch buses-the steps are too high-and because they can afford only one taxi fare per pension cheque. The shops are a $6 ride there and back. They have fresh food for only a few days after each trip, which can hardly have a good effect on their health. I can see no reason why people must go without teeth because their teeth were extracted four years ago and they did not have access to the information, or because some so-called professional did not give them the information, that they could get free dentures from the pensioner dental service, or why those who do know must wait for three months and longer before they can get dentures. I can see no reason why education is still better for the rich than the poor, why some people can buy clothes off a clean hook from a new warehouse and from new fabric, while others must buy their clothes from a box full of old clothes that someone else does not want. I can see no reason why old people in need of care cannot find adequate nursing home or rest home accommodation. In view of the rapid ageing of the population, which we all know is happening, these problems inevitably are going to increase. I can see no reason why we have not re-oriented our health care services to provide such facilities as hospices for the terminally ill or why, because of the inflexibility of politicians, health administrators and medical practitioners, terminally ill people in pain cannot get access to heroin, which is recognised as the best pain relief for people in those circumstances. I can see no reason why conservatives are seen by some as nice people, fighting for a free society when, in fact, they are the ones responsible for maintaining the sort of economic structure which has created and continued the problems I have referred to. One advantage I had as a politician in a safe Labor seat in a lower socio-economic area was this: If I ever felt like taking things a little easy, like enjoying life in the Parliament, that mentality could not survive longer than the next day in the electorate office when again I would be faced with the line-up of the problems and discomforts faced by my constituents. These problems obviously had a very different face to those brought to the conservative members of Parliament in their lush, green, spacious suburban electorates. I am angry that this is not the just society that the conservatives insist it is. It is a society of haves and have-nots. There are those who have the power and those who have no access to it, and no chance to gain that access. There are those who are rich and have the information and the means so vital to enable them to enjoy the benefits of society and there are those who are not and who do not. I am angry because many of the problems which I describe could be resolved with the application of a little imagination, some lateral thinking and redistribution and reallocation, rather than the expenditure of massive amounts of money. In 1980 the new member for Wills, the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), pointed out in his maiden speech to this Parliament that the expenditure of $600m would eliminate poverty in this country. He said that, if the Fraser Government had been prepared to amend tax laws: to ensure that the laws in respect of taxation applied equally to the rich and to the less rich alive, then the revenue would have been available to effect this great purpose without any increase in the rate of tax. He went on to point out: If in 1979-80 taxes paid by the non-wage and salary earner category of personal income recipients had kept up the same proportion to taxes paid by wage and salary earners as they did in 1975-76, the public revenue would have been higher by $715m. As we are aware, the burden of taxation continues to be unfairly placed on pay-as-you-earn taxpayers, especially the lower and middle income earners. I have been quite vocal in my support for taxation reform in Australia. The debate on taxation reform is one of the most important facing us. If we fail to provide Australians with a just, equitable and progressive tax system we will be entrenching further the problems to which I have already referred. I do not believe that we should meekly accept the pronouncements about taxation that are fed to us by the so-called economic experts. Australia is the only member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development without death and gift duties. It is, with the Netherlands, one of two member countries without a capital gains tax. It is not a highly taxed country, although the tax burden in this country is unfairly borne by the middle class and the poor. We must ensure that the taxation burden is reallocated so that it falls more equitably. As the Prime Minister illustrated in his maiden speech, even a slight reallocation could eliminate poverty. Of course, since he made his estimates we have suffered another full term of the inequities of the Fraser Government, but his point remains valid. If we extend this point, so that we undertake more substantial reforms rather than act merely within the parameters of the existing system, however inadequate or otherwise they may be, not only will we be able to eliminate poverty in this country but also we will be well on the way to raising the living standards of the great majority of Australians in the lower and middle income range. It is of no credit to all the parliaments of this nation that a million Australians live in proverty. We should make a much greater effort to eradicate the grind of poverty from our nation. Following the Henderson poverty inquiry it is my view that with the database that that provided this House should have established a committee on disadvantage, inequality and poverty to spearhead the fight. The problem still exists; we should delay no longer. A parliamentary poverty committee could be a great educative medium, particularly for Liberal and National Party members who show no understanding of the magnitude of human suffering caused by our community. It would also be a focus for exposing the problem to the community at large. It would be a bold step and a sign from this Parliament that we have hope for the future and a belief that all Australians can be helped to share in a better life. I wish to raise one or two further issues very briefly. The first is that of Aboriginal land rights. I am proud to have been a member of the Dunstan Government which negotiated the land rights agreement with the Pitjantjatjara people in South Australia-an agreement which received bipartisan support and was enacted finally by the Tonkin Liberal Government after we had left office in 1979. We have an obligation to Aboriginal people which has been too long unrecognised. We must ensure that we achieve a just settlement which takes into account the interests and wishes of Aboriginal people. Recognising that I and all other members of this Parliament have enormous obligations in this place, I believe that one of the most fundamental is that we, more than any others, are the trustees of the Australian nation-at least for the duration of our time here. We are under a tremendous obligation to future generations of Australians not to leave this country in any worse condition than it was when we came here. Hopefully we will be able to pass it on in a better condition. I have come here as a representative of the Australian Labor Party and the trade union movement upon which it is based. I would like to thank all my supporters and campaign workers for their tireless efforts on my behalf. My campaign committee was composed of people who believe in the things that I believe in and who are concerned with the sorts of issues that I have raised today. It is my hope that I will not let them down. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mildren) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the next speaker there are two points I wish to make. The first is that this is the next speaker's maiden speech and I request that all members of the House extend the courtesies to that member to which he is traditionally entitled. I also remind the House that that is a courtesy, not a rule. There is an obligation on all members of the House, including the speaker, to recognise that. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(4.44) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was happy to defer to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) earlier and I very much appreciated his contribution to this debate. I rise to speak in this chamber very conscious of the honour bestowed upon me by the electors of Fisher. The electorate is situated in the south-east corner of Queensland, the great State of the north. I am aware that I represent all people in my electorate, regardless of whether to date they have favoured me with their support. I feel a sense of humility and am conscious of the great traditions of this place and of the Westminster system of government. I am proud to see our Australian national flag so prominent in this chamber and the Royal Arms above Mr Speaker's chair. Our flag is symbolic of Australia-its Christianity, its origins, its form of government and its position in the world in the southern hemisphere. Our flag must be preserved at all costs for future generations. It is indeed to be sincerely regretted that some honourable members opposite do not value our great heritage. I am pleased to support the motion so ably moved and seconded by the honourable members for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and St George (Mr Dubois). I wholeheartedly congratulate them on their efforts and I wish them a fulfilling, although not necessarily lengthy, stay in this place. It is interesting to note that we who are newly arrived in this chamber are berating our peers with what are officially termed 'maiden speeches'. I am pleased, but surprised, that the term 'maiden' has not been outlawed as sexist by those who worry about such trivialities. I hope that I will resist the temptation to be unduly provocative and I must say that I appreciate the traditional courtesy extended to me. I am informed that in the mother of parliaments in London courtesy and reasonable co-operation are regular occurrences whereas by comparison, this House has always engaged in constant guerrilla warfare. Perhaps this is the Australian way, but I would be sad if it were. Unfortunately, these situations have a habit of enduring. I would also like you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to pass on my best wishes to Mr Speaker and also to Madam Deputy Speaker on their respective elections. The non-partisan welcome and help given to me by both of them were truly appreciated. I might add that the very attractive garment in a becoming shade of National Party green worn the other day by Madam Deputy Speaker is no doubt tangible evidence of this very warm welcome. I have long held an interest in politics and government and, like the honourable member for Dobell (Mr Lee), have been a member of a party for many years. As with him, my interest in politics was nurtured by the dark days of the Whitlam years, although obviously in another direction. I am no stranger to elections and in fact, in 1975 was campaign director in Oxley. If it were not for the misguided decision of a relatively small number of voters, who knows what shape our foreign policy would now take? Fisher is an urban and rural electorate stretching north of Brisbane and inland to the Great Dividing Range. The major centres and districts comprise Strathpine, Lawnton, Petrie, Kallangur and Dayboro in the Pine Rivers Shire, Caboolture, Bribie Island, the Beerwah-Glasshouse Mountains area, and parts of the Sunshine Coast hinterland including Maleny, Montville, Mapleton and Kenilworth. From there we head inland to Woodford, Kilcoy, Toogoolawah, Blackbutt, Yarraman, Cooyar and Crow's Nest. It is a truly wonderful division, I am sure honourable members will agree. I am fortunate to have as my parliamentary neighbours the honourable members for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) in the east, Wide Bay (Mr Millar) in the north, Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) in the west and Groom (Mr McVeigh), Oxley (Mr Hayden), Petrie (Mr Hodges) and Ryan (Mr Moore) in the south. Together, we are members of all parties represented in this place and our co-operation on matters of common interest should ensure success. Within Fisher are some of the fastest growing residential areas in our country and I refer, of course, to the Pine Rivers and Caboolture shires. The Queensland National Party Government has done much to assist this development and I would like to congratulate the State Minister for Transport, Mr Don Lane, on the anticipated completion next year of the suburban electric railway as far as Caboolture. Many of my constituents work in the city and it is important to have a fast, efficient and reasonably priced urban transport system. I also make a plea to the Commonwealth to recognise the special problems that growth areas and their local authorities face. Continuing financial assistance must be given and I will be doing everything in my power to achieve this. The relevant Minister should certainly take note that I will be regularly beating a path to his door. Unemployment is a major problem among young people in the urban areas of Fisher, and unfortunately the Government's temporary job creation projects do not really address the need to provide long term, permanent, productive employment. It is utterly soul destroying for our young people to leave school with almost no hope of ever finding a job. It is a proven fact that those with time on their hands can be tempted into crime or be easy prey for those sick individuals who exploit young folk and supply them with drugs. Mr Katter —Monsters. Mr SLIPPER —Yes, absolute monsters. What is needed is assistance for small business to help create an economic climate in which small business can afford to employ more people. It is worse than useless for this Government to fiddle the jobless figures by adding people to the public payroll. Under this Government, public sector employment is one of the few growth industries. Small business throughout Fisher is big business and a major employer. It is utterly wrong for any government to consider business to be an enemy to be crushed at all costs. A healthy private sector means a healthy economy. I turn now to the country areas. One of my concerns is that our nation's greatest hopes for the future earning of export income are not receiving attention and support. Mr Katter —Not by the Labor Government. Mr SLIPPER —Certainly not by the Labor Government. I refer, of course, to the perpetually renewable resources of rural industries, many of which are situated in Fisher. The Government must consider the adverse effect that recent policy changes have had on these industries, for they have been, are now, and always will be the foundation of our country. I am pleased that the honourable member for Makin (Mr Duncan) mentioned that many members on this side of the House have the good fortune to represent very beautiful divisions, and Fisher is no exception. It is blessed with an excellent climate, rich soil and an ability to produce a vast number of rural products of excellent quality. We grow almost everything which goes into a fruit salad-from pineapples, bananas, pawpaws, citrus fruits and strawberries, through to more exotic varieties such as kiwi fruit and passion-fruit. I am sure that my constituency would welcome your patronage, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the patronage of honourable members. Other major industries include dairying, poultry and egg farming, beef cattle, grain and lucerne, as well as tobacco, ginger and vegetable growing. All these industries have their unique problems and display great initiative. For example, the Caboolture Butter Factory in my electorate is meeting the challenge of over-production by marketing a large number of new and original products in an aggressive free enterprise manner. Tourism is also a major industry, on Bribie as well as in nearby coastal towns and the Sunshine Coast hinterland. There are a vast number and variety of original attractions and beaches. Large numbers of refugees from southern States and left-wing governments are, to quote our excellent Premier Joh, 'voting with their feet' by selecting my electorate as a place to holiday or settle. As you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome them all. I am indeed fortunate to sit with this fine body of people comprising the National Party of Australia. I am particularly honoured that so many of them have seen fit to be present in this chamber to hear my maiden speech. I am pleased and honoured to serve with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), for as surely as night follows day-or should I say 'Hawke follows Whitlam'-in less than three years they will hold the nation's two highest elective offices. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will join me in congratulating them in anticipation. I am also pleased to see Senator Boswell and Senator Sheil present in the senators' gallery for my maiden speech. I wish to record publicly my thanks to Senator Lady Bjelke-Petersen, known as Senator Flo throughout the length and breadth of Queensland and Australia, for her extensive assistance in the election campaign. I am certain that this lady does not have an enemy in the world and I know that she is highly regarded by everyone who meets her. I would be remiss if I did not record appreciation to my parents and family, to my campaign director, Bruce Page, from Peachester, and his wife, Helen, and my entire campaign committee for their obviously fruitful efforts on my behalf. I am also indebted to Mrs Yvonne Chapman and Mr Bill Newton, the very effective and hard-working National Party State members for Pine Rivers and Caboolture who also played key roles. In addition, my thanks go to other State members whose electorates are partly included in Fisher-Deputy Premier Bill Gunn, Minister for Industry, Small Business and Technology, Mike Ahern, Gordon Simpson, Tony Elliott and Tony Fitzgerald. I also see Miss Cathie Gregor, State Secretary of the Queensland Young Nationals, in the Speaker's Gallery. The Young Nationals are, of course, a very fine organisation which I have served as State President. As a former State President of the Young Nationals, I know that it is a very fine organisation. The Federal division of Fisher was created by the redistribution prior to the 1949 election, which saw Sir Robert Menzies returned as Prime Minister. Undoubtedly, with the obvious exceptions of Prime Ministers McEwen, Fadden and Page-I hope that my Leader has noticed what I said-Menzies was our greatest Prime Minister ever, and he remained firmly at the helm of Australia for a record term. Fisher has seen its size, shape and composition altered from time to time at the whim of various redistribution committees. Since its creation, it has been represented by only three members. A great Queenslander and Australian, the Rt. Hon. Sir Charles Frederick Adermann, father of my predecessor, served in this House, initially as the member for Maranoa and then as the inaugural representative of my present seat. He was elected to this Parliament on no fewer than 11 occasions and in 1955 his constituents thought him so worthy of continued support that he was unopposed. It may be too much to hope that my constituents may be similarly impressed in the future. Sir Charles's contribution to the nation has been immense and equalled by few others. He served as Deputy Speaker, Acting Speaker, Minister for Primary Industry and Deputy Leader of the National Party under its former name. He was an excellent Minister for Primary Industry, for he understood his subject fully. Many honourable members, particularly those opposite, would not be aware of the tremendous debt which Queensland and Australia owe to Sir Charles Adermann. He fanned the political aspirations of Queensland's long-serving Premier, encouraging him to seek Party endorsement for the former State electorate of Nanango. If it were not for the efforts of Sir Charles Adermann, Queensland today would not be privileged to have Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen as its leader. Indeed, the whole of Australia is no doubt grateful that Sir Joh is there to keep any socialist government in line. The second member for Fisher, Mr Evan Adermann, is still serving in this House, very effectively I might add, as the honourable member for Fairfax. Evan is a modest, sincere and dedicated person of excellent character and he possesses Christian principles. He has served the nation as a Minister of the Crown for almost five years and is a reservoir of common sense, decency and parliamentary knowledge. I could continue extolling the honourable member's virtues; however, I will desist lest it should sound like an obituary. I am pleased to be on his left in this chamber-in a geographic sense, I hasten to add-and thank him for his help and guidance. I would also like to thank my good friend the honourable member for Maranoa for his excellent representation of those areas I inherited from him in a political sense in the last redistribution. I am told that a maiden speech gives one an opportunity-and I understand that such opportunities are very rare-to expound one's personal philosophy a little. Being a member of the National Party, I believe in the maximum possible freedom of the individual from bureaucratic and governmental interference. There must be, of course, respect for the Crown and the rule of law, as well as our judicial system and parliamentary institutions. Accordingly, I am somewhat saddened by the standard of dress now permitted in this chamber. Mr Katter —Shocking. Mr SLIPPER —It is indeed shocking. I support less taxes and less government, along with the principle that there should be reward for initiative, enterprise and hard work. In common with many others in this place, I am a supporter of the principle of States rights, and as a lawyer I have been concerned at their steady erosion since Federation. An immediate worry is the complete misuse, or should I say abuse, by this Government of the Federal external affairs power. Decentralisation of political power and the reversal of current trends must be a top priority for the next government. It is, indeed, a sad state of affairs that more and more decisions affecting Queensland, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia are being made centrally by this Parliament, in which those States have little more than numerically nominal representation, albeit of excellent quality. I agree with the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who said in his maiden speech a number of years ago: We believe that Tasmanian decisions should be made by Tasmanians. We believe that West Australian decisions should be made by West Australians. I am sure he would not mind if I added that Queensland decisions should be made by Queenslanders. Since the election my electorate office has been inundated with queries from constituents rightly fearful of Labor's savage assets test on pensions. For this reason, I have given notice to this House of an intended motion condemning this brutal imposition on our senior citizens. I am also concerned at the erosion of family values and at the attack on the family as the basic unit in our society. Alas, time waits for no man, so I must move on. Other matters that must be addressed are the question of constant industrial anarchy and outrageous Aboriginal land claims, as well as the need to follow Mrs Thatcher's sterling example by moving in the direction of privatising nationalised companies and government enterprises. Government is necessary, but we must always remember that it is a necessary evil. Under successive administrations in this country the public sector has spread its unwelcome tentacles in hitherto unthought of directions. Quite frankly, Mr Speaker, it is now time to take a stand and to be honest to our philosophy. It is fitting that my electorate should be named in honour of the Rt Hon. Andrew Fisher, one of Her Majesty's Privy Councillors and Prime Minister of this nation on three occasions. He was a man of great principle and a person who exercised his many abilities in advancing the Labor cause. He was a great supporter of the idea that the Labor Party should be the political voice of the working man, and in his day it certainly was. Andrew Fisher was loyal to his sovereign, to the institution of monarchy and to his Party. He gave an outstanding example to everyone who came into contact with him. As Prime Minister, Fisher made an unqualified promise of support to Britain. Honourable members on both sides of the House would know of Fisher's famous declaration that 'Australia would assist the Empire to her last man and shilling'. He decided to resign in 1915 as a result of friction in the Labor Cabinet. Nothing much changes. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said so eloquently in this chamber a couple of days ago, 'so we are where we were and we were where we are'. I intend to serve my electorate, my State and this Parliament to the best of my ability in the tradition of my predecessors, so that I may be considered and counted worthy to be their successor. Time is short and mine has almost expired. Like the right honourable member for New England more than 20 years ago, I would like to adopt the words of Sir Winston Churchill, who said: This is not the end, it is not even the beginning of the end, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning. I thank the House for its kind indulgence to a new member. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before calling the honourable member for Burke, I would remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech, and I trust he will be extended the usual courtesies. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(5.05) —I come to this House as a consequence of the recent Federal redistribution. Whilst the seat of Burke has retained the same name, it is effectively a new electorate in central Victoria. I must acknowledge the work of my predecessors, the honourable member for Ballarat (Mr Mildren), the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby), the previous honourable member for Burke and present honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous), and you, Mr Speaker, in your capacity as the honourable member for Scullin. The efforts of my colleagues as members of this place have paved the way for me so adequately. The seat of Burke represents a wide cross-section of social and economic conditions and life styles. In fact, I believe it to be representative of the wide challenge which faces our Government as a whole. This seat includes outer metropolitan areas, such as West Meadows, Bethal and Coolaroo-disadvantaged areas which require close attention and support from our Government. There are satellite centres, such as Craigieburn, Sunbury and Gisborne, which are experiencing growth and the strains upon community support services, such as housing, child care and health. Elsewhere in the electorate are major rural centres and provincial towns, such as Castlemaine, Bacchus Marsh, Kyneton and Daylesford, and the fringes of Bendigo and Ballarat. They need our encouragement and assistance in the decentralisation of industry to provide them with stability and growth. I have in my electorate smaller country towns which have their own unique characteristics, such as my home town of Heathcote and the town of Woodend, which is now a blending of commuters who travel to Melbourne for their work and the traditional farming and rural base on which the area has been established. Also there is Maldon, which is an historic centre which is building upon the mining and pioneering heritage of the district and which is recognised by the National Trust and is being preserved under the direction of this Government. In this seat there is a unique blend of life styles and objectives. It comprises people who, despite major changes in their rural, industrial and working circumstances, or tragedies, such as the recent bushfire disasters, have shown remarkable determination and resilience in the face of adversity. My conviction and that of this Government is to embrace their needs and meet these challenges. The Government program announced by the Governor-General follows upon the first term of the Hawke Labor Government. In March 1983 this Government was elected to bring Australians back together on a course of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. In that first period of office the Government established confidence in itself and turned round the economy. Three key components of the economic strategy have achieved the turnaround. Firstly, there is the prices and incomes accord, which is the foundation stone of this Government's economic policy. The prices and incomes accord has been principally responsible for the current inflation rate of 5.1 per cent-the lowest rate in Australia for 12 years. We have given a stimulus to the housing industry, for which we make no apology. The injection of funds into public housing and the first home buyer's scheme has contributed to getting this industry on the move again. Most significantly, again through this Government's economic management, there has been a fall in interest rates which has directly stimulated home buying. The Government has turned to the use of the public sector for job creation schemes, such as the community employment program, the jobs on local roads program and the bicentennial road development program. The effect of these programs can be seen all through my electorate. They are excellent programs and they are achieving the Government's objective of providing job opportunities for the long term unemployed and other disadvantaged groups in the labour market. I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) of a further $8.7m worth of CEP work in Victoria-providing 622 new jobs. I draw particular attention to a project to be conducted by the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, which will employ 10 people for 26 weeks on preparing regional reports on bushfire prevention activities and undertaking fire prevention work, including the clearing of roads and fire breaks-a worthwhile project funded under the community employment program. While speaking on fire prevention, I welcome the announcement by the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) of the Government's intention to set up a new bushfire research unit at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, to establish a National Centre for Rural Fire Research at the Chisholm Institute of Technology and, through the Industrial Research and Development Grants Act, to provide a feasibility study into a computer assisted disaster management system. In talking about disaster management, I congratulate the Victorian Government for managing to tackle the task of emergency services co-ordination. Through its work in Victoria there has been a major advance in the organisation of emergency services to combat bushfire disasters. The lessons learned from the Ash Wednesday fires were significant, and they enabled Victoria to cope with the recent bushfire outbreaks there. While speaking on the Victorian Government, I also want to comment on the significant developments in education. After a decade of industrial disputation and government inaction, in one term the State Labor Government has turned a polarised and inflammatory environment into one of close working relationships and substantial industrial harmony. I give credit also to the teacher unions that have responded with the formation of their teachers federation and that now play their part in a consensus of parents, teachers and government in Victorian education. The Victorian Government has also conducted a major overhaul of administration, with significant devolution of power and influence to local school councils. Most importantly, because to me unemployment is a major priority, I commend the Victorian Government for the way in which it has embraced job creation schemes to get people back to work. Through its own employment initiative program and the flow-ons of our Government's community employment program, the results have been put on the board in Victoria. That State now has the lowest unemployment rate in Australia. Given the scope of the Burke electorate, I have also announced my intention to work closely with the 21 local government bodies in the electorate, for I believe that that is the best medium through which I can most effectively represent my constituents. This Government is committed to local government as the third tier of administration and our strong links with local government will result in the successful implementation of our programs. I cite the City of Broadmeadows as an indication of what can now be achieved by Labor governments co-operating at the Federal, State and local levels. I can give personal testimony of this because I grew up in the City of Broadmeadows and I am aware of the results of years of neglect and disadvantage during successive Liberal governments at the Federal and State levels. Now in Broadmeadows, after one term of Cain government and one term of Hawke government, we have a new technical and further education college, a community health centre, a basketball stadium, a new courthouse and police station to assist in the administration of justice, a new town park and an ethnic community council and migrant resource centre have been established. Today the Cain Government has announced another $10m project to reconstruct the Broadmeadows station. Around $25m has been allocated in one term of government. Mr Speaker, during this term of office, as outlined in the Governor-General's address, the major objective of this Government will be to reform the taxation system and the approach that we are adopting is to have a tax summit to allow the various components of Australian society to come together and make an input. It worked at the National Economic Summit Conference and it will work at the tax summit. I see the reform of the taxation system as our most important objective because we are determined to achieve a fair and equitable system. We want to eradicate the opportunities for tax rip-offs and rorts which characterise the current system. We want to and will achieve these aims. Not long ago I attended a management development conference stressing improved worker participation and industrial democracy. The keynote speaker, a person of international renown, indicated to the seminar that Australian workers, when given the scope to demonstrate their initiative and capabilities, are among the most inventive and ingenious in the world-particularly on weekends. On weekends we manage to organise community groups and sporting teams; we demonstrate administrative, economic and budgetary skills; we can build extensions and renovate houses, build holiday homes and overhaul and maintain motor vehicles; and can even become barbecue gourmet chefs. But the speaker at this seminar stressed that the problem lies not just with increasing the skills of the work force in Australia but with improving management and the effective use of our labour force. We have the capabilities within this country; management must learn to use them. That is the thrust of the Government's initiatives to improve worker participation and industrial democracy. I believe it is appropriate also to indicate something about my personal approach to being a member of this Parliament. I say that in reference to the shameful events of November 1975. The sacking of the Whitlam Government brought into question the whole Westminster system. At that time Gough Whitlam urged us to maintain our faith in the process of parliament. He urged us to maintain our rage, but to maintain our faith as well. I have done so and I turn to those on the other side of the House and point to their deplorable behaviour at that time which brought great discredit on this Parliament. In fact, very little has changed. Prior to the recent Federal election the Opposition stooped to personal attacks on the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and again reduced the public perception of this place to an all time low. One asks why members of the Opposition behave in this manner. The basic problem is that they are bereft-they are bereft of philosophy, they are bereft of expertise and they are bereft of the ability to govern. Take their philosophy, once again exposed in this House just a few moments ago by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). For years they have gone on about free enterprise, always coupled with cries for cutbacks in public expenditure and deregulation of business. During their period of office, from 1975 to 1982, they presided over an expansion of public sector debt to a projected $9 billion. That was the deficit to be left behind for our Treasurer (Mr Keating). They presided over massive expansion in regulation and control and a massive increase in small business bankruptcies. Their Country Party-or National Party, as they prefer to be called-colleagues continually bleat for one subsidy or protection scheme or another, but that is not what the rural sector needs. It does not need subsidies or handouts-it needs orderly and creative marketing and management and co-ordination of its productive capacities. The rural economy was once the back-bone of this nation; now we on this side are being asked to rebuild in a term what it took them twenty years to run down. We will rise to the challenge and we will win the full respect of the rural sector in so doing. I take pride in drawing attention to the announcement of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of the formation of the Government's primary industry, rural and provincial affairs committee. The new committee will increase the status of primary industry and rural affairs within the Hawke Government and it reflects the importance of the Government's commitment to Australia's rural communities. It will ensure that members and senators who have day to day contact with constituents in rural areas will have input to the process. It is the first step in fulfilling this Government's pre-election promise to better integrate government activities as they affect rural Australia. Economic management is more than just rhetoric and slogans. There can be no better example than the approach of those on the other side of the House to wages policy when they were in government. In 1975 there was total support for a centralised wage fixation system. They urged plateau indexation, which was a total disaster leading to confrontation with wage earners bearing the brunt. By 1982 they had totally abandoned that position, opting for free market direct bargaining. Why such a turnaround? It was because their whole policy was based on the economic slogan of fight inflation first, without any real understanding of the causes and interactions involved. It was just a discredited philosophy which produced nothing but unemployment and misery for countless Australian families. Who coined phrases such as 'dole bludgers' and 'life wasn't meant to be easy'-no pun intended? Nothing has changed. There are still no policies and no philosophy; just outdated rhetoric. Actions speak louder than words. Our Government has produced the goods and our Government will continue to do so. In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Clerk and his staff for the assistance in my induction into this place. I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker, on your election to your positions in this Parliament. I thank the people of the electorate of Burke for their confidence and support. I assure them of my commitment to represent them in this Government to the best of my ability. I give a special indication of my appreciation and support to those members of my campaign committee and other members of the Australian Labor Party, in and out of the Burke electorate, who supported me. They know that I see myself as their representative and I have a commitment to working closely with them. Of course, I thank my family and, in particular my wife Rhonda and my boys Michael and Andrew because they must continue to support me in my parliamentary career. I take this opportunity to thank those honourable members present for the courtesy they have shown me during my maiden speech. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Casey, I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech. I trust that the House will allow him the usual courtesies. Mr HALVERSON(Casey)(5.23) —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I offer my warm congratulations on your recent appointment. It is my honour and privilege to serve the people of Casey as their representative in this Parliament. I thank the electors who placed their trust and confidence in me and the many people who supported, encouraged and assisted the campaign of the Liberal Party of Australia in the Casey electorate. This is an office which encompasses duties, responsibilities and obligations awesome in their magnitude and diversity. I stand ready and willing to accept the challenges and I am prepared to pursue with dedication and commitment the best interests of my constituents. I am very grateful and unashamedly proud to have this opportunity to be of service to my electorate and my country. Casey is situated to the north-east of Melbourne. To the south its boundaries are outer metropolitan suburbs; to the north the Great Dividing Range. The electorate covers approximately 750 square kilometres and includes suburban, semi-rural and rural areas, with industries ranging from heavy secondary to pastoral. The concerns, needs and interests of the people of Casey are complex, distinct and varied, reflecting the contrasting demographic and geographic features which combine to give the electorate its microcosmic character. This electorate bears the name of one of Australia's most distinguished sons, Richard Gardiner Casey, whose outstanding career of public, political and parliamentary service spanned six decades. As a soldier with the first Australian Imperial Force he served at Gallipoli and on the Western Front and was awarded the Distinguished Service Order and the Military Cross for his personal bravery. As a Cabinet Minister in times of both peace and war his responsibilities included the portfolios of Treasurer, Supply and Development, External Territories, Works and Housing, National Development and External Affairs. As a wartime diplomat and trouble-shooter, a member of Britain's war Cabinet and in the difficult and dangerous role of Governor of Bengal during the critical period leading up to India's independence, he became friend, confidant and trusted adviser to world leaders, including Churchill and Gandhi. He developed and maintained lifelong interest in and influence on Australian scientific and technological progress, particularly through his close association and involvement with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. In the early 1950s, Casey recognised that Australia's position would alter from being a British-European outpost to being an independent, stable and significant leader in an Asian environment. He realised also the importance of strengthening and safeguarding the Australian-American alliance. He implemented a post-war foreign policy designed to be relevant and beneficial to what he perceived correctly as Australia's future role. He was created a life peer in 1960 in recognition of his outstanding and loyal service to Australia and the British Commonwealth. In 1965 Lord Casey became the third native-born Australian to be appointed Governor-General. He served this office with distinction and dedication until his retirement in 1969. He died in June 1976 aged 85, having devoted nearly three-quarters of his lifetime to serving Australia. His wife, Maie, contributed a wide range of talents in her own right to the Casey career which, in many ways, was a partnership. From my experience I know how important it is to have the help, support and encouragement of a loved and loving wife. Lord Casey sincerely believed in, and rigorously and without hesitation applied to his own life, the concept of service to country above self. Soldier, diplomat, statesman, talented and gifted, a gentleman in the true sense of the word-he was all these things. But more importantly, from first to last, he was a patriot. It is to the continuing detriment and disadvantage of Australia that we do not have more men and women of the calibre of Richard and Maie Casey. It may be argued that such people are born and not made but without an environment that nurtures and encourages the ideals that make a country great-patriotism, nationalism, optimism, endeavour, the spirit of adventure, identifying and responding to challenge-it is unlikely, if not impossible, that greatness will emerge, develop or even survive. It is a sad reflection on the current state of our nation that patriotism and nationalism are becoming tainted and unacceptable words and that sacrifice, courage, discipline, loyalty, devotion to duty and love of country are, to many, unfashionable concepts or embarrassing cliches. Some may briefly rally to the cause during the cricket season or the Olympic Games. Certainly we break out the green and gold, balloons and streamers, perhaps even our coats of many colours, to celebrate a magnificent national sporting victory such as winning the America's Cup. But such universal displays of national fervour are rather short lived. If honourable members stopped 10 people in the street and asked them to repeat the words of our national song they would find that nine of them do not even know the first line. This may be symptomatic of the fact that there is now only limited room, if any at all, in the busy school curriculum for exercises such as the singing of our national song or saluting our country's flag. It may indicate also the first successes of a small but vocal minority who are committed to 're-educating' the rest of us in regard to our British traditions. These same people are happy for us to spend millions of dollars restoring examples of early Australian architecture. They will even arrange demonstrations and organise strikes to ensure that we do. The vast majority of these buildings originated in the early days of British settlement and display the unmistakable influence, if not the actual handwork and craftsmanship, of British settlers from both sides of the bars who pioneered this country. Yet, to a large extent, these people are the sponsors and supporters of current efforts to replace our flag because it reflects our early ties with Britain; something about which they consider we should not be reminded in the context of the intangibles of pride in our traditions but to which they have no objection in the realities of bricks and mortar. Altering the design of our flag will not and cannot alter facts that are now history. Australia was a British colony, a part of the British Empire. Fortunately it remains-at least for the moment-a member of the Commonwealth, the most successful and stable international political alliance ever established. Our parliamentary system, our legal system and the protections and safeguards of our system of government which are reinforced by a constitutional monarchy, are all traditions we have inherited from Britain and they are inextricably woven into the fabric of our Australian heritage and our Australian society. To claim that a new flag would be an appropriate gesture for our two-hundredth birthday to signify our independence, our rebirth as a nation in our own right and our long awaited-by some-severance of our ties with Britain, is to replace reality with absurdity. Rather than proving we have come of age, it will be a startling example of our immaturity and an unnecessary exercise in divisiveness. We are already an independent nation. If we have not yet come to grips with this fact, a green and gold flag-even one with shooting stars or a kangaroo rampant-will do little to alter our internal attitudes. It will have even less effect on our international standing. Australia is not faced with any current threat and is unlikely to be faced by any future threat which could be directly attributed to her historical links with Britain. We are, however, certainly a nation at risk and the immediate danger comes not from without but from within. We are in the midst of a self-generated identity crisis, uncertain about who we are, why we are and where we are going. Our smouldering bewilderment is being fanned and fuelled by those committed to promoting ideologies and a new social order foreign to Australia and totally unacceptable to the vast majority of Australians. If we allow it to flare unchecked it will rapidly engulf and destroy those values, standards and traditions which are the keystones of our democracy and our Australian way of life. The immediacy and reality of this threat manifests itself in readily identifiable ways. Our education system is being increasingly used as a means whereby political propaganda is disseminated and instilled in the impressionable minds of our student population. What better demonstration of this alarming trend than the recent announcement by Premier Cain of his intention to distribute 'education kits' to Victorian schools to explain and justify his nuclear-free State and peace policies. That such a blatant abuse of our educational resources and facilities should even be contemplated, much less publicly promoted, is indicative of the present crisis in many of our schools. Institutions which once proudly encouraged the pursuit of excellence, of striving to do one's best, are now reduced to accepting second rate as near enough, and near enough as good enough. We already have a generation of young Australians who have been deprived of their faith in themselves and their hope for the future. It is a depressing fact that, in this International Year of Youth, many thousands of them will turn to drugs, alcohol, crime-or even, as a last resort, suicide-as they struggle to find a solution to their despair, distress and disillusionment. No doubt they will be encouraged-quite wrongly, but nonetheless very convincingly-to regard our free enterprise system as being the cause of their troubles and lack of opportunities. They will respond accordingly. Unemployment continues at frightening levels. The tragedy of wanting to work but being unable to find a job is just as devastating and demoralising, if not more so, for those over 40 years of age as it is for those under 20. Most people who are in receipt of the unemployment benefit would prefer the satisfaction and dignity of working for their pay to receiving what they and the rest of the community perceive as a no strings attached handout from the Government. One possible solution to their dilemma would be to reintroduce a system of national service. National service should mean just that-to be of service to one's nation. It is the small price one should be prepared to pay to live in the finest country on earth. It does not necessarily mean military service, conscription or enlistment. It should not be interpreted as encouragement of, or preparation for war. It would simply be an additional means of creating a range of useful and practical employment opportunities to provide options for those who prefer working for their pay to being paid for not working. There should be no embarrassment, fear or hesitation in being prepared and able to contribute to one's country and community through a proper national service program. Another obvious and permanent solution lies in stimulating the private sector, particularly the small business sector, which has the potential capacity and capability to provide self-funding employment on a large-scale, permanent basis. Instead, the Government persists in adopting short term 'band-aid' measures, funded from the public purse. The non-productive nature of most of these projects ensures that the long suffering taxpayer will have little relief from that most depressing of occupations-public purse refilling. Penalties are now being imposed on what once was regarded as responsible citizenship. One example is the iniquitous, socialist inspired assets test. People who have worked hard, scrimped and saved to achieve security and peace of mind in their twilight years are now threatened because of their diligence, initiative and thrift. Honest, decent people are being turned into liars and cheats as they attempt to protect what is rightfully theirs. Our senior citizens are not only stripped of their hard earned, so-called assets, but also of their dignity and pride as they are subjected to the probing of big brother bureaucracy, determined to deprive them of any suspected over-abundance of wealth. No other section of our community is forced to suffer such a distressing and disgraceful invasion of privacy as having to reveal, perhaps even justify, their lists of personal possessions to an impersonal inspector who may knock at their door on behalf of the state. Another grave concern is the undermining of the role and responsibilities of the traditional family unit. We must act now to preserve the stability, sanctity and strength of normal family relationships and bonds currently threatened by unacceptable and trendy alternatives, some of which have already been condoned by government legislation. Moral values and standards-such as respect, self-control and self-esteem, regard for rights, welfare and well-being of others-are not unnecessary or old-fashioned concepts; they are guidelines which ensure the growth and development of a decent, disciplined and civilised community. Families need special support, consideration and protection. They must be provided with the environment and encouragement which enables them to cater for their own needs and manage their own affairs. They do not benefit from attitudes which belittle or diminish their status or influence. To sanction any further decrease in the already rapidly declining position of the traditional family structures, standards and values is to guarantee the collapse of a fundamental and most important unit in our society. In direct contrast to this background of our current actual experience of socialist policies based on unnecessary government interference and increasing government intervention and regulation, we have been promised a Bill of Rights to ensure the freedom of our society and guarantee our privileges as individuals. In reality, this Bill of Rights is a Bill of constraints and caveats. If it is ever implemented, it will effectively deny us our traditional freedom of choice and will offer in its place a whole new concept-freedom to do as we are told. In concert with the current attack on our links with Britain is a more sinister, more far reaching and more potentially disastrous campaign against our American allies in the ANZUS alliance on which the security and prosperity of this country depend. Our relationship with the United States of America is vital-it must be based on mutual trust and co-operation. It is tinged with suspicion and apprehension. We are being mislead and manipulated by those who claim to be motivated by concern for the future security and stability of the world in general and this country in particular. Australians, particularly young Australians, are being frightened by continual talk of the possibility of a nuclear war instead of being encouraged to appreciate and accept the reality of a nuclear peace, a peace which is secured by the nuclear capability and strength of America, the only country in the free world able to match the battle power of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Whilst that power remains balanced, we have our best chance of a lasting peace and of retaining the freedoms and liberties we now so often take for granted. Until they are actually fired in anger, the weapons of war retain a proven potential and positive role as instruments of peace. Our security has now been jeopardised by the actions of State socialist governments in denying our allies access to our ports and the Hawke Government in denying the United States of America the facilities required to assist in the testing of MX missiles. Once and for all, the true allegiances of some members of the powerful socialist Left faction of the Australian Labor Party have been revealed. Let no-one be deceived by this shameful exercise in trading the future security of Australia for personal ambition in the short term and the furtherance of the socialist ideology in the longer term. In this Parliament we debate policies and issues which affect the lives of all Australians. The decisions made here must be based on what is right and fair for Australia and Australians, and the correct decisions may not always be the popular ones. This powerful and privileged institution is the embodiment and guardian of the democratic rights and freedoms of this nation and her people. The men and women who seek to serve in this place may be motivated by many reasons. Mine were quite simple: I believe that our rights and freedoms must be protected, and I love my country. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the honourable member for Hunter, I point out to the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and I ask all members of the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr FITZGIBBON(Hunter)(5.41) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I extend my congratulations, though belated, to you and Mr Speaker on your well deserved re-election to the high offices you both hold. I am humbly proud to be a member of this Thirty-fourth Parliament and particularly proud to be a member of a Labor Government which is fiercely determined to create a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society. I am grateful to the people of my electorate who placed their confidence in me and elected me to this place. The people of the Hunter electorate are splendid citizens. They are warm, friendly, sincere, honest and hard-working and are possessed of a remarkably well developed sense of responsibility and patriotism. To them I give my solemn promise that I will serve their interests as fervently as my abilities allow. My thanks are expressed publicly in this place to my campaign director, Mr Wal Scott, to my parliamentary colleagues in the Hunter region, both State and Federal, and to that passionately loyal band of Australia Labor Party supporters who supported me so magnificently and worked so tirelessly and unselfishly to ensure my election to this House. I also pay tribute and express my most deeply felt gratitude to my wife, Anne, and my two sons and two daughters for their love, loyalty and commitment, which went far beyond what any husband or father could reasonably ask or expect. I take this opportunity to place on record my appreciation of those people who have in the past given conscientious representation to the electorate I now represent. The seat of Hunter is one of the original Federal seats and its first member was our nation's first Prime Minister-Edmund Barton, later Sir Edmund. Matt Charlton served the electorate well for 18 years and the Jameses, father Rowley and son Bert, served the electorate for a remarkable span of 50 years broken only by a three-year period served by the great Dr Herbert Vere Evatt. The new electorate of Hunter is an amalgam, a bit like a four-piece jigsaw puzzle. The new seat of Hunter has been given 18,000 voters from the seat of Paterson. I feel sure that many honourable members would have noticed that Mr and Mrs Frank O'Keefe were in attendance when this Thirty-fourth Parliament was opened. Frank O'Keefe gave 15 years of distinguished service to this House and I know that honourable members are unanimous in their respect for Frank and Nance O'Keefe. I am sure honourable members wish that lovely couple the long and happy retirement they so richly deserve. The honourable member for Lyne, Mr Bruce Cowan, in a rare moment of mental aberration, let slip through his fingers 18,000 of his finest constituents who are now happily enrolled in Hunter. I thank the honourable member for being a good shepherd to these voters, but I assure him that they have come to a better pasture. I congratulate the honourable member for Newcastle, Mr Allan Morris, on his matchless display of generosity for permitting some 6,000 sensible voters-I need not explain why they are sensible; they happen to vote for the Australian Labor Party-to be enrolled in the new Hunter electorate. I now mention a man to whom I owe a great deal, more than I can ever repay-Robert James Brown, the honourable member for Charlton. The honourable member for Charlton has served in the New South Wales Parliament and this Parliament with great distinction. I thank him and his wife, Joy, for their friendship. When the honourable member switched to his present electorate he left 14,000 of his former voters in the electorate of Hunter. I speak for the overwhelming majority of that number in saying thank you to Bob Brown for a representation which was the epitome of personal and political commitment. I feel very proud and honoured that my name now stands among those I have mentioned. They are men who have made-some of them are continuing to make-a magnificent contribution to our nation's political system. Hunter is like many other Federal country electorates. It has 13,000 square kilometres of mixed agricultural and industrial pursuits. The main centres of population are Maitland, Cessnock, Beresfield-I will get them all on record-Singleton, Denman and Merriwa, which are joined by smaller but no less vibrant townships such as Woodberry, Tarro, Thornton, Lochinvar, Branxton, Greta, Neath, Wollombi, Bellbird, Pokolbin, Paterson, Gresford, Jerry's Plains and Sandy Hollow. Every honourable member would be aware of the extent to which the Hunter electorate is one of this nation's main engine rooms. I assure my honourable colleagues that every dollar spent in my electorate will advance Australia far further than the same dollar invested elsewhere. It is no exaggeration to state that when the Hunter Valley is going well the rest of this nation is going well. At the moment the nation is not exactly aglow with good health. However, it is certainly doing far better now than it was doing before Labor gained control of the treasury bench. I wonder what transfer fee honourable members opposite would be prepared to pay for the Labor Party's Treasurer, Mr Keating. Before the advent of the Hawke Government this nation was afflicted with an apparently terminal illness brought about by policies which had a pretty rough gestation. These policies were conceived by divisiveness, nurtured in the womb by deceit and incompetence, and, if they escaped abortion, saw the light of day as uncaring degenerates devoid of social conscience. There was not too much wrong with the coalition's policies. They had only one fault-they did not work. It was a lucky day for this country when the Hawke Government was elected and able to put into practice a coherent set of economic and social policies which have put us on the path to recovery. No apology is necessary for reminding honourable members on the other side of his House of the miracle achieved by the Hawke Government in its first two years in office. At a time when members of the Fraser Government had thrown their arms into the air in despair, the Labor Government set about producing the strongest and most sustained economic performance for decades. What agony the conservative members opposite must have suffered when opinion poles showed that their supporters considered the present Treasurer and his team to be superior managers of the economy. How galling it must have been for them to see Labor's successes in halving the inflation rate and slicing the rate of unemployment. How they must be kicking themselves as they observe the success of Labor's pursuit of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction, which won the support and admiration of all sectors of the community, including the business and rural sectors. Opposition members may well chorus that Australia still has its problems and, indeed that is true. But in the honest recesses of their hearts they know what history has proved-that when the going is tough the best bet is a Labor government. The going does remain tough in the Hunter Valley. Because of its industrial and manufacturing base, the Hunter has been ravaged by unemployment problems. Some towns in the Hunter Valley have unemployment figures double that of the national average. The people of the Hunter electorate, however, welcome the concern that our Government has shown towards the unemployed and they applaud the initiatives that are being taken to generate employment opportunities. I refer to the broadening of the community employment program, the new enterprise initiatives scheme, the increased support for apprenticeships and pre-apprenticeship training, work experience opportunities, the community youth support scheme programs and the reforming of labour market programs to give greater emphasis to improved training and works skills development. All these are evidence of the Government's genuine concern for the unemployed and evidence of this Government's determination to act rather than to mouth ineffectually words of sympathy. The House is aware of the recent crippling train strike in the Hunter Valley and its effect on the nation's credibility at a time when coal and wheat producers are fighting desperately to retain and gain markets and thus ensure employment. As I moved in the House last week, which motion was greeted with a chorus of derision by the Opposition, congratulations are due to those in the Hunter Valley who have come together in a spirit of consensus to create a consultative committee which will work for an early settlement of disputes which are likely to interrupt the passage of coal between mines and ships. The people of the Hunter Valley are deeply appreciative of the Government's commitment to revitalise and restructure our manufacturing industries so as to increase our competitive strength. The buoyancy and viability of our manufacturing and fabricating industries are central to the prosperity of the Hunter electorate. The steel industries assistance plan is crucial to our welfare. Voters in the Hunter Valley well know that, were it not for the Hawke government, there would not be a steel works in Newcastle. The Government has formulated positive policies designed to promote small business opportunities and to stimulate industrial development. In this House I will pursue the development of policy initiatives in that vital area. The electors in the Hunter Valley will endorse this Government's commitment to assist the restructuring and revitalisation of industries in the rural section. Of particular concern to me is the plight of our dairy industry. We have many fine dairy farmers in the Hunter Valley. From meetings I have held with dairymen, I find them to be responsible and sensible. But they are deeply and justifiably worried about the problems confronting them. They and I appreciate the efforts being made by my good friend the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin), who is striving mightily to find solutions to the problems of the dairy industry. Dairymen in the Hunter electorate are aware that the powers of the Federal Minister are restricted by State Government considerations. However, they are delighted that the Minister is prepared to visit Singleton to witness the problems of the industry at first hand and to establish a meaningful dialogue with them. We all know the problems confronting the man on the land because of the agricultural policies of the European Economic Community, and for other reasons. But it is not to the Opposition's credit that it has deliberately falsified the facts about many rural problems. Opposition members claim that farm incomes are at their nadir when in actual fact farm incomes were at their lowest in 1982-83 when the rural community was being strangled by conservative hands. From 1977 to 1982, under the coalition, farm costs rose by 200 per cent whereas this Government has kept farm costs increases below that of the consumer price index. Also of great importance to the Hunter electorate are the wine and tourist industries. Members of this House, due to the generosity of Wyndham Estate wines, will have ample knowledge that the Hunter wines-there may be some disagreement-are the best in the world. Vignerons have survived the 10 per cent wine tax but it is important that the industry not be made a milking cow. I urge the Government to take action to protect the Australian wine industry from the dumping of imported wines. However, I will have the opportunity at some future date to speak further on Australian wine protection. I emphasise that the Hunter electorate, because of its wines, its history and its proximity to Sydney, to mention only three factors, has the greatest tourist potential of any area in Australia. We have the visitation figures to back that claim, despite oversights such as that by the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in failing to allow Paul Hogan to publicise our valley. I point out that these visitation figures have been achieved despite the fact that our roads offer small inducement to tourists to visit our area. In fact, if anything, our roads are a deterrent to visitors. But, after years of neglect by successive Federal coalition governments, the roads in the Hunter electorate lay claim to being among the worst in the nation. It is only now, due to the energetic efforts of the present Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) that a fair proportion of road grants is being allocated to overcome the backlog in road construction which exists in the Hunter Valley. Good roads are necessary for many reasons. Towns such as Merriwa and Denman need good roads to counter isolation. The Hunter needs good roads for the heavy vehicles engaged in industrial and mining works. Good roads would triple the tourist dollar spent in the Hunter and we know the employment value of the tourist dollar. Because the Hunter electorate has virtually no public transport, good roads are even more essential. I turn now to a problem of such proportions that it constitutes nothing less than a national scandal. Because of constraints of time I will refer to this matter but fleetingly as I intend to pursue it at length in a future debate. I refer to a problem which is a major contributor to health and pollution problems in cities and towns in every State of the Commonwealth. Of course, I refer to the tragic backlog of unsewered premises. In this field, as in many others, conservative governments have a disgraceful record. The Whitlam Labor Government's initiatives were the first responsible efforts to eradicate the sewerage problems which exist. In successive Budgets, the Whitlam Government provided nearly $300m to assist the States to eliminate sewerage problems. I congratulate the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren), who was the Minister responsible for that magnificent national sewerage program. But, of course, the program was ruthlessly dismantled by the Fraser Government. Not only did the Fraser Government fail to keep its promise to turn on the lights but also it denied hundreds of thousands of Australians the opportunity to pull the chain. I will return to discussion of sewerage problems at an early opportunity to seek assistance for those people in my electorate who are denied an essential health facility. Since my time has almost expired, I can do no more than to say that this Hawke Government is a caring government, a government concerned equally for this nation's youth, its adults and its senior citizens. It will provide a simpler, fairer and more efficient tax scheme. It will give increased assistance to local government authorities. It will provide better opportunities in education, health and transport. Honourable members would not think so to hear some of the debate in this House in recent times, but the Government will also work for international peace. It will eradicate poverty and create a better lifestyle for every Australian. This Government in the Thirty-fourth Parliament will bring to this nation and its people a new hope, a new confidence and a renewed sense of pride and achievement. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I will delay calling the honourable member for Parkes for a few seconds, because at the beginning of the last maiden speech there was a lot of noise that was disruptive. Before calling the honourable member for Parkes, I point out that this is a maiden speech. I ask the House to observe the usual courtesies. Mr COBB(Parkes)(6.01) —It is with a mixture of excitement and humility that I rise to speak for the first time in this place. When I was a small boy my father eked out a living from the soil by ploughing it and harvesting its produce with draughthorses. I guess in those days neither he nor my hard working mother ever dreamt that one day their son would have the honour of sitting in this esteemed chamber representing others who also struggle to make a living from the land. I am proud also to be the first member for the newly-created seat of Parkes, which is named after Sir Henry Parkes, the father of Federation. The Parkes electorate takes in the main towns of Forbes, Parkes, Canowindra, Molong, Wellington, Gilgandra, Coonamble, Narromine, Trangie, Warren, Nyngan, Bourke, Brewarrina and Wanaaring. It is centred around the city of Dubbo, one of the most rapidly growing, free enterprise centres in Australia. I thank the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) who, before the redistribution, serviced most of what is now the Parkes electorate, for he left it in very good shape. The size of the electorate is 125,000 square kilometres. I invite honourable members to compare this with the size of the 28 Sydney electorates which altogether total less than 3,500 square kilometres. We could almost throw a blanket over some Sydney electorates. Indeed, we could fit all 28 of them within the Parkes electorate 36 times over. That example serves to highlight the fact that, although we may have the principle of one man, one vote in this country, we certainly do not have one vote, one value. My electorate is made up mainly of rural industry and small business. One of the main rural industries is wool. Some of the best and most famous merino studs in the world lie within the Parkes electorate. We also have some of the best wheat growing areas in Australia. Other primary industries include beef cattle, fat lambs, much of Australia's cotton and many irrigation products. The risks of rural industry are high and the hours long. Though export earnings are substantial for Australia, the net profits to producers are either low or non existent. The many farmers who have money borrowed to carry on often cannot meet their interest payments. The position small business finds itself in is often no better. It is an education to doorknock nearly every small business in my electorate from Forbes and Parkes in the south to Coonamble and Bourke in the north to hear the tale each relates. Though each may use different words, they all tell the same story. The average small business in the Parkes electorate is built on the family unit and employs as little outside labour as possible because of the high costs of that labour. The average owner of these small businesses works 60 to 70 hours a week, has a relatively high capital outlay of hundreds of thousands of dollars, yet earns only $100 to $200 a week, much less than any staff he or she may employ. It is not as if these people are providing something which is not wanted. Their very existence is the reason many country towns continue to survive, but they are being strangled in a Gordian knot of red tape and crippled by the rate of taxes, licence fees, council and union regulations and every other device thought of by desk-bound bureaucrats to suck dry the life blood of these people's existence. These examples are not invented stories. I only wish that I could take a delegation of any doubting members and Government Ministers around some of these businesses in my electorate to hear and to see the situation for themselves first hand. Even to call in to refuel one's car at an isolated service station in a town with only 10 people and to find that that petrol station has to have six licences before being allowed to operate makes one wonder at the madness which pervades this country at present. The message one gets from all this is clear: If we work, if we invest, if we take a risk and have a go in Australia today, the Government and the bureaucrats will punish us, grind us down and tax us to the status of peasants. On the other hand, if we choose not to work, not only will the Government leave us alone, it will also reward us and send us a cheque in the mail every other week. The system we have in this country today is completely upside down and I, for one, make no apology for the fact that much of my time spent as the member for Parkes will be devoted to restoring the position to what it should be. There are many issues that I will pursue as a member in this Parliament. Basically these issues stem from my belief in free enterprise as not only the best system but also the only system that will maximise the well being of the people on this planet. If we take the 171 nations of this world and scale them from one to 171 according to how well off is the average man, an interesting correlation falls into place. By 'well off', I use two criteria: The degree of freedom and the purchasing power of the average citizen. Those countries at the top of the scale are ones such as the United States of America, whose system most closely approximate free enterprise. Below the United States of America are countries like Japan, Canada, West Germany, Australia and, still, New Zealand. As we move away from the free enterprise system through the mixed economies and socialist systems, not only does the standard of living of the average worker decrease but the gap between the rich and the poor within those countries widens. At the bottom of the list are the communist, totalitarian and dictatorship regimes, many of which are located on the African continent and in Asia. However much the left wing may hate the capitalist system and however much it may espouse the theory that ownership is better in public rather than private hands, the fact cannot be denied that in practice the average worker is better off under a free enterprise system than under a socialist one such as exists in the Union of Soviet Socialist-I stress the word 'Socialist'-Republics, the USSR. Wherever in the world the two systems exist side by side the average worker votes with his feet every time for the free enterprise, capitalist system. It is a fact that more people want to defect from East Germany to West Germany than from West Germany to East Germany. More people want to flee from mainland China to Hong Kong or Taiwan than the reverse. More want to go from North Korea to South Korea than the other way round, and we all know which way the migration patterns take between Cuba and the United States of America and Mexico and the United States of America. Even on the African continent, with the repugnant apartheid system of South Africa, more blacks are wanting to migrate from Mozambique to South Africa than from South Africa to Mozambique. Even in Australia we see more people shifting homes from New South Wales and Victoria to Queensland than the other way round. The reason why the free enterprise system always works better than the socialist alternative is that it better suits human nature. If we own something privately we will look after it more carefully and always have an incentive to add to it. However, if we share something with everyone else we are more inclined to neglect it, even abuse it, and have less incentive to work harder to add to it. Before the revolution, Russia was the biggest exporter of grain in the world; now it is the biggest importer. For all its faults, the free enterprise system has proved to be the best for most people all of the time or, to paraphrase Winston Churchill, the free enterprise system is the worst one in the world, except for all the others. Crucial to any free enterprise system is the maintenance of incentive. The greatest incentive of all is that if one earns something one is allowed to keep it. Unfortunately, if one is an average worker in Australia today, for every extra dollar one earns, one is forced by law to give almost half of it away in tax, most of which is spent on others. The temptation to cheat on this law is therefore high and the incentive to work more for this country is therefore low. Consequently, we see that fewer and fewer people exert themselves above a certain level. In fact, the highest marginal tax rate of 60 per cent collects very little tax at all-about $700m-contrary to what was originally intended. The simplest way to overcome the cheating and the incentive problems is to have just one single or flat rate of tax which need be set only at about the 23 per cent level to gather the same amount of tax as we collect now. With the incentive to work fully restored, more tax would eventually be collected and the 23 per cent rate could actually be lowered later. This system is also very fair. If one earns five times as much as the next person, one pays five times as much tax. If one earns 10 times as much, one pays 10 times as much tax. What could be fairer than that? I have found an amazing acceptance of the concept of the flat tax rate by people of all political persuasions within my electorate. Provided steps are taken to maintain pensioners' real incomes, the party that has the foresight and the intelligence to introduce this system will win an enormous section of the Australian electorate. I move now to the falling value of the Australian dollar. I must say that I am sorry that no reference was made to it in the Governor-General's Speech when Parliament opened. The dollar has fallen because people are waking up to the fact that the economy is in worse shape than the Government has led us to believe. However, I congratulate the Government for having floated the dollar during the term of the last Parliament. As the saying goes, every cloud has a silver lining. The floating of the dollar was the one good thing the Government did during the term of the last Parliament. Clearly, it was something the previous coalition Government should have done years before, but never quite had the fortitude to do. Although the dollar's fall is a reflection of our poorly managed economy, it is nevertheless good news for exporters, at least in the short term. Unfortunately, the increased prices we must now pay for our imports will force up the consumer price index and eventually flow on to increase wages, so locking us into another inflationary spiral. Neither side of the House wants that. To overcome the inflationary problems resulting from the falling dollar and at the same time to retain the benefits the falling dollar gives our export industries, I advocate to the Government that now is the time to lower tariff protection. Tariff reductions now would lower many import prices to their levels of only a short few weeks ago and so would not harm the import competing manufacturers at all, such as the car makers and textile producers. Here is the chance to make these industries more competitive in the long term without harming them in the short term. It is one of those magical moments in Australia's economic history which I hope this present Government has the common sense to recognise and the courage to grasp. It is a no lose situation. I repeat: Carefully managed tariff reductions now will retain the benefit of the falling dollar for exporters which would be of enormous benefit to them. As import prices will come down to their previous levels, all the importers in Australia will also be delighted, instead of wearing the long faces they wear now. Even the import competing industries will see it as the best thing to do as it will make them more competitive on world markets, which is essential if they are to have a long term future. If the Government cut tariffs now it would be hailed in the media and across the country as an economic miracle worker. If politics can be likened to a game of chess, perhaps I am telling the Government of the one move that could checkmate the coalition at the next election, when most observers sense we will be in a winning position. Nevertheless, it is such a beautiful move that I must point it out, for if the Government is bold enough to play it the whole of Australia will be the beneficiary. I turn now to possibly the saddest problem in the whole of the Parkes electorate-the plight of the Aboriginal people. I have recently returned from Bourke, that town so indelibly etched into Australia's outback history. Even the term 'back o' Bourke' has become part of our folklore language. I am sad to report that Bourke today is a virtual siege town. Bricklayers have bricked in many shop-front windows in the main street because they have been broken so many times no insurance company will insure them any more. People cannot go window-shopping in these areas because there are no windows. Those who still have windows have them meshed and barred. Ceilings are meshed too, and some of the most sophisticated computer burglar alarm systems this country has seen are in operation there. I have seen one room protected by no less then ten locks. If photographs were permitted in Hansard I would ask permission to have included in it some of the shots I took of all this. One cannot make a public telephone call out of Bourke. None of the telephones work. There are stories that when people go out at night they take their videos with them to a video baby-sitting service so that they are not stolen. Bourke has 27 police. Apparently, that is more police per head of population than in any other town in Australia. Unfortunately, the new laws do not allow the police to do much these days. They are not allowed to kick backsides any more and tell children roaming the streets at 3 a.m. to go home. The police themselves could be charged if they did so. The few cases that do get to court are treated indifferently. The laws of this country today are designed more to protect the rights of the criminal than the rights of the victims. Occasionally someone with 40 or 50 offences is convicted and sent away to a rehabilitation home for a few years. However, when he returns in a few weeks and chalks up another five to 10 offences in the first week back it is not hard to see why the locals are frustrated and angry. Many locals I talked to are on the verge of shutting down their businesses and moving out. They are holding on only a few weeks longer to see whether something can be done to improve the situation. In the meantime, the tourists are staying away and the town is getting a bad name. I am not talking about the Iraq-Iran border; I am not talking about El Salvador; I am talking about a town in Australia, a town in the Parkes electorate-Bourke. Even though many people are suffering from this problem, it seems to me that the people suffering the most are the black people. We are destroying them as a race. By patronising them, by treating them differently from the whites and by lavishing them with money and handouts we are creating a bitter division between the white and black communities. We have stripped away nearly every shred of dignity that these once proud people had. I say to all honourable members in this chamber: For goodness sake, stop thinking we can solve the so-called Aboriginal problem by writing more cheques in ever-increasing amounts. It has not worked overseas, for example with the Red Indians in the United States of America; it will not work here. I know it is fashionable to label anyone who even dares question our Aboriginal policy a racist, but I say that if we are genuinely concerned with what our present handout mentality policies are doing to these people, if we have a shred of compassion left in us for their well-being, and if we only take the time to go out into the field and see what is happening, we must surely change our present, lazy, easy-way-out cheque book policy in an attempt to save these people before it is too late. I have touched on many topics in my opening address. I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker and Mr Speaker, on your election to the esteemed positions you hold today and I thank you for the courtesies that you have shown me as a new member of this Parliament. I thank the House for hearing me as it has done today. I look forward to the future so that I can make a positive contribution to this great country in the many areas that need attention. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(6.21) —I begin, Madam Deputy Speaker, by warmly congratulating you on your election and I ask you to convey to Mr Speaker my congratulations also on his election to that position. I know from my experience during the Thirty-third Parliament that you will each discharge your responsibilities with very great distinction during this Thirty-fourth Parliament. For government today efficiency, honesty and competence must be the minimum requirements. They must go hand in hand with social planning, justice and a clear sense of direction-a vision for the future. While Australians may have their political differences, most of us share a similar vision for the future. We look for government which offers a sound combination of good management and good policies and we want a society that is both prosperous and fair and in which every person and all families have a chance to grow, to participate and to share in the nation's wealth. As a Victorian, I am proud of the quality and the achievements of both the Federal and State governments and of the very close partnership and co-operation that exist between the Hawke and Cain governments. Victorians want good government and not just cheap gimmicks. In just two days time all Victorians will choose between a further term of good government or an alternative of gimmicks and advertising hype. Over the last four years Victoria has been properly managed. The State Ministers have been welded together into a tight and competent team. The State is now being run efficiently with long-term plans and co-ordination between departments. Budgeting and financial management have been modernised. There are no land deals under the Cain Government. Instead there is a widespread recognition, even among non-Labor supporters, that the Cain Government is a clean and honest government. The Victorian Government has faced up to difficult and tough decisions. Those decisions have been made when they have had to be made. Some examples have been the proposed reforms in workers' compensation, the Alcoa smelter decision, the issue of casinos and action against the Builders Labourers Federation. Under the Liberals those decisions were put off for ever, and they would be again under a divided Liberal-National Party coalition. Most importantly for all Victorians is the fact that in just three short years Victoria has become Australia's strongest and fastest growing economy. Victoria is, indeed, leading Australia's economic recovery. Almost all of the objective evidence, such as the major economic indicators and statistics, now confirm this. Victoria has the nation's highest job growth rate and its lowest rate of unemployment, especially and particularly among young people. Economic and investment growth in Victoria tops that of all States. Industrial disputes have been reduced by some 70 per cent since 1981 and the inflation rate is half what it was under the Liberals. The Victorian housing industry also leads Australia's housing recovery. The results of that economic recovery are starting to be recognised outside Victoria. New projects, worth literally billions of dollars, are getting under way, like the Chia development in South Yarra and the Esso-BHP oil and gas project. Last month Victoria was awarded a triple A rating-the highest international rating given to a government for the performance and reliability of its economy. Victoria is the only Australian State to achieve that recognition, which has actually been given to very few national governments. Finally, late last year Commonwealth statistics showed that for the first time in more than 14 years more people were actually coming back to live in Victoria than were leaving it. These are achievements of which all Victorians can be proud. By a combination of positive policies and long term planning and, importantly, by working in partnership with the community and the Hawke Government, Victoria now faces its brightest economic future for many years. There have been claims during the Victorian election campaign that the Cain Government is a high-taxing government. Similar claims were made of the Hawke Government prior to the recent Federal election. What is so ironic about these claims by the Liberal Opposition is that its own policy documents show clearly that taxes increased by 29 per cent under the previous Hamer-Thompson Liberal Government in Victoria and they have increased by a far more moderate 8 per cent under the Cain Government. What is even more remarkable in the context of taxes and charges is the claim by the Liberal Leader, Mr Kennett, that under a Liberal government there would be no increase at all in taxes in the first year of a Kennett government. Mr Kennett's promises, of course, simply do not add up. It is something of a mark of his inexperience and perhaps ineptitude as a political leader that there is now a $1 billion credibility gap between his spending promises and the potential revenue base. Mr Kennett has released a package of promises which is quite intentionally unachievable. In fact, it is totally unachievable. His only objective in that approach can be to diminish people's faith in the democratic process. No doubt many Victorians will make their own assessment and judgment of Mr Kennett's ability and experience to lead Victorians. No doubt all Victorians will question whether a man who makes the claim that the Victorian Premier, John Cain, is unfit to leave alone with one's daughter, is himself fit to represent the people of Victoria. Similarly, the people of Victoria must judge whether Mr Kennett's claim that the Hawke Government's national economic summit was akin to a meeting of the Grand Council of Fascists is really an accurate description of the many distinguished business and community leaders, unionists, and politicians who made up that summit. Finally, the 20 per cent of Victorians employed in manufacturing industry must wonder whether Mr Kennett's economic development policy, which makes not one mention of Victoria's vital manufacturing industry, is really a competent document from an aspiring Premier. As Federal member for Bendigo I have been able to witness at first hand the remarkable development of the Bendigo area in the three years of the Cain Government. I have seen the new police station, the new fire station, the new White Hills primary school and the new tourist information centre. The North Bendigo railway workshops have been upgraded, more than 40 elderly person's units have been constructed and only last week the Premier officially opened the new $10m Sandhurst reservoir. Most pleasing of all is the strong economic recovery in Bendigo's private sector, which has seen unemployment fall by 20 per cent and the strongest ever program of support for decentralised industry by a State government. In context of Bendigo's development, it is somewhat amusing to hear the Liberal Party of Australia again claim that the Cain Labor Government discriminates against country people. Apart from the programs I have just mentioned, such as the new police and fire stations, new school buildings and new tourist infrastructure, the Cain Government has embarked on a major program of bringing new services to country people. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr BRUMBY —I was talking earlier of the great partnership and the great co-operation which have developed between the Hawke Government and the Cain Government in Victoria. One of the areas in which that partnership is very evident is in the fight against inflation, in which nationally and in Victoria we have seen inflation halved during the last two years. It is essential for continued economic recovery and for international competitiveness that the fight against inflation be continued, and both the Hawke Government and the Cain Government are pledged to continue that fight and to support fully the very successful prices and incomes accord. It is a matter of great concern, when looking at the policies of the Liberal Kennett Opposition in Victoria, to look particularly at its policies in the so-called areas of deregulation. In the release of its policy on deregulation, it has announced 11 critical policy areas in which it would be deregulating areas of government activity. Deregulation of those areas which the Opposition has suggested would be in no small way a recipe for economic disaster. Indeed, it is estimated, on very conservative measures, that the deregulation in the areas it has suggested would add between 5 and 10 percentage points to the consumer price index. I mentioned that 11 areas are involved. I shall briefly refer to four of those. First, of course, the Kennett Opposition is totally in support of the deregulation of wages. I do not think there is any doubt that in a period of strong economic recovery, as we have at the moment, deregulation of wages would lead to increases above and beyond those of the consumer price index. As evidence of that claim, we need only look back to the years of 1981 or 1982 under the Fraser Government, when it walked away from centralised wage indexation and we saw a very significant increase in wages. Secondly, deregulation of health care would be of great concern. It is noticeable that only some months ago the Victorian Liberal Opposition supported a 17 per cent increase in hospital charges, compared with a 5 per cent increase which was approved by the Cain Government. All Victorians would be asking themselves how people would cope if hospital charges rose by 17 per cent under a Kennett government because, in addition, it is the Opposition's policy to allow catch up in private health insurance, so we would see significant additions to the cost of family health care. Thirdly, agriculture is an area proposed for deregulation, and there is no question but that the Liberals' policy states that they intend to abolish the orderly marketing boards which have provided such stability to our primary industries. Prices in many areas would rise or fall erratically and our farmers, who are so vital to the economic prosperity of Victoria, would become virtual supermarket employees. Fourthly, petrol pricing concerns me greatly as a country member of Parliament. Here again, the Kennett Opposition is pledged to removing the Cain Government's trigger price maximum on petrol. That would see the price of petrol throughout Victoria leaping overnight by up to 2c per litre. In the other context of petrol prices, the Liberals' transport policy commits them to removing motor registration fees and replacing that money with a levy on petrol equivalent to approximately 5c per litre. In just those four areas there is a recipe to add between five and 10 percentage points to the consumer price index. That would throttle the economic recovery which has been so strong in Victoria. I conclude by reinforcing a point I made earlier. The claim of the Liberal Opposition is that the Cain Labor Government has somehow, in its past three years of government, discriminated against country people. Apart from the programs in Bendigo which I mentioned earlier, such as new fire and police stations, new school buildings and new tourist infrastructure, the Cain Government has also embarked on a major program of bringing new services to country people. More than 5,000 children in country Victoria have been seen by the school dental service, and the elderly citizens have warmly welcomed the new low-cost denture and spectacle scheme for country pensioners. Government departments, such as the Department of Health, have been regionalised, and Bendigo's designation as a Strategic A Growth Centre has brought new assistance to country industries which have never before been assisted by a State Government. The expenditure of more than $40m over the next four years on upgrading Victoria's grain handling facilities is sound evidence of the Government's commitment to our primary producers and, of course, the $32m program for salinity control really puts the Liberal and National parties to shame over their total absence of support for salinity control in Victoria during some 27 years of conservative government. They did nothing for salinity control. A great deal of long and overdue good work by the Cain Government and an excellent and co-operative relationship with the Hawke Government have substantially benefited Victorians. What a State government does affects not merely our lives but those of our children and of all Victorians. Victorians demand and deserve the best possible government. That means government with the best performance, the best leadership, the best team and the best policies for the future. In summary, Victorians deserve good governments and not just cheap gimmicks and advertising hype. Mr SPEAKER —Before calling the honourable member for Mayo, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(8.08) —Mr Speaker, I should like to join my colleagues in congratulating you and Madam Deputy Speaker on your re-election to your high offices. As a new member of this House, I am deeply conscious of the honour the electors of Mayo have shown me in returning me as their representative. I am also deeply conscious of the very great responsibility they have vested in me to represent their interests. The new electorate of Mayo covers the Adelaide Hills, the Fleurieu Peninsula and Kangaroo Island, as well as the town of Murray Bridge. Mayo is a district which derives its livelihood from farming and from a wide range of small businesses. The farmers and small business people in my electorate are a typical cross-section of those parts of the community which create such a large proportion of Australia's total prosperity. They are the real, but often forgotten, wealth creators. I shall be a tireless advocate for my electorate and for the interests of its farmers and small business people, but neither my electors nor I shall be pleading for special, uneconomic consideration, which will not be in the national interest. All we shall be seeking from this place is a fair deal and the leadership to allow our industries, our district and Australia to get ahead. That leadership must be based on a clear understanding of the national interest and it must be based on a definable set of values, not a craving for popularity or political survival; values which provide the means to achieve sustained rates of economic growth, values which offer greater stability and security for individuals in a rapidly changing social environment, and values which provide national security in an unstable and unpredictable world. It is not leadership to base policies on deals with selected and privileged interest groups, and it is with some regret that I note that the underlying current of many of the Government's policies carries with it the flotsam and jetsam of those deals. It is always a danger for any government to become the champion of certain sectional interests. Whilst it is clear that the sectional group with the strongest grip on the present Government is the Australian Council of Trade Unions, it is by no means the only sectional group to which the Government is beholden. I make no secret of my surprise at the way a minority of carefully selected business people and groups have less than vigilantly fought for the interests of the community, just so they can dine with Ministers and promote their selfish and sectional interests. One of the consequences of embracing sectional interest groups, rather than providing leadership and direction, is that their cries for special consideration are always about wealth redistribution rather than wealth creation. So many of those groups are still singing the tired old rhetoric of the 1950s and 1960s. They are still debating ways of redistributing the nation's wealth, but not ways of increasing it for the benefit of all Australians. In the 1950s and 1960s growth was almost automatic, and it was certainly expected. In that climate the debate about redistribution of wealth may have had some relevance, but that is the saccharin rhetoric of yesterday. Today the challenge is quite different, yet many have failed to perceive this change. Today the challenge is to provide a climate for sustained and sustainable wealth creation. It is because that problem has not been addressed in the last two years that the economic recovery is sadly now beginning to falter. To generate greater prosperity requires an understanding of the general structure of the Australian economy. Put necessarily simply, Australia has two almost separate economies, and one is holding back the other. On the one hand is the slow track economy, dominated by the heavy manufacturing sector and labour intensive industries. It is an economy which is uncompetitive and often inefficient, yet it is retained with a safety net of anti-competitive regulations and high levels of protection. On the other hand is the fast track economy, dominated by efficient export-oriented industries, by the rapidly growing services sector and by the new, fast-emerging information industries. I note that many of these industries are based around small, efficient firms producing what could be termed mid-technology products, such as agricultural and mining machinery, and, of course, a very wide range of services. These small firms have become the big employers. In the United States of America, for example, 60 per cent of the thirty million most recent jobs created are in firms which employ less than 20 people. These are, of course, the firms and industries which thrive on a more deregulated market, on hard fought competition, and which depend on a realistic domestic cost structure which takes account of the international market-place. It is the web of regulations and the network of government intervention which, while propping up the slow track industries, are holding back those in the fast track. It is in the national interest that the fast track economy be given the opportunity to develop and that a substantial restructuring of the slow track economy takes place. Only then will the dead hand of the slow economy be lifted from the shoulder of the fast economy. It is the role of government to ensure that the appropriate framework exists for this change to take place. Any government which is hostage to special interest groups will be unable to manage this essential revolution, and thereby will discard the national interest. I am confident that there is now a growing community-wide recognition that steps towards substantial structural adjustment of the economy, and a process of deregulation and liberation of the market, is necessary. That was certainly borne out by public support for the conclusions of the report of the Campbell Committee of Inquiry into the Australian Financial System and also for the floating of the dollar. But the process must be comprehensive, not ad hoc. It must recognise the conceptual linkages between policy areas, and nowhere is that more true than with the labour market. While on the one hand the Government has moved to float the dollar, on the other hand it has locked Australia into one of the most rigid labour market regimes in the Western world. As the dollar declines, so Australia multiplies the inflationary impact of the devaluation and of course employers are hit with higher import prices. In addition, they must pay a further estimated $1 billion so far in wage increases due to the devaluation, because wages are not linked to supply and demand; they are linked to the consumer price index. Consequently, the advantages of devaluation are cancelled by inconsistent government policies. Honourable members are, of course, very familiar with the debate over the liberation of the labour market. We on this side of the House are not advocating the total dissolution of the present industrial relations system. All we are seeking is a labour market which is more responsive to the supply and demand for labour in individual industries and which enables individual firms to bring a sense of personal involvement into these essentially human issues. The linkages between labour costs, company profitability, employment levels, tax receipts and even welfare programs, deserve to be acknowledged, not just by the Bureau of Labour Market Research or the report of the Kirby Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs; they must be acknowledged by the Government. This same lack of consistency applies in both the transport and communications industries. Until the Government has the courage to cast off the incubus of union regulation and consequent government involvement in those industries, our fast track economy will struggle to find its feet. The irrational regulation of those industries is a serious limit to growth and prosperity in this nation. I turn now to yet another and fundamental aspect of economic management which, if we are to achieve sustained rates of economic growth, demands the application of those same principles of ensuring that the fast track economy is able to maximise its wealth creating potential. That cannot be done if the overall size of government which is in essence unproductive continues to grow almost exponentially. It is in this context that I note, with some degree of interest, the Government's commitment to what has become known as the trilogy. No one in the business or farming communities would deny that these objectives are laudable, but it will require a real growth rate of 4 per cent for each of the next three years for it to be achieved, and that will not be possible if the fast track economy is not liberated. Even if the trilogy is achieved, the starting point is one not only of massive expenditure but also of public debt which has been escalating alarmingly. Over the last two Budgets the average annual growth in government outlays in real terms has been 6.9 per cent, which compares with an average of 2.2 per cent for the seven Budgets of the Fraser Government. The real average annual growth in the Budget deficit over the last two Budgets has been 14.9 per cent, which compares with a 6 per cent decline during the Fraser years. The reality of the rapid growth in public expenditure is three-fold. First, the funds are not being deployed in capital investment projects; they are being spent on current consumption, thereby depleting, not adding to, the nation's prosperity. They are, in fact, redistributing wealth not creating wealth. Secondly, it has ensured that real interest rates in Australia have remained considerably higher than rates in our major competitor countries. While in Australia the commercial prime rate is around 9 per cent in real terms, in the United States it is 6.25 per cent, in West Germany it is 5.7 per cent, and in Japan it is 3.2 per cent. Clearly, this has a major bearing on the capacity of the fast track economy to grow. Equally seriously, expansionary fiscal policies have contributed to a rise in the public debt, from one-third of gross domestic product in 1975-76 to just under one-half in this financial year. Over the same period interest on this debt has increased from 2.7 per cent of GDP to 5 per cent of GDP, and the devaluation of the dollar has only exacerbated this problem. The growth in the public debt is placing unnecessary burdens on the community and again on the fast track, export-oriented economy and industries. Let me once more remind the House that a large public debt may be acceptable to the privileged few who participate in concensus, but it is manifestly not in the national interest; nor are the high levels of taxes and charges which result from massive expenditure and a substantial public debt. I welcome the commitment made in the Governor-General's Speech to taxation reform, for there is no doubt that our taxation system is too complex, it is unfair and it is insufficiently neutral. I very much hope that once the Government has dispensed with its tax summit publicity it will act with both courage and determination, ignoring the squeaks and squeals of the special interest groups, and will introduce a fairer and more neutral taxation system. While, ipso facto, taxation has a redistributive function, taxation must also be geared in such a way as to maximise our economic growth potential. But in a sense, these issues are secondary to the urgent need for substantial reductions in expenditure. If the Government really wants another summit, I call on it first to hold an expenditure summit, to put together a package of proposals which will significantly cut spending, thereby opening the way not just for more efficient and fairer taxes, but also for a much smaller overall tax burden. Many other aspects of regulation and taxation need carefully to be examined if the Government is to give the fast track industries a chance to sprint ahead while the slow track industries jog along and in some cases, sadly, finally drop out of the race altogether. Never has there been a more explicit expression, though, of the Government's failure to open the path for the fast track industries than in the latest balance of payments current account figures. They quantify at a stroke how much work there is left to do to fire up our fast track export oriented industries. Australia is also looking for leadership in the field of social and welfare policies. To date we have found governments locked into the post-war welfare state mentality which is economically unproductive and socially disruptive. The only solutions offered to the unemployed, for example, have been publicly financed short term job creation schemes or the dole. Both sap the economic vitality of the community as a whole and the self-esteem of the unemployed. More thought should be given to how the dole can be paid not as compensation for failure but as an opportunity to achieve. Public funds should be used, as the report of the Kirby Committee to Review Productivity and Innovation Programs suggests, to help train young people for jobs in the rapidly changing economic environment or in return for constructive and socially beneficial community service. In that context there is scope, in my view, for much closer co-operation between Federal and local governments in the area of dole payments and community work. By doing that, we would begin to move away from the disruptive and debilitating welfare mentality towards socially and economically constructive solutions to our society's enduring problems. While such changes in strategy may not win the approbation of those partners of consensus, they would enhance the national interest. As a former member of the Australian diplomatic service I would feel negligent in this, my maiden speech, if I said nothing about the security of our nation. I do so not because it is currently an issue of public controversy, and of very serious public controversy, but because it stands as the grandest illustration of what I and my electorate believe to be the national interest. At no time since the inception of the ANZUS Treaty has it been under greater threat, not just as a result of the recent disastrous decisions taken by both the Australian and New Zealand governments but also because Australia has been buffeted by the waters of pacificism which have flowed across much of Western Europe and to a lesser extent the United States. The emergence of the Nuclear Disarmament Party underlines the reality that, particularly amongst the young, the political, moral and intellectual basis of the alliance is being challenged. It is a serious error to treat this phenomenon lightly. That this situation exists in Europe, and is emerging in Australia, is largely due to the failure of Western leaders, including our own Government, to articulate the meaning and purpose of the alliance in terms which will impress upon the imagination of ordinary people. In particular, leaders have failed to convince, or even try to convince, those who were brought up between the 1960s and 1980s and who have been searching for new horizons. Those people have not found those new horizons amongst the military acronyms and technicalities of the Western defence debate. ANZUS and the alliance should be seen in terms of the preservation of a way of life-a way of life which is, and always has been, under threat. The Government's failure to address the fundamental political and moral bases of ANZUS has led to an intellectual vacuum which has been filled by naive cries for unilateral disarmament. The reality is that the security debate is not between those who want war and those who do not; obviously no one wants war. The debate is between those who are prepared to guarantee peace through strength and deterrence and those who just hope war and conflict will go away. The generation of the 1930s in Britain and France which demanded peace through unilateral disarmament ended that decade fighting the world's bloodiest and most destructive war. Determination and resolve by the present Government will in our own country ward off the pacifist movement. But such determination requires so far unseen courage to place in all fields of government endeavour the greater interest of our nation before the squeals and cries of special interest groups. Before I conclude, like many speakers in this debate, I would like to pay a brief tribute, in this case to my own father, who sat in this House before me, until 1964. He represented the seat of Angas in South Australia and part of that seat is now covered by my own electorate. I would like to say for the record that he provided a great deal of inspiration and had a great influence on me and it is partly through his influence and encouragement that I stand in this House today. I also thank the House for the very warm messages of condolence that it paid to my family, in particular my mother, in 1981 following the death of my father. I thank the House for its courtesy on this occasion. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(8.26) —Firstly, Mr Speaker, I would like to congratulate you on attaining your high office again, and ask that you pass on my congratulations to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees, Mrs Child, on her election. I am very happy and proud to have been re-elected to this Parliament as the member for Isaacs with what is once again a substantial majority. It is significant to note that I am the first Federal member from either side of the House to have won the seat of Isaacs on three consecutive occasions since the seat was reconstituted in 1968. Mr Chynoweth —Great member! Mr CHARLES —Some people would agree with the honourable member. I would like basically to concentrate tonight on one subject, that is, arms control and disarmament. I was pleased to see that the Governor-General mentioned that in his Speech last Thursday. He said: Australia was elected to membership of the United Nations Security Council for 1985-86. As a member of this and other United Nations bodies, the Government will be active in seeking peaceful, practical solutions to global problems. The Government remains deeply committed to advancing the cause of peace, arms control and disarmament. Undeniably, no issue is more important to the well-being of current and future generations of Australians than the objective of peace, disarmament and a future free of the threat of nuclear war. Achievement of this objective cannot be easy. No one could expect that an issue of these dimensions would have easy answers or solutions.The topic of disarmament and arms control, whilst one of the most important issues of our time, is an extremely complex one, covering as it does a wide range of technological developments as well as human emotions and international diplomacy. Everyone here would be aware of the dire consequences of a nuclear exchange between the two super-powers. The outcome defies imagination or description. There is no such thing as a winnable nuclear war. We should therefore be united in our abhorrence of the concept and in our determination to prevent such an exchange from ever taking place. There is clear evidence that the arms race between the super-powers is continuing virtually unabated, with both sides progressively upgrading and modernising their military arsenal. Partly as a result of the competition between the super-powers the military arsenals, both nuclear and conventional, of other nations have also reached substantial proportions and are continuing to be increased in some areas. The number of nuclear warheads deployed throughout the world has increased steadily since 1945 and is currently estimated to total between 44,000 and 60,000. In fact, of the 60,000 warheads deployed around the globe, by far the largest numbers of course are held by the two super-powers although significant numbers are also held by Great Britain, France and China. The testing of nuclear warheads has also occurred continually since 1945. The Swedish Institute of Peace, through its Stockholm International Peace Research Institute Year Book 1984 shows that by December of 1983 the total number of nuclear explosions carried out had reached 1440. Of these 1,256 were conducted by the two super-powers, whilst the remaining 184 were conducted in this way: France, 120; China, 27; the United Kingdom 36 and India one. I had the pleasure of visiting the Swedish Institute of Peace last July. I had some very interesting and informative discussions with officials from that Institute. In addition to the proliferation of nuclear arms there has been a continued and growing spread of conventional weapons throughout the world. Some 80 per cent of arms expenditure is on conventional weapons. As that is something that is not talked about very much and as it is not widley known, I repeat: Some 80 per cent of arms expenditure is on conventional weapons. In Europe the nations of the two opposing alliances account for some 40 per cent of the world's men and women in uniform and an even greater share, nearly three-quarters, of the world's military expenditure. Perhaps more disturbing has been the increasing deployment of modern military technology into countries of the Third World; that is, countries that can ill afford to use their scant economic and natural resources on armaments. Weapons systems are becoming more sophisticated and accurate, perhaps encouraging an erroneous belief that limited tactical skirmishes are actually possible. The size of the arms race is enormous, placing an indefensible burden on global resources. The Swedish Institute of Peace estimated last year that between $750 and $800 billion were spent on the arms race in 1983. However, recent figures suggest that that figure could now be close to $950 billion. The arms race could therefore be said to be costing over $1m every minute of every hour of every day. In fact, the arms race has become the largest factor so far in the world's history of waste and the diversion of the world's resources to non-productive anti-social purposes. What can Australia do about this ever-increasing arms race? Firstly, we cannot abdicate from the arena. I repeat: We cannot abdicate from the arena. Disarmament is not a simple issue. It is not just a case of removing ourselves from the issue hoping that our geographical isolation, our comparative unimportance and our classical moral position will somehow create for us a world free of nuclear dangers. To suggest that Australia can somehow escape the consequences of a nuclear war is rather akin to the perspective of those who still believe in a limited and winnable nuclear war. There can be no such thing. Even if we were regarded by both sides as completely neutral we would still suffer enormously. Extensive scientific assessment over the past few years indicates that the world could be subjected to a form of nuclear winter after a nuclear exchange between the super-powers. A recent study which has received a great deal of publicity warns that a strike of just one megaton could trigger a global nuclear winter. A massive cloud of smoke and radioactive dust would bring freezing temperatures to the globe. The same study suggests that massive burning of synthetic materials would release a deadly mix of toxic fumes, the effects of radioactive fallout would be more extreme than those predicted by the earlier models and the stratospheric ozone layer would be destroyed, exposing the world to prolonged, high level radiation once the skies had cleared. In other words, there would be massive environmental damage. It is doubtful whether we could withstand such inhospitable conditions. I must point out that not all scientists agree with that position. However, to talk of withdrawing from the nuclear debate in this context is purely ostrich talk. The Hawke Government has reviewed Australia's role in disarmament matters quite significantly since taking office. We have been most forceful in pursuing progress on the long path towards a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. This treaty, when proclaimed, would prohibit nuclear testing. At the Thirty-eighth General Assembly of the United Nations last year Australia and New Zealand persuaded the United States of America to abstain from, rather than vote against, our joint resolution calling for a comprehensive treaty. This change in the American position represented a substantial win for those committed to this policy. We have been able to use our position as a responsible exporter of uranium to promote the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This Treaty is the single most important and effective arms control measure in existence. It discourages the spread of nuclear capability beyond those who already have it. We are working towards the establishment of a subsidiary body to the Conference for Disarmament which will research the implications of using outer space for the nuclear arms race. Needless to say, Australia is wholly committed to the use of outer space for peaceful purposes only. We are working in support of an American draft convention which is now before the Geneva conference to prohibit chemical weapons. Australia has also ratified the inhumane weapons convention, which seeks to prohibit and/or restrict the use of conventional weapons which are considered inhumane. The Government is active in the search for a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean and is a member of the United Nations committee where the proposal is being pursued. We have revived the concept of a South Pacific nuclear weapons free zone. This was put to the South Pacific Forum in 1983 and progress was again made last year. We hope that a final report will be brought to this year's South Pacific Forum. I believe that this will be a substantial step forward and a significant feather in the cap of the Hawke Government. In 1983, the Government appointed Mr Richard Butler as Australia's first ever Ambassador for Disarmament. Since then he has been active at the conference in Geneva and in other international forums in support of our policies for effective prohibition of nuclear testing and chemical weapons. Mr Butler's appointment has significantly improved the effectiveness of Australia's initiatives in disarmament discussions. To complement the appointment, the Hawke Government has also upgraded the capacity within the Department of Foreign Affairs to handle disarmament issues through the boosting of the disarmament and arms control and nuclear policy areas. Although I would like to see more done, including a further lift in staff in the Department and a further lift in staffing for Mr Butler, the steps taken by the Hawke Government since taking office have been a very real move forward in the cause for arms control and disarmament. Whilst the tensions in our world would have increased in recent years and we have seen negotiation after negotiation collapse, it has become crystal clear to me that the word that we all need to take significant note of is 'trust'. It is a very simple word, but a very important word. We cannot have disarmament and arms control negotiations without trust. We cannot have a technical solution if there is no political goodwill. We are putting the proverbial cart before the horse. I must admit that it is one of the few things on which I would readily agree with Dr Henry Kissinger, who was quoted on 30 July of last year in the Australian as saying: There is no technological way around a political negotiation. Only a political understanding will enable meaningful instructions to be issued to the technicians of arms control. If such an understanding is not attainable, arms control negotiations will either stalemate or become a propaganda forum. How often have we seen that occur in the last few years? Both super-powers are to blame; there is no question of that. Both sides have not been serious about the respective negotiations. We have also seen in the South Pacific area the continued nuclear testing by France. Honourable members will be aware that Australia has protested very strongly to the French Government. It is one reason why I believe that the states of the Pacific will join Australia and proclaim a nuclear weapons free zone in the South Pacific in the very near future. Whilst I have been talking about the build-up of both conventional and nuclear arsenals around the world, let there be no mistake about the Hawke Government's commitment to our allies and to the only practical course of action at this time; that is deterrence. There can be no general or complete disarmament, as some people mistakenly believe when they talk about disarmament, whilst we have basically two competing societies in our world. The object of having a well equipped defence force has always been part of a country's strategy to defend or deter others from invading one's country. Deterrence in the nuclear age works in exactly the same way, but with higher stakes. There are risks with any strategy, but it is significant to note that the world has been free of global conflict between the major powers for nearly four decades, which is quite an achievement when compared with the previous four decades. War raged for nearly one whole decade during that time. A strategy of deterrence has worked, and I believe will continue to work, even though the world has its problems at present. However, I must repeat my earlier statement that goodwill and trust are essential if we are to see a happier, freer and more stable world over the next four decades. It will only be through political goodwill that responsible arms control-I repeat, arms control-discussions will occur, be meaningful and bring true peace and stability to everyone on our planet. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the honourable member for Flinders, I inform the House that this is a maiden speech. I ask the House to extend to the honourable member for Flinders the usual courtesies. Mr REITH(Flinders)(8.40) —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Firstly, I congratulate you on your re-election to the office of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees. I request of you to convey to the Speaker my congratulations on his re-election of the high office of Speaker. I also congratulate and thank both you and the Speaker for the excellent new members seminar which was held recently. I am sure it will contribute greatly to the work of all new members and their understanding of this great institution. I feel both privileged and proud to have this opportunity at last to address this House as the representative of the people of Flinders. It is pleasing to see some members in this House this evening as it makes quite a contrast to my entry into this place at the commencement of my first term, when I was greeted by the sight of the Secretary to His Excellency the Governor-General fixing on the doors of the House the Proclamation of the dissolution of the Thirty-second Parliament. My first election to this place on 4 December 1982 represented a turning point for the then Leader of the Opposition and now Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and in retrospect the final high for the then coalition Government. There can be no question now that my re-election is symbolic of the fact that the Liberal Party of Australia and our coalition partners have now spanned a difficult period and are resurgent again, moving inexorably towards government at the next election. Such changes in political fortunes do not come by the mere passage of time, but rather are a result of the endeavours of men and women. It is indicative of the healthy political system we have in this country that my election to this place has been brought about, not by the efforts of a few but by the efforts of very many people in Flinders, and with the assistance of my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House. I wish to express thanks publicly to my electorate chairman, Jack McMenamin; my two campaign directors, Harold Weber and Don Jewell; Liberal Party branch members and supporters; and especially my family, including my wife, Julie, who have been towers of strength to me over the last 27 months and three election campaigns. I have been honoured to receive the support of the people of Flinders and now reaffirm my commitment to represent them to the best of my ability. I also particularly thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) for the inspirational leadership that he provided, not just to me but to Liberals throughout the electorate. Finally, I cannot overlook the contribution of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) whose brief foray into Flinders probably put the matter beyond doubt. I take the opportunity to invite him into the electorate of Flinders at the next earliest opportunity and, at the very least, during the next campaign when I am sure his presence will be similarly beneficial. Before turning to some of the issues relevant to my electorate, I wish to pay tribute to the late Rt Hon. Sir Phillip Lynch. The public perception of so many people on the centre stage of our national life is sometimes distorted by the fleeting glimpses, the misquotes and the fabrications of a mass audience. For them recognition awaits the historian's pen. But this is not so in the case of Sir Phillip Lynch. The sheer weight of his achievements rightfully demanded and received recognition in his own lifetime. His loyalty to his principles and to his Party and his common sense were the basis of his reputation as a builder of bridges between Australians from all walks of life. He was a great Australian and a great parliamentarian and is greatly missed. The seat of Flinders, which takes its name from Matthew Flinders, one of Australia's greatest explorers and the first man to circumnavigate Australia, is one of the original seats in the Federation. Following last year's electoral redistribution the seat now takes in the whole of the Mornington Peninsula with the exception of the residential areas north of Mornington and follows Western Port Bay round to Wonthaggi in the east and encloses Phillip Island and French Island. The electorate is today as it has been for many years, a favourite place to retire, an exciting destination for both local and international tourists, an area of rich agricultural resources and, with the fine harbour of Western Port, an area of great potential for development. I encourage honourable members from both sides of this House to come to the electorate of Flinders and enjoy the many features that it has to offer. One of the features of great significance on the Peninsula is the area known as Point Nepean which guards the entrance to Port Phillip Bay. The area, of 1,477 acres, is owned by the Commonwealth and is occupied by the Army for the Officer Cadet School of Portsea. The OCS will be vacating the property at the end of this year to re-establish itself in the Australian Defence Force Academy in Canberra. The area is of great historical interest. It poses problems of erosion and fire control. The OCS has a significantly beneficial impact on the local economy. The area has been well maintained by the Commonwealth over many years but there is now the prospect that upon the departure of the Army a vacuum will be created. That is the worst thing that could be allowed to happen. The future of the area will require considerable consultation between Federal, State and local governments and local people and it is of vital importance that a management plan be put in place prior to the Army's departure. This area is a national asset and the Government must establish a framework within which decisions can be made so that the future usage of the area will meet with broad community support. Another issue of great importance to the people of Flinders is the cost of telephone calls, particularly into the Melbourne local call zone. The charging policy of Telecom Australia rests essentially upon zones established in 1960. Many parts of the electorate, both on the Mornington Peninsula and across to Cranbourne South, are now parts of suburban Melbourne, and that fact ought to be recognised. Subscriber trunk dialling charge rates are a very considerable disincentive to the establishment of businesses and I know from personal experience, having worked in the electorate for a number of years, that it places an unfair burden on small business people attempting to compete with businesses in adjacent areas of the Melbourne zone. As the rate of the introduction of high technology increases there will be ever greater demands for the use of the telephone to hook into data banks and the technology of the twentieth and twenty-first century. I was pleased to see a parliamentary report tabled last year entitled 'Ringing in the Changes', to which I put a submission with local colleagues, Dr Ron Wells and Robin Cooper, largely supporting the point of view I am now expressing. The report has been with the Government for some time and provision of some real relief for the people of Flinders is now both urgent and overdue. Before turning to some wider issues I wish briefly to mention two industries which are of great significance and potential in the electorate of Flinders. They are the tourist industry and the rural industry. The rural industry in Flinders is diverse and includes such activities as dairy farming, about which I hope many members, including members on the other side of the House, are fully aware. High technology has its application in the rural industry. For example, it plays an important part in ensuring that the excellent asparagus of the Kooweerup Swamp is on the shelves and still fresh in the shops of London and Tokyo within two days of cutting. Governments have a role in providing support to industry and I hope that the present Government does not forget that our rural industries have and will continue to have a fundamental impact on the economic development of this country. The world tourist industry was reported a few years ago to be now larger than the world's steel industry. Within Flinders we have the famous penguin parade, which is one of the biggest international tourist attractions in Australia, superb bay beaches within both Port Phillip and Western Port and surf beaches to rival any other in Australia. We have some great convention facilities, every form of accommodation and the beautiful hills of Bas, Red Hill and Merricks North on the Peninsula. Subject to the importance of the preservation of all those features which make Flinders one of the great places in Australia to live and enjoy, the potential for the development of the tourist industry knows no bounds. What is needed is for governments to ensure that the framework of government controls for the maintenance of the area and the provision of basic infrastructure, by being certain and concise, will encourage confidence in the area's potential so that those who are prepared to risk their money to provide jobs and facilities and develop the area will in fact do so. As a local councillor I saw too many applicants with reasonable proposals and the necessary risk capital and confidence in Australia's future leave their money in the bank rather than try to overcome the hurdles of a multitude of permits. This country was not built with permits; it was built with confidence and initiative and it is time governments stood back and let people with initiative get this country going again. Before concluding, I feel that it is important for me as a new member to state some of the basic principles by which I hope successfully to represent the interests of the people of Flinders and Australia. A vision of a better Australia of course needs the confidence that one can make a contribution to bring such visions to reality. To that extent I am idealistic. I believe that if Australians work together and pursue common goals we can achieve a better Australia for all Australians. I do not doubt that honourable members on both sides of this House share a vision of Australia without poverty, where all Australians can have shelter, are well fed and clothed, can receive a good education and can reach their full potential in a country whose sovereignty remains inviolate. Of course, the real difficulties and controversies become apparent when we look to achieving these basic sorts of aims. For me the starting point must be the aims and aspirations of the individual. Sir Robert Menzies talked about the individual and his encouragement and recognition as being the prime motive force for building a better world. The acceptance of that simple but fundamental point of view leads to the compelling conclusion that governments and their bureaucracies cannot, and should not, assume the responsibilities of individuals. If that argument fails at first to be persuasive one needs only to look back at the history of Western civilisation since the Industrial Revolution to see the benefits of economic and political freedom for individuals. The real significance of Milton Friedman has been his emphasis on the inter-relationship between economic and political freedoms. He points out that if over 40 per cent of gross domestic product is being spent by governments it is not being spent by individuals and individuals are not having a direct choice in the expenditure of the fruits of their labour. The market-place is distorted by the inefficiencies of the demands of government. That translates itself into the political process quite clearly with the demands for less taxation and the lifting of restrictions on people's freedom of choice. Those demands go hand in hand with the parallel demand that governments should not impose upon the individual's right to have an economic system where effort is rewarded. There is surely nothing wrong with enlightened self-interest. It represents an acknowledgment that the first duty of individuals is to care for themselves and for their families. That is a fundamental part of the human condition which will work to bring about those basic aims which I outlined previously and is in no way inconsistent with a genuine concern for others. Certainly, there is a role for governments to play in the maintenance of minimum standards for those people who, for one reason or another, are unable to care adequately for themselves. That is only compassionate and humane and one of the prime responsibilities of governments in modern society. The free enterprise system does work and it can work very efficiently as long as we maintain a framework which discourages market distortions. In this country we have the traditions of freedom which could really contribute to the achievement of prosperity for all. Politically, Australian people are looking for a party that will lead the way. It was very clear in the general election, where the message from the electors of Flinders to the Government was that they did not want an assets test which would impinge upon their rights to accumulate property. They did not want a capital gains tax which would rob them of the fruits of their labour. They did not want superannuation tax which would inhibit their ability to provide for their personal well-being. They did not want death duties and gift duties which would restrict their right to provide for their children and their grandchildren. Certainly, this Government and this country have seen some improvements in our economic prosperity over the last two years. But we have yet to see, and we will not see under a Labor government, the preconditions for lasting economic growth. When a government criticises constructive proposals put by Jeff Kennett in Victoria to employ the young unemployed; when the vested interests in our labour market prevent the adult unemployed from obtaining real jobs; and when government maintains a monopoly on the technological communications systems of the 1980s and 1990s, the preconditions for real growth are not being met. The London Economist, in a review of 1984, looked at the American economy and noted that several deep changes in American life had prepared the ground for America's ideological shift. This has gone hand in hand with its economic progress over the last two or three years. The Economist completed its review with the words: Above all, America's new mood brings it back to one of its main intellectual roots. Will the people whose inalienable rights include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness let a Government get in their way? The Americans have realised that the once conventional wisdom that governments can solve problems by spending a lot of money on them has proved to be an illusion. Unfortunately, that cannot be said of Australia. Australia is a lucky country. Let us not allow it to become a fool's paradise. We have the people and resources to build up this nation and I look forward optimistically to the Australia of the future and commit myself to working hard for its improvement. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(8.59) —Mr Deputy Speaker, through you, I would like to offer my congratulations to the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker. Mr Ian Cameron —How come you are making a maiden speech, Gerry? Mr HAND —If the honourable member waits a while, he will hear. I would like also to congratulate those honourable members who tonight have made their maiden speeches. There have been some excellent contributions and I am sure those honourable members will make their mark on this place. One of the disappointing features about coming back to this chamber, and something which has struck me, is that some changes have taken place on the other side of the chamber. It is disappointing to see those people from the Liberal Party of Australia who have stood up for what they believe in being removed from the front bench and replaced by other people. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) wrote an article in the Bulletin newspaper, slightly disagreeing with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and, zappo, back to the back bench he went. The leader of the militant doctors in New South Wales, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton), has fallen out of favour and he is on the back bench. The same applies to the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). The same also applies to the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife); the great crime he committed was to beat Stephen Lusher, the National Party candidate. That prompts me to read an advertisement that was inserted in the Melbourne Times on 13 February. It is worth noting. It is in amongst the housing advertisements and it is headed 'Renovating the Liberals'. It reads: Would fed-up worried conservatives willing to stack Liberal Party branches in the safe Labor 'Melbourne' electorate kindly contact me . . . There is a telephone number provided. It continues: By this simple initial device determined conservatism can easily begin snatching many block- I do not quite know what this means- of influence from the unprincipled mediocrities throughout the infrastructure of the currently wretched Liberal Party. It is signed by someone whom I should not name because people might want to ring him up. Mr Goodluck —You couldn't do it in Tasmania, could you? Mr HAND —One could not do that in Tasmania but it shows the state of the Liberal Party-the disunity that prevails on the other side of the chamber. The plotting was already taking place in the parliamentary dining room tonight. There they were, the little dissident group, all huddled in a corner plotting the downfall of Andrew. It seems that they have already begun their work. The honourable member for Wannon (Mr Hawker) can cry out as much as he likes. It is interesting that last week one of the biggest manufacturers in his electorate did not ring the honourable member. He rang the member for Melbourne because he wanted to get the job done; he wanted it fixed up. Within 24 hours the problem was solved. Letters have been pouring in ever since from manufacturing industry in his electorate. Let us not kid ourselves: The Liberal Party is in a shambles. It is interesting to note that the No. 2 person getting up behind the Leader of the Opposition is the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). It is not the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), who is sitting quietly, winking and nodding to the honourable member for Mackellar every time the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) opens his mouth. What an insult to those people it must be to be replaced on the front bench by the honourable member for O'Connor. For God's sake, what a disgrace! The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), a respected Queen's Counsel, a person highly regarded in the community who has been asked by the Melbourne Age to write a feature article tomorrow has been replaced by the honourable member for O'Connor, the small businessman's friend who wants to evict everyone from the property he owns. That is the sort of person he is. The honourable member for O'Connor has gone from thumping Aborigines while someone holds them to evicting small shopkeepers. Mr Robert Brown —Is Wilson Tuckey better than Jeff Kennett? Mr HAND —We will get to Jeff Kennett in a moment. I wish to address my remarks tonight to the election in Victoria because people- Mr Ian Cameron —Oh, come on! Mr HAND —Surprise! I ask honourable members opposite not to worry. Mr Ian Cameron —What happened to the member for Casey? Mr HAND —The former honourable member for Casey is all right. The people in Victoria on Saturday are going to have a choice between the current Labor Government and the Liberal Party, the coalition or the National Party. It seems to me that there is no doubt that the choice will see the return of the Labor Government in that State. This will be the first time that a Labor government in Victoria will be returned back-to-back. After all, this will not be a particularly difficult choice for people to make. On the one hand, the Australian Labor Party over the last three years has brought Victoria back from the brink of bankruptcy which was caused by conservative governments. The Labor Party has created an environment of strong economic growth and development managed by a team of competent forward-thinking men and women. Against that we have the motley half-baked crew of deceitful incompetents from the Liberal and National parties who are attempting to deceive the Victorian people by pretending that they could form a coalition government. I ask people to think about the threat of a coalition government in Victoria. Jeff Kennett, before the last election, is reported as saying: 'A coalition government in Victoria would be a disaster'. He said that when he was not the Leader of the Liberal Party. He went on to say: I would never be able to work in a coalition. I ask people to think about those sorts of comments because it seems that they may have had an effect on the National Party. As yet in the course of this campaign the two leaders of the coalition parties which pretend that they could form a coalition government have yet to appear on the same platform. This shows a lot about what they feel for each other. They will not even get in the same room together. Let us talk about the leaders. Mr Ian Cameron —How often does Bob Hawke have you on his platform? Mr HAND —My Leader and I often appear at functions together. We are great friends. My Leader and I represent electorates which adjoin each other and we work closely together. As the honourable member for Streeton (Mr Lamb) pointed out in the House last night, the Premier of Victoria, John Cain, is a man of the highest calibre, a man who is beyond reproach both in his personal and political lives. The comments that Jeff Kennett made publicly in the course of the campaign have been most unfortunate. The campaign has shown what John Cain is about. He has refused to be drawn into a personality feud or battle with the likes of Jeff Kennett. We have a credibility problem with old Jeff. He is not thought of very highly, even by his own people. For the benefit of honourable members I will quote a few things that have been said about him. He has been described as 'lacking judgment, lacking an understanding of issues and lacking in tact. As Tim Colebatch of the Age asked: How can you take seriously a leader who spent half of his Budget speech complaining about the fact that John Cain did not invite him to a VFL dinner? How can a man who described the National Economic Summit Conference as 'Mr Hawke's version of the Grand Council of Fascists' be taken seriously? What a way for him to treat his friends in the business community, to describe them as a bunch of fascists. He has been described by his colleagues-not by us but by members of the Liberal Party-as a 'blabber boy', 'motor mouth', 'killer Kennett', 'daffy duck', 'calamity Kennett', and even before he became the Leader, he quickly established himself as God's gift to journalists on a quiet day. There we have Jeff Kennett. Mr Chynoweth —They are all the complimentary remarks. Mr HAND —They are the good things about him. I now raise one issue concerning the depression in public housing. Some honourable members will recall my maiden speech a couple of years ago. I suggest to new members that they get a copy of my speech and read it, because it talked about a number of issues which some of them touched on tonight. It dealt, in particular, with public housing. The Liberal Party in Victoria has launched a unique plan for public housing. It has simply said that it will sell off large sections of existing high rise stock to make way for offices. It was going to establish a Victorian sports centre on one estate by kicking out all the people. It would be interesting to know who drafted this policy. The fact is that high rise flats cannot be turned into office blocks because the ceilings are too low. I would have thought that would have been covered in the building regulations. The building regulations for office blocks are too strict for these high rise buildings to be turned into office blocks. The Liberal Party dreamt up this lunacy, which the Liberals prefer to call a policy. Whoever dreamt it up has not even bothered to acquaint himself or herself with the contents of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement; neither, so it seems, has the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), who is in his usual way prepared to indulge in more lies and deceit. In a Press statement yesterday the Hon. Michael Hodgman, QC, MP-the QCs must have been going cheap-stated that the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) had misled the House in answer to a question put to him by the honourable member for Streeton. The honourable member for Denison said: Mr West wrongly asserted that the Victorian Opposition's housing policy directly contravened the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. He further wrongly claimed that it was not lawful. As a matter of law, on both points, we say that Mr West-intentionally or otherwise-misled the House. The knack the honourable member for Denison has for deliberately misconstruing the truth never fails to amaze me. Honourable members will recall that he did it during the immigration debate in the last Parliament. He was so bad he had to be moved from his shadow portfolio and disciplined by his Leader. He is now having a go with housing. I will read to the House the relevant passages from the State Liberal Party's policy on housing and the relevant sections of the Housing Assistance Act 1984, which enshrines in law the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The Liberal Party policy specifies: As a matter of priority, the incoming Liberal Government will ensure that subject to the ability to re-pay the loan people will have the right to buy their public rental house or flat. In addition to a right to buy, long term Ministry of Housing tenants will receive a discount bonus of the purchase price of that home. It continues: Purchasers may sell their home subsequently, but if resale occurs within 5 years of purchase there will be repayment of some of the discount. A sliding scale will range from re-paying 100 per cent of the discount in the first year to 20 per cent of the discount in the fifth year. Mr Ian Cameron —Do you understand all that, Gerry? Mr HAND —If the honourable member listened he might learn something. It is important for members of the National Party to listen. Paragraph 34 (1) of Schedule 1 of the Housing Assistance Act 1984 has two things to say about these propositions. Firstly, the concept of selling rental housing at lower than market value or replacement cost can be undertaken only in circumstances in which 'it is agreed between the Minister and State Minister'. Paragraph 34 (1) (a) of Schedule 1 makes that provision. No such agreement has been made or even contemplated. In other words, the Liberals have not even bothered to sound it out. Secondly, under section 34 (2) any body or group which acquires rental housing at other than market value or replacement cost and resells the property must repay to the State an amount equal to the net proceeds from the sale at market value or replacement cost, of the housing. The State Liberal policy says quite another thing. Mr Ian Cameron —This is riveting stuff. Mr HAND —It is important to the people who live in the high-rise flats. If the honourable member listens he will understand. In both respects the Liberal Party policy contravenes the Act. The law and order brigade over here and the law and order brigade in Victoria want to kick people out of their flats, turn the flats into offices and break all the regulations. Now they want to contravene a Commonwealth-State agreement. I just cannot understand it. It is clear that the honourable member for Denison had not even read the State Liberal policy when he made the quite absurd assertion in his news release that the Victorian Opposition housing policy required that all sales of public housing rental stock would be at market value. Even if the State Liberal policy could be legally implemented, it would have to fail on economic and social grounds. Because my time is running out I will not read this statement but perhaps people would like to obtain a copy. It is the State improvement strategy of February 1985 by the Ministry of Housing in Victoria. It is an excellent document which gives all the details of what the State Labor Government is doing and will do in the next 10 years. The Cain Labor Government has taken a responsible approach to the issue of public housing. In this election campaign it has promised to maintain and build upon the housing program it has established. In the area of public housing, over the next four years the Cain Labor Government will add at least 12,000 public housing units to the existing public housing stock and will spend a further $120m over this period to improve current stock and bring it up to an acceptable standard. In implementing this commitment, the State Labor Government has developed an improvement strategy which establishes priorities as determined by the tenants. This is the important point, because the tenant groups which have been established on these estates have been doing quite wonderful work in getting the residents together, finding out their needs, and then informing the Government. This has led to a much better understanding between the Department and the people. Unlike the Liberal approach, the Labor Government believes in working together with the tenants, rather than imposing some ill-begotten policy on them which frightens the living daylights out of them. The Melbourne Sun News-Pictorial quoted one tenant as saying: No one on a pension could afford to buy their flat. Another tenant said: I waited so long for this flat and I don't want to be thrown out of it in a hurry. Another tenant said, and this is probably what most people think: If Mr Kennett does that then he's stupid. I could not agree more. It is one of the most stupid and cruel acts I have ever heard of since I have been involved in politics, and that is a long time. Underprivileged people wake up in the morning and read in the daily newspapers that they are going to be evicted, that emporiums are to be established, that office blocks will replace their housing. It is quite cruel when the pensioners and single parents and their families who live in these estates are subjected to this sort of action by irresponsible politicians. I could not agree more with the person who described Mr Kennett as stupid. In other areas the policies being proposed are marked with the same stupidity. Mr Kennett, I remind the House, has also said-we all know that he has a fetish for the private sector-during this campaign that every government agency is up for grabs. If elected, he will sell, or attempt to sell, the State Insurance Office, the State Bank, the Government Printer, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria, the Gas and Fuel Corporation of Victoria and the prisons. He will flog off the prisons to private enterprise. I am not quite sure how they will be run, but I presume that if somebody does not pay his board he will be evicted and turfed out. The prisons will be run on purely profit lines. How ludicrous can he get? He also talked about flogging off the courts of law. That is the sort of attitude and policy that is being put forward by the State Opposition. I ask the people to dwell on those things-selling banks, insurance companies, prisons, gas and fuel, and the highly profitable SEC. When a similar philosophy was actually put into practice in the Canadian State of British Colombia the net result for that community was a massive increase in unemployment. The credibility of the State Opposition, I think, is absolutely shattered and in tatters. On 22 February, Tim Colebatch in the Age said: The problem with the Liberal Party's costing of its election promises is not what it reveals about the promises but what it reveals about the Liberals. Essentially it shows that they do not understand the Victorian Budget papers. They have based their promise to provide tax cuts with spending increases on an extraordinary misinterpretation of the budget's national accounts figures. And that is despite the fact that the meaning of the figures is explained in the budget documents. Where would Mr Kennett make his $178 million cuts this year? Or his $312 million cuts next year? The fact remains that the Liberal's policies do not add up. The $57 million cost they give for their new first-year spending proposals, for example, list nothing for education, despite their commitment to greatly increase funding to non-government schools, nothing for housing, nothing for transport, and only an unexplained round figure of $25 million for health. Yet their policy documents are full of promises in these areas. The choice on Saturday is quite clear. The people-- Mr McVeigh —What are you going to do about the dairy farmers in Victoria? Mr HAND —We are up here today fixing that up. We did not cause the dairy farmers' problems. The dairy farmers' problems were caused by Liberal State governments and Liberal Federal governments. Mr McVeigh —Tell us what you are doing to do for the farmers. Mr HAND —The farmers will be taken care of. As I said before, it is a shame when the constituents of the honourable member for Wannon have to ring the member for Melbourne, whose electorate is right in the heart of the city, to get their problems fixed. That also goes for farmers trying to get jobs for their kids. We never stop. Every day there are telephone calls from sons, daughters and mothers of farmers ringing us in our offices trying to get help because of the neglect by members of the other side of the House of the farmers in years gone by and their neglect of them now as the farmers representatives. The choice on the weekend is quite clear, as I said. It is a choice between stability and growth, a choice between people who cannot add up, people who are determined to smear and put fear into people, people who behave in a very irresponsible manner, and the alternative, which is, of course, the return of a Labor government. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Order! Before calling the honourable member for Gilmore, I remind honourable members that this is the honourable members' maiden speech. I am sure that they will extend the usual courtesies to him. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.17) —As I rise to address this House for the first occasion, I take the opportunity to thank both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker of this House for the hospitality given to both me and other new members on entering Parliament. I also place on record my thanks to all those members and supporters of the National Party of Australia who made a contribution towards my presence in this House today. I also thank the electors of Gilmore, who have placed their confidence in me. My fervent hope is that I shall be able to live up to their expectations over the years. I stand here today as the first member for the new electorate of Gilmore, created by the recent electoral redistribution. The electorate was named in honour of one of Australia's great citizens, Dame Mary Gilmore. Some would criticise me for calling Dame Mary Gilmore a great Australian. They would point out that the differences in political philosophies between her and me would make my declaration somewhat suspect. However, to evaluate a person's worth to the nation using political beliefs as a main criterion is, I believe, an injustice. Surely the best way to evaluate the worth of an Australian is to view the contribution that he or she has made to his or her country, and Dame Mary Gilmore made a great contribution to Australia. She was one of our most noted authors and poets. Indeed, it is my privilege and honour to represent the electorate which bears her name. The electorate of Gilmore stretches from Young and Cowra in the south-west of New South Wales eastward through the city of Goulburn and over the Great Dividing Range to Nowra and the coast. Gilmore includes many small towns and communities such as Boorowa, Crookwell, Gunning, Taralga, Sutton, Marulan, Kangaroo Valley, Bundanoon, Sussex Inlet and Huskisson. The economy of Gilmore rests in the main on the very broad shoulders of agriculture. The area around Goulburn and the southern tablelands is famous for its ability to produce fine wool. The Picker family from Bigga has established a reputation as one of Australia's best fine wool producers, setting a world record price for their product. The electorate also has the distinction of having the famous Merryville Stud, started by Sir Walter Merriman, which is also noted for its fine wool sheep. Wheat production is a major part of the agricultural economy of the electorate. However, the viability of this industry now appears in doubt. Rising costs of production and increasing government controlled charges, charges that increase at levels tied to the consumer price index but which bear no consideration to the industry's ability to pay, combined with depressed world prices for wheat, mean that we can expect to find many people dropping out of the wheat industry. I am particularly concerned at the debts many wheat farmers have generated over recent years in attempts to survive the downturn in the industry, by purchasing newer, more efficient, machinery in the hope of increasing production but, at the same time, burdening themselves with large interest payments which will be hard to meet due to poor returns in the recent drought. The inevitable result will be that the younger, more enterprising and more modern farmer, coming from a not so well established financial background, will fall from the industry first. Beef production plays a vital role in the economy of Gilmore. Expected rises in the beef prices will see the industry consolidate itself after the difficult times it has experienced in recent years. However, these rises in price will occur only as long as the European Economic Community does not dump onto the world market its subsidised beef at prices below the present world market price. If it does, any expected price rises might soon disappear and we may even witness price falls. The dairy industry is a major component of the economy in the region around Nowra and Goulburn. This industry has suffered the pains of rationalisation over the last 10 or 15 years to the point where in Goulburn there are now only eight dairies when 10 years ago there were 33. Decisions to be made by this Government will tilt the scales for the future of all dairymen in Australia, and in particular, the dairymen in my electorate. The wrong decision could see 25 per cent of those currently engaged in the industry fall by the wayside; in anyone's terms, a savage loss, particularly when the dairymen in my electorate have followed the course of rationalisation over the years in the belief that by now they would be able to settle down to a stable industry giving them a fair living. The growing of fruit and vegetables is also important. Young is Australia's cherry capital and during the drought the cherry industry suffered tree losses of up to 50 per cent. Producers, however, have shown the resilience and determination which all country people have and are now rapidly replanting trees and installing water bores and irrigation systems to try to minimise losses in future droughts. Vegetables are grown in the Lachlan Valley region near Cowra. The Edgell canning factory at Cowra employs some 450 people during the height of the season and provides income of some $5m to the district. It is criminal that this canning factory, and the people who work in it, are competing against savagely subsidised competition from other countries. This unfair and uneconomic cost undercutting constantly threatens the future of the industry, but so far our producers and canners have been able to withstand the competition by virtue of the efficiency of their methods and the high quality of their products. Whilst both the national economy and the economy of the Gilmore electorate rest their weight on agriculture, the agricultural industries in general terms face a very dismal year ahead. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics predicts that the average family farm worker's income for 1985 will be $6,598, which is approximately one-third of the average Australian income. No better indication of the plight of farmers can be provided than to use the example given by the National Australia Bank at this year's BAE Outlook Conference, when it pointed out that in the last two years the farming sector has become a net borrower of money from the banking system when previously it had been a net lender to the banking system. The industry and government, both Federal and State, must seriously address themselves to the continuing falls in trade for the farmers of Australia. Over the years farmers have done their best to meet the challenges which falling terms of trade have presented, and as a result they have made their industry one of the most efficient producers of agricultural produce in the world. Certainly, there is no doubt that Australian farmers are this country's most efficient workers. Therefore, it is imperative that farmers be given as fair a go as possible and not be burdened with unnecessary imposts which could have the potential to bring the industry to its knees. Beyond agriculture, there are many other parts to the total strength of Gilmore's economy. Mining is a major employer and money earner in the areas around Goulburn, Marulan and Young. The mining industry employs about 665 people and injects many millions of dollars into Gilmore's economy. But with such a beautiful portion of Australia lying within the electorate's boundaries, tourism naturally becomes a major industry. The tourist regions surrounding Nowra and the coast are, to my mind, underdeveloped as a tourist resort mainly because of the lack of a suitable road linking this area with places such as Canberra and areas to its west. One road exists-trunk road 92-to connect Nowra with those areas. The road was built in about the 1830s and it seems that since those days little has been done. Whilst the road takes a much better route to the coast than the road over the Clyde Mountain, it is little used because it is at its best a bone-shattering journey along 130 kilometres of dirt road. This road would be an ideal project for upgrading and sealing under the Australian bicentennial road development program. The improvement of trunk road 92 is one of the many goals I have set myself as the member for Gilmore. Another is the establishment of an air service which would greatly boost the economy of Nowra and the coast and go part way towards alleviating the damage done by this Government when it axed about 1,000 personnel from the Navy base, HMAS Albatross, at Nowra. This has resulted in unemployment in the area increasing dramatically by some 333 people in the past 12 months. That trend is likely to continue further as the Government gives service contracts to businesses outside the local area and in favour of metropolitan-based firms. Cowra hosts another major tourist attraction-the Japanese gardens and war cemetery. Last year some 46,000 people visited this place. The importance of these gardens is underrated as they are used extensively by Australian businessmen as an almost compulsory visiting point when they are carrying out business with Japanese businessmen. Many major deals have been struck between Australia and Japan as a result of these beautiful gardens. Goulburn has a broad range of industries and services-industries such as the Supertex factory, employing some 315 people and manufacturing textile products. Cooper Laboratory Industries Ltd and Baxter's Shoes are also major employers. Services to the wool industry with the wool handling centre provide an additional service to an important industry. Goulburn also hosts the New South Wales Policy Academy. That is now housed in very modern and spacious surroundings with planned facilities that will make it one of the best police academies in the world. On a visit to Goulburn during the recent election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated that there was a possibility that the national police academy may also be located on the New South Wales Police Academy site, thus taking full advantage of a number of facilities which could be used jointly, such as the $2.5m driver-training track, new heated training tank, library, pistol range, teaching staff and facilities. This would also enhance closer relations with police of different forces and save the taxpayer millions of dollars. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his wisdom of opening up this sensible option and trust that he will stand by his proposal-to the benefit of the people of Goulburn, and, indeed, Australia. As my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer) did in his maiden speech to this House, I support the call for further consideration of the Sydney to Melbourne high speed rail link as proposed by Dr Paul Wild of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Goulburn has a proud history with the railway. However, it has witnessed over the years the decline of railway business and the increase in large semi-trailers driving down the main street of the town, travelling the Hume Highway between Sydney and Melbourne. The Department of Main Roads has, I am told, done a count of semi-trailers passing through Goulburn, and it averages out at one every 70 seconds. Each one of those semis has cost well in excess of $100,000. Multiplying that all out, that means that each day $124m is tied up taking freight between Sydney and Melbourne by road. Add to that the damage done to the Hume Highway, the lives lost in the countless accidents involving semi-trailers and the inefficiencies of carrying 20 tonnes on one truck compared with carrying 2,000 tonnes on one train, one can easily see that to build this fast rail service has more merit than first meets the eye. It would be derelict of me not to recognise the importance of small business because small business, collectively, is one of the major employers within my electorate. I firmly believe that the Government should give some incentive to small businesses by allowing them more flexibility in their wage contracts so that they can employ people who want to have a job but who are not currently employed because the employer cannot afford the penalty rates and high wages which exist at the moment. This incentive would soak up a lot of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, and give those people real jobs with long term futures. One of my major goals as a member of this Federal Parliament will be to ensure that the economy of my electorate is given every opportunity to develop to its fullest potential, thus ensuring the livelihood, prosperity and social well-being of the people living within my electorate. To do this I believe it is essential that governments place a heavy emphasis on promoting the growth of private enterprise, for it is through private enterprise that efficiencies are maximised and competition generates initiative, motivation and a sense of achievement and satisfaction. We, as a parliament, must also work to reduce the level of taxation now restricting personal initiative and the striving for success. Australians now find themselves in the unenviable position of being one of the highest taxed people in the world. The average wage earner today finds himself paying tax at the rate of 47c in the dollar. Only a few years ago, to be in the top income tax bracket, one needed to be earning several times the average income. Now one needs to earn only twice the average income to be in the top tax bracket. Every person in this House must realise how necessary it is to give people a reward for using their talent and skills and for working hard. I am sure that every person in this place has worked extremely hard in order to achieve electoral success. Our reward is to be a member of this House and to carry out the high office of government that goes on within. That is our reward, but the reward for the average person comes in the form of money in the hand. The more work or effort a person gives is directly reflected by the reward he or she receives. Yet governments seemingly work overtime to devise new methods of reducing that reward, which must result in less productivity. One of the major reasons why Australia finds itself in this unenviable high taxation position is due, I believe, to the attitude that says we must take from those who have and give it to those who have not. I remind this House of the words of that wise man, Abraham Lincoln, who said: You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. His words indicate that if we strengthen the strong we will strengthen the weak. By doing as Abraham Lincoln said, I believe we will reverse the current trend of a declining standard of living and have a healthier, happier, more prosperous nation for all Australians to live in. As a young Australian I am concerned with this country's future. I expect to be a taxpayer for many years to come. Like many young Australians, I am rapidly becoming alarmed at the level of debt which the Federal Government is accumulating as a result of the deficit budgeting psychology. This fiscal year the Federal Government's interest bill and our borrowings increased by some 30 per cent, to $5.6 billion. That represents about 8.8 per cent of the Federal Government's total outlays for the year and, indeed, it represents about $900 per year per taxpayer. Unless something dramatic is done soon, today's young Australians will find that their future has been mortgaged and that tomorrow's taxpayers will be paying for yesterday's services and facilities. I look forward to my years of service in this House. I look forward to my duties and the responsibility of serving the people of Gilmore and Australia. I thank honourable members for their attention. Mr KEOGH(Bowman)(9.36) —I should like first to congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the members of the Labor Government on their re-election for a second term. I shall also take the opportunity to congratulate my Australian Labor Party colleagues, those re-elected and those elected for their first term, in this enlarged Thirty-fourth Parliament. I have already congratulated Mr Speaker and Madam Deputy Speaker, but I place those congratulations on record. This Government's comfortable majority clearly shows that the people of Australia are more than satisfied with the direction and performance of the Hawke Labor Government during its first term in office, with its strong leadership and sound economic policies. I thank the electors of Bowman for my re-election. They gave me a clear signal, by re-electing me with an increased majority, that they desire me to continue to represent them for at least a further term with this Labor Government. I assure them that I will continue to represent them and serve their best interests, as I have always tried to do. I shall comment briefly on the poor performance of the Opposition during the term of the previous Parliament-in stark contrast to that of the Government. Apart from a short-lived sparkle from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) during the election campaign-his talent as a showman or, more correctly, as a show pony, was put to good use-the Opposition's record over the past two years has been notable only for its dull and unremarkable character. Of course, political leadership is not simply the ability to project a cosmetically competent image for a few weeks, moving about Australia, on the electronic media, during an election campaign. It is about the ability to perform in Parliament over a long period, and in the case of the Opposition Leader, to prepare and project some reasonable alternative policies to those of the Government. The present Opposition failed to do this during its two years in the previous Parliament. I have no doubt that it will fail again to do it during this Labor Government's second term. It is interesting to note that, apart from a brief and somewhat isolated rise in position in the public opinion polls, the Opposition has now relapsed to its consistently low points rating, in the low forties. I refer for a few moments to the program of this Government, which was outlined in the Governor-General's Speech and which provides a very real comparison with the alternatives that the Leader of the Opposition and his shadow Ministry have been able to present. That shadow Ministry comprising principally recycled, failed and rejected Fraser Government Ministers compared with the vastly superior talent of the Hawke Ministry will, I am sure, in the months to come provide further convincing evidence to the Australian public of its eminently responsible choice on polling day, 1 December 1984. Clearly the achievements of this Government over the last two years have helped this nation from the dismal state in which it was left after the seven disastrous years of the Fraser Government. This Government during its term in office will be working continuously to create a stronger, fairer and more equitable society in Australia. This next year will be one of consolidating and reconstructing to confirm the recovery achieved during the first term of the Labor Government. The program of the Government is for further economic growth and stimulation, a reduction in unemployment and inflation and an improvement in the conditions of those less well off in the community. Of course, one of the major tasks this year will be the examination of the whole system of taxation in this country. The aim of this review will be to achieve a fairer, more equitable and more efficient system of tax for all Australians. For too long the tax burden has been carried by too few. I applaud the Government for making this move. I sincerely trust that the Australian Democrats in another place will at long last show some political honesty and support the legislative program to introduce a fair and equitable system of taxation when it is put before the Parliament. A complete overhaul of our taxation system will be one of the fundamentally important tasks carried out during this year. It is interesting to note that on many occasions when honourable members from both sides of the House have spoken to the Address-in-Reply they have spoken in terms of supporting the need for restructuring the taxation system. They have spoken of the burdens of the present taxation system. It is interesting to remind honourable members that really nothing was done during the seven years of the Fraser Government but that the positive moves were made very shortly after the elections of the Hawke Labor Government, first elected to office in March 1983. The tax reform summit as proposed for July will be preceded by widespread community consultations. It will be based on these consultations with individuals and groups throughout the community because the Government is determined in its efforts to produce an equitable and fair system of taxation. It is determined to continue to pursue the tax avoiders and the tax evaders, as it has consistently done in its two years in office. Once again I say that I hope that the Democrats in the Senate shed their previous hypocrisy and back the necessary legislation. I turn for a few moments to the problem of unemployment-a problem inherited from the last Government and tackled with significant success by the Hawke Government. Unemployment, a problem accumulated over past years because of poor economic management cannot be quickly and easily eliminated. However, this Government has now established a reputation for sound economic management and has consistently improved the employment opportunities for Australian men and women, young and old alike. That established trend of lower unemployment levels will continue, aided by the introduction of several new policy initiatives. For example, the Government proposes shortly to introduce the new enterprise incentive scheme which was mentioned by the Prime Minister last year in his election policy speech. I have already found a great deal of interest in and enthusiasm for this proposal among people in my electorate. This scheme will provide people who have a viable business proposition with continued income support from the Federal Government for up to one year while they establish their own small enterprises. An allowance broadly related to the unemployment benefit will be paid to eligible participants. This year the scheme will be run on a pilot scheme basis, with approximately 600 people participating. The NEIS is a good example of this Government's effort to pursue every available avenue to secure long term employment for those people who are, unfortunately, still out of work. Not only will small business receive a boost from this scheme, but also the Government will certainly be making savings in unemployment benefit payments. The Government is also looking at the expansion of the community employment program; moving it into the private sector. This program, which has been outstandingly successful in my electorate, has been used to advantage by many community organisations and the local government in the electorate of Bowman. The Kirby report of the committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, released last month, has provided much valuable information on labour market programs. The Government has already accepted several recommendations in principle and will use these as the basis for further consultation with other groups and organisations in the community. The Government is looking at setting up traineeships which will combine work, formal education and training, initially for young people. This Government is very much aware of the problems of youth unemployment and recognises that the way to overcome these and associated problems is to provide appropriate education and training for young people. This year, International Youth Year, an Australian youth service is to be developed. It will provide a focal point for co-ordinating the range of local services for young people. At present the Government is consulting widely with government bodies and organisations in the community in the non-Government sector to ascertain the most appropriate administrative arrangements for the operation of this service. I understand that one of the most successful decisions of the Government in its first term of office was the introduction of the extremely popular first home owners assistance scheme, which was introduced in October 1983. In my electorate of Bowman well over 1,000 applications have been approved under this scheme. The first home owners assistance scheme has helped many young Australians into their first homes. Many of these people would not have been able to afford a home without this type of assistance. It has been welcomed by all sections of the building industry. Many people I have spoken to who are involved in real estate have clearly shown that they have appreciated it. In fact, over the last 12 months or so it was quite a pleasant experience to move around the different business centres in the Bowman electorate and find that, at last, real estate agents had smiles on their faces. The comment was made recently by a leading project builder who carries out a lot of work in the Bowman electorate that the first home owners assistance scheme was an outstanding success and should continue to receive support from the building industry and the real estate industry, and there is no doubt that it will. It has been said that the scheme was floundering some time ago and that there was a need for the injection of more funds into it. The Government moved quickly to bring additional funds into the scheme, and recently allocated a further $25m to the first home owners scheme to meet the increase in approval estimates for this financial year. This will bring the total expenditure this financial year to some $290m. Not only has the scheme provided many first home owners with the opportunity that had been for so long denied them under the previous Government but also of course, it has had a spectacular impact on housing and related industries. In less than 18 months this Government has done more directly for the first home buyers than the previous Government did during its seven years in office. The time in which I can elaborate tonight on the benefits of the first home owners assistance scheme is very limited. I will give just one brief example of how effective it has been in regard to the building industry. The community employment program likewise has operated successfully. Again this was introduced by the Government during its first term to provide relief for the critical unemployment situation that we inherited. The revitalisation of the building industry has been so successful that those who previously were able to rely on receiving community employment program funds for worthwhile building projects now find that it is almost impossible to have a building project approved under the community employment program. The upturn in employment opportunities in the building industry has been so successful that there is not unemployed labour available through the Commonwealth Employment Service offices-particularly in the various parts of my electorate and generally throughout Australia-for the State committee which approved the CEP's even to give serious consideration to applications which are based principally on the construction of building. I am very pleased to add my support tonight to the remarks of my colleagues who have already spoken in applauding the performance of the Hawke Labor Government during its first term. The clear indications of it continuing down that very effective path towards producing the conditions for successful economic recovery in this nation will no doubt proceed under the guidance of the Prime Minister and other members of the Hawke Labor Government during its second term. The Labor Government has worked hard to bring about real changes and better conditions for the people of Australia. Its success in the last election was surely warranted. Despite the hopeful indications by many Opposition speakers in regard to the benefits they think are about to accrue to them in the coming months, almost to the point of thinking that they will automatically win the next election campaign, I am sure that there is a lot of fight and a lot of determination left in this Government. There is no doubt that the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), should he be lucky enough to be returned at the next election, will still have the opportunity to sit where he is sitting this evening and to shake his head in various directions, as he is doing as I conclude my remarks. Debate (on motion by Dr Watson) adjourned. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) asked me at Question Time today whether it is proper for a Minister to reveal publicly details of requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, made by ordinary private citizens. I told the honourable member that I would need to consider the matter before giving him an answer. In saying this I thought that he was raising his point of order on the basis that the Minister may have been critical of a person in his answer and that the honourable member may have been acting under a misunderstanding in thinking that an individual cannot be criticised in an answer to a question without notice. On reading the Hansard greens I found that this was not so. I found that the matter raised by the honourable member is not one on which the Speaker should pronounce. Only the Minister himself can decide whether or not it is proper for him to release such details. Mr SPEAKER —I have received messages from the Senate- (a) concurring in the resolutions of the House relating to the appointment of Joint Standing Committees on the Australian Capital Territory, Foreign Affairs and Defence, and the New Parliament House, and relating to the powers and proceedings of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority and agreeing that the resolutions have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders; (b) acquainting the House of the appointment of senators to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority, and (c) concurring in the resolution of the House relating to the reference of matters to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Message received from the Senate concurring in the resolution of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform, subject to the following modification: Paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(2) That the Committee consist of 11 members, four members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, one member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the Opposition Whip, one member of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Leader of the National Party, the Deputy Leader of the National Party or the National Party Whip, two senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, one senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, and two senators to be nominated by any minority group or groups or any independent senator or independent senators.''. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That the modification of the Senate be agreed to. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House that I have received notifications from the party whips nominating members to be members of certain committees. As the list of nominations is a lengthy one, I do not propose to read the list to the House. It will be incorporated in Hansard and recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. The list read as follows- Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory Mrs Kelly, Mr Langmore, Mr Snow and Mr Wright have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr McArthur has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Sharp has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence Mr Baldwin, Mr Beddall, Mr Bilney, Mr Campbell, Mr Charles, Mr Cross, Mr Gayler, Mr Kent, Dr Klugman, Mr Lindsay and Dr Theophanous have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Carlton, Mr Jull, Mr MacKellar, Mr Macphee and Mr White have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Hicks, Mr Katter and Mr Ian Robinson have been nominated by the National Party Whip. Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority Mr Brumby, Mr Duncan and Mr Griffiths have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Spender has been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr McGauran has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House Mr Dubois, Mr Lee and Mr Leo McLeay have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Dobie and Mrs Sullivan have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Lloyd has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs Mr Blanchard, Mr Campbell, Mr Gayler, Mr Hand and Mr Price have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Everingham and Mr Shipton have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Ian Cameron has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation Mr Chynoweth, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Gear, Ms McHugh and Mr Milton have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Connolly and Mr Miles have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Peter Fisher has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Standing Committee on Expenditure Mr Robert Brown, Ms Fatin, Mr Free, Mr Langmore, Mr Leo McLeay, Mr Martin, Mr Mountford and Mr Simmons have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Beale, Mr Hawker, Mr Tuckey and Mr Wilson have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Cobb, Mr Cowan and Mr Slipper have been nominated by the National Party Whip. Standing Committee on Procedure Mr Hollis, Mr Keogh, Mr Lindsay, Mr Leo McLeay and Mr Mountford have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Donald Cameron and Mr Hodgman have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Millar has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Standing Committee on Transport Safety Mrs Darling, Mr Gorman, Mr Hollis, Mr Lamb and Mr Mildren have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Goodluck and Mr Downer have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Tim Fischer has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Select Committee on Aircraft Noise Mr Dubois, Mr Gear, Mr Maher, Mr Milton and Mr O'Keefe have been nominated by the Government Whip, Mr Burr and Mr Webster have been nominated by the Opposition Whip and Mr Tim Fischer has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in addition to Mr Speaker, ex officio, Mr Blanchard, Mr Ewen Cameron, Mr Katter, Mr Maher, Mr Martin and Mrs Sullivan be members of the House Committee. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That Mr N. A. Brown, Mr Campbell, Mr Cleeland, Mr Gear, Mr Hodgman, Mr Lindsay, Mr Millar, Mr Reith, Mr Simmons and Mr Tickner be members of the Committee of Privileges. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Proceedings Broadcasting Act 1946, in addition to Mr Speaker, ex officio, Mr Brumby, Mr Ronald Edwards, Mr Hicks, Mr Jull and Mr Maher be members of the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Accounts Committee Act 1951, the following members be appointed members of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, viz: Mr Cadman, Mrs Kelly, Mrs Mayer, Mr Nehl, Mr Price, Mr Punch, Mr Rocher, Mr Sharp, Dr Theophanous and Mr Tickner. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following members be appointed members of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, viz: Mr Andrew, Mr Halverson, Mr Hollis, Mr Keogh, Mr Millar and Mr Wright. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(9.59) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The Flags Act Amendment Bill has come from the Senate today and it gives honourable members a chance to say that the Australian flag is the sign and symbol of our country and that we want it to remain so. In view of the fact that the Bill has just come to this House, honourable members may ask themselves what precisely does the Bill do. The Bill proposes to do three things: Firstly, it preserves our Australian national flag; secondly, it prevents our flag from being changed except by a referendum; and thirdly, it prevents the Government from advising the Governor-General to make regulations for a flag other than the Australian national flag as the standard for the Commonwealth of Australia. Those are three propositions with which I trust that this House and every member in this House will concur. Above all, no matter which of those propositions honourable members may look at, it can be said that there is a common theme through each of them, and it is simply that the Australian flag cannot be changed without asking the people whether they want it to be changed. We on this side of the House, and I trust honourable members on the Government side, believe that when the people are asked whether they wish to have the Australian national flag changed, they will say no. Let me elaborate on this point for a short while, in view of the importance of the matter. The Bill will seek to strengthen and reinforce the flag as the symbol and the standard of the Commonwealth of Australia, of the Government and of our nation. The changes proposed in the Bill would not have been considered except for the manner in which the Government moved last year to replace the national anthem, God Save the Queen, with a new version of Advance Australia Fair. The replacement was effected merely by the gazettal of the Governor-General's Order-in-Council. This was possible because the anthem is not prescribed by legislation. It is by exercise of the prerogative power of the Governor-General that the tune to be played at official functions is designated. Of course, the prerogative is exercised only upon the advice of the Government. The change generated considerable criticism because of the arbitrary way in which it was effected. I am pleased to see the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) here tonight because he was at the forefront of those who condemned the change in our national anthem without the people being properly and fully consulted. There was no inkling that a change was imminent, there was no public discussion, and, accordingly, all debate was precluded. I believe that there is now a growing fear that the Government will seek to make a similar lightning change to the Australian flag. Fortunately, the flag is prescribed by the Flags Act 1953, and the flag designated as the Australian national flag can be changed only be legislation. Nevertheless, and this is an important point, the Act does allow the Governor-General, who, of course, acts under the advice of the Government, to appoint such other flags and ensigns of Australia as he thinks fit. The fear is now held by many people that, without consulting the Australian people or the Parliament, the Government will advise the Governor-General to appoint other flags to replace the Australian national flag for specific national purposes. For instance, a different flag may be appointed as the flag to be flown at the Olympic Games, at the United Nations, or above government institutions. If sufficient other flags or ensigns are appointed, the Australian national flag might be replaced or undermined as the symbol of our nation. Our flag has a very distinguished history. It has flown over this nation and its people in peacetime and in wartime. It has been displayed when we have had triumphs at the Olympic Games. It has been flown when we have had triumphs on other sporting occasions. It has flown over people's work places, over farms and houses throughout this land, over government offices, and it is freely, readily and courageously displayed on all occasions when the symbol of our nation has to be indicated and demonstrated. We believe that it must be demonstrated. We believe that when the people look for a symbol they look to our flag. They do not look to the hammer and sickle, they look to the Australian national flag. We are proud of that flag and we believe that members of this House should be given an early opportunity, by passing this Bill, to demonstrate that they support the flag and do not want it changed. Above all, they want to say, as representatives of the Australian people, with one voice: 'Do not change our flag without fully consulting the people'. In view of the lateness of the hour, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard, as I have indicated to the Leader of the House (Mr Young), a statement made by Senator Durack on the history of our flag. Mr SPEAKER —While the honourable member may have the permission of the Leader of the House, the ruling is that Hansard is a record of the spoken word. Consistently in the last few years the incorporation of such statements has not been permitted. Mr N. A. BROWN —Mr Speaker, I understand what you have said. I am sure you say that only because of the rules and you do not wish to reflect-as none of us would wish to reflect-on that long and distinguished history. I simply say to honourable members, as I know that they are interested in this subject, that if they peruse the Senate Hansard they will find a long and detailed history of our distinguished flag which was given very eloquently by Senator Durack in the Senate. Honourable members do not need to read a detailed history of the flag. They know that our flag has a distinguished history. They have seen it fly. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Let me assist the honourable member. I have enforced that ruling which has been given by me and my predecessor because I did not want to break the rulings which have been given. If the honourable member had leave he could table the document, which would partly satisfy his requirements. Mr N. A. BROWN —I seek leave to table that document. Leave granted. Mr N. A. BROWN —I am indebted to the Leader of the House. I simply say that we can look at a detailed history of the flag if we need to but we know, without doing that, that the flag has a distinguished history-a history which always says that it is the sign and symbol of our country and that it represents our nation when it is flown. In conclusion, we want honourable members to have an opportunity of saying that this flag should not be changed without the approval of the Australian people. In commending the Bill to the House, I hope that every honourable member can find it in himself or herself to vote readily and confidently to pass this Bill promptly. Mr SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? Mr Ian Cameron —As the member responsible for introducing a similar Bill in this House, it is my pleasure to second the motion. I reserve my right to speak loudly and clearly on another day. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Debate resumed. Mr SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Forde, I remind honourable members that this is his maiden speech and I trust that the House will offer him the usual courtesies. Dr WATSON(Forde)(10.08) —Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to high office. You can be assured that the authority of the Chair will always command my utmost respect. It is indeed a great honour for me to stand in what has become known as 'this place' and represent the people of Forde as their first member for the new Federal division of Forde. As honourable members are aware, the electorate of Forde is named in honour of the Right Honourable Francis Michael Forde, who served this place with distinction as the honourable member for Capricornia from 1922 to 1946. When the Right Honourable John Curtin died in 1945, Frank Forde, as Deputy Prime Minister, was automatically sworn in as Prime Minister. A week later, when the leadership was put to the vote in the Labor Caucus, he was narrowly defeated by the Right Honourable Ben Chifley and thus entered the history books as the shortest serving Prime Minister in Australian history. Frank Forde accepted defeat graciously, a quality which it seems is shared by other Australian Labor Party leaders of Queensland. It is a quality which some of their younger comrades have yet to acquire, but then again it has always been difficult for socialists to accept democracy. My electorate of Forde contains a wide cross-section of constituents from different backgrounds. The established parts have a high proportion of older people either nearing their retirement or struggling to come to grips with the economic realities of leaving the work force. They are concerned at the Government's heavy tax on lump sum superannuation payments, the ever declining buying power of their pensions and the blatant attack on their savings by the assets test. My newer areas are characterised by families with children, including many who are first home buyers. They are struggling to repay their home loans and concerned by the likelihood of higher interest rates. They are worried that capital gains taxes and wealth taxes will destroy their ability to provide for their children. However, far and away the biggest problem in my newer residential areas is that of unemployment. Since the election I have been approached by numerous people of all ages who simply cannot find jobs. I do not need to remind the House that this situation is a catalyst for social problems such as drug and alcohol abuse, the breakdown of marriages and a general increase in the crime rate. These people are waiting for the Government to honour its commitment of creating jobs for everyone. Of course, jobs cannot be created if there is a lack of incentive. This brings me to the third section of my electorate which is concerned with light industry. Many factories and shops have closed, or at least wound down, in recent years. They are looking for incentives for investment and for relief from the heavy taxation burden. It is becoming a little passe to note Australia's economic decline, a decline which has been steady for the past 80 years. It has already been noted by numerous economic commentators that Australia has fallen from being a country which before the First World War had the highest per capita income; now it is one of the poorer countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Unfortunately, that slide seems to be accelerating. One could attempt to examine the causes of this decline in a broad analysis, but I believe in the limited time available it is more instructive to examine one sector of the economy in detail. In doing this, I refer to His Excellency the Governor-General's Speech and, in particular, to his comments on education and industrial relations. I have chosen to comment on education not only because of my interest and background in that field but also because educational opportunities are a major concern to many of our children and their parents. As the popular Press has noted over the last few weeks, Australian parents are deeply concerned about the quality and relevance of the education being received by our children. In Queensland they are concerned about the reduced opportunity for education beyond the secondary level. However, an equally important reason for examining education, particularly tertiary education, in Australia is that one can clearly see the perverse effects of this Government's interventionist policies and the fallacies underlying that intervention. This topic is also receiving attention in the media. The malaise which has settled on Australian education, and higher education in particular, has, as one of its root causes, the abolition of university fees by the Whitlam Labor Government. The socialist penchant for using the education system to redistribute wealth and to change our society in deceptive ways is also destroying our education system. Four basic arguments are advanced for total government funding of education. First, it is argued that education is something special to which, prima facie, all members of the human race have a moral claim. The second is that free tuition provides educational opportunities to low income groups. The third is that cultural education, although not profitable in market terms, is, nevertheless, somehow desirable. Fourthly, perhaps a rather technical argument is that students will under-invest in education since they ignore the external gains indirectly conferred on other members of society. Given the recent statements by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) it seems an opportune time to examine the issues involved in the funding of education. In examining these previously mentioned arguments, I intend to draw liberally from excellent papers from my former colleagues, particularly Professors Bob Officer and Michael Porter at Monash University, George Fane and Frank Milne at the Australian National University and Armen Alchian of the University of California. Firstly, even if the desirability, of providing everyone with the opportunity of obtaining some minimum level of education is accepted, the case for government rather than market provision of any particular commodity does not follow merely from the fact that everyone has a basic need for that commodity. For example, Government policies currently allow private markets to supply the demand for food, even though the need for minimum subsistence levels for food is more basic than the need for primary education, let alone tertiary education. Debate interrupted. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Dr WATSON(Forde) —I thank the House. Secondly, the argument that low income groups-that is, poor people-cannot contribute towards a profitable university or college education is deceptive. What is meant by a poor person? All university and college calibre students are rich in both a monetary and a non-monetary sense. their inherited mental talent, their human capital, is great wealth. The failure of socialists to perceive this inherent wealth reflects ignorance of two economic facts. The first is that inanimate capital goods are not the only forms of wealth. The second fact they ignore is the difference between current earnings and wealth. For example, a person with untapped oil is wealthy even though he is not marketing his oil. So it is with university students. Even though their current earnings are small, their wealth-the present value of their future earnings-is larger than for the average person. It is this wealth, not the current earnings of the student or his parents' wealth, that is a measure of a student's richness. There remains one even more seriously deceptive ambiguity-that between the subsidisation of college education and the provision of educational opportunity. This is the crux of the question. Educational opportunity is provided if any person who can benefit from attending college is enabled to do so despite the smallness of current earnings. An appropriately designed loans and scholarship scheme would ensure equal opportunity for education no matter what the current earnings of the student or of the student's parents. Nothing in the provision of full educational opportunity implies that students who are financed during university should not later repay out of their enhanced earnings those who financed their education-the ordinary taxpayers of Australia. Not to ask for repayment is to grant students a gift of wealth at the expense of those who do not attend college. It is exactly the same as using public moneys for the building of a dam or a road for use primarily by a few individuals. The third argument relates to the proposition that a cultural education will enhance a student's general welfare even though it will not add to his future earnings. A person's welfare is increased if he gets more food, more housing, more recreation or perhaps even more beer. An efficient form of aid, as judged by the recipient, would be a grant of money to be spent as the recipient deems appropriate. It would indeed be interesting to see whether students would devote such a lump sum grant to education or to other investments if they were given a free choice. Subsidised cultural education, instead of money gifts, could be justified only if the giver knows better than the recipient what is good for the recipient. This is, of course, the typical position adopted by socialists not merely with respect to educational choices but for most welfare choices. While the socialists of the Australian Labor Party readily accept this form of intellectual snobbery, it is a leap of faith I am unwilling to make as one who values and respects the sovereignty of the individual. The final argument advanced for free tuition is that there are social gains-in economic jargon, positive external effects-from education. However, before external effects can serve as a valid basis for more education two conditions must be fulfilled. Firstly, there must be some net social gain unheeded by the student. For example, the ability to read reduces danger and inconvenience to other people. That is an example of a positive external effect. Perhaps economic education would prevent the passage of socially detrimental legislation, although with the present Government this possibility seems remote. While this argument is probably valid at the primary school level of education, it is doubtful that this justification continues at higher levels. Secondly, at the university level there must be available further incremental net social gains from further education. Simply because there may be net external gains from education, because of the large social gains from elementary education, it is not sufficient to conclude that total government funding of university or college education is warranted. However, the issue of free tuition is not limited to the question of access to university education. The movement from fee paying recipients of education to one of government funding has a critical impact on the incentives faced by the universities and the colleges. This, combined with the system of tenure operating in universities and the bureaucratic and centralised wage fixation system and resource allocation system, explains many of the inefficiencies and rigidities in Australian universities. Importantly, it has had a distorting effect on the provision of or, in an economic sense, the production of university courses. The distortion which the Whitlam socialist Government began can clearly be seen in an analysis of enrolments in tertiary institutions in various countries. For example, in engineering and related scientific courses, Australia has a much lower percentage of students than any of our major competitors. However, in courses concerned with humanities, religion and theology, we have a much higher percentage of students than our major competitors. This distortion in our allocation of educational resources exacerbates the problems arising from relatively low participation rates in Australia for education past Year 10. The fault clearly lies in the mechanism for distributing education resources in Australia. If Australia is to be technologically competitive in the future, our current resource allocation process must be eliminated and replaced by a mechanism which is responsive to the education demands of potential students. Given the total level of government spending on universities and colleges, there are serious problems in deciding how the money should be divided between and within such institutions. Taken as a whole, the process is complex and unwieldy. The market demand coming from the consumer, both current and, very importantly, potential students, by its very nature, is muted. The demand from various pressure groups within academia and the Government is greatly exaggerated. In the 1970s, for example, the opening or expansion of universities and colleges replaced dam building as enticements to marginal electorates. The consequences flowing from unnecessary dams or colleges were equally disastrous in wasting taxpayers' money. Certain of these institutions should never have been opened because, even with our heavily subsidised educational system, they attract relatively small numbers of students, and then invariably in the wrong areas. We are presently seeing these mistakes repeated in the Northern Territory and, I am sure, they will be repeated in other parts of Australia in the future. If we are to provide tertiary education to more Australians in an efficient way, further rationalisation of Australia's education system needs to take place. Australian tertiary institutions are too small to take advantage of economies of scale in some disciplines. In Queensland it is obvious that the Queensland Institute of Technology and the University of Queensland should be encouraged to expand significantly if tertiary education is to be provided in disciplines where it is needed and yet still provide it at a reasonable cost. The final point I wish to address is the incentive for individual academics. In a government funded institution, the relationship between lecturing performance and reward is tenuous. Consequently, the incentive to teach well is greatly reduced. It is hardly surprising that students complain of poor teaching in these institutions. While this is important for individual universities, the centralised wage fixation process has an even more detrimental effect on the production of education. Because salaries are set by the Academic Salaries Tribunal and do not reflect market demand, we see a distortion in the demand for academics and Australia's ability to supply certain educational courses. For example, in areas such as accounting and finance, where good staff can earn significantly greater salaries in outside practice or in United States and European universities, we face a significant shortage Australia-wide. The permanent loss overseas of Australians qualified to teach and to do research in these areas means a reduction in the education opportunity available to all Australians. However, in other disciplines the reverse is true. Consequently, we see post-graduate students undertake socially wasteful further studies as the academic requirements are raised to ration the few subsidised positions available. Mr Speaker, it would be improper to leave this subject without referring to the gains to all Australians of returning to a more efficient tertiary education system. There are two distinct advantages. The first would accrue to those young Australians who are presently being denied the opportunity to pursue their preferred career because of the arbitrary nature of quotas based upon some mythical high school entrance score. Many parents in my electorate have dreams for their children's future. They are concerned that those dreams will not be realised, not through the absence of ability or desire to succeed on the part of their children, but rather because of arbitrary quotas forced on tertiary institutions by a socialist government. For them a return to a more rational system of educational funding will be applauded. A second advantage will accrue to all Australian taxpayers. A market based system will increase the productivity of educational resources, thereby increasing the availability of education. It will free up education funds and further reduce the taxation burden. There will be a further reduction in taxation through the elimination of bureaucratic mechanisms presently used for the distribution of funds. We should also encourage Australians to invest in their own education by providing them with appropriate taxation incentives. They will find this to be the best investment in life. Australia can no longer afford the educational system of this country to be held hostage to a warped socialist ideology. Australia's future lies with the generation presently at school. They deserve an effective educational system which truly promotes equal opportunity for all. This issue is vital to all Australians, whether they live in my electorate of Forde or in any other electorate. I hope that all honourable members in the future will give due consideration to my comments. Finally, I thank those honourable members in the House for their attentiveness during my address and particularly for granting me the time to complete it. Debate (on motion by Mr Humphreys) adjourned. Motion (by Mr Howe) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.25) —Mr Speaker, I would be failing in my duty as a loyal Australian and a member of this Parliament who is not ashamed to call himself a patriot if tonight I did not draw to the attention of this honourable House the enormous damage which has been done to Australia's international reputation by the Hawke socialist Government. Since the Thirty-fourth Parliament commenced last week we have had all sorts of explanations and excuses proferred by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his Government of fourth graders and fifth columnists over the ANZUS Treaty tragedy. The headlines of the United States of America Press are eloquent testimony as to what our major ally now thinks about us. I quote them verbatim. The first is 'Australia balks on accord to aid in U.S. test of MX'. That appeared on the front page of the New York Times of 7 February this year and was read by millions of our allies as the story was syndicated nationwide. What does 'balk' mean? According to the Oxford Dictionary it means 'to avoid a duty', 'to disappoint', 'to frustrate'. Is that the action of a faithful and loyal ally? Then there is this headline: 'Premier cites split in party', under which appeared these lines: 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. In those words this discredited Prime Minister admitted to the people of the United States that he was the shackled prisoner of the pro-communist Left, the most dangerous and sinister element in Australian politics today. I, as an Australian, felt ashamed when I read that report and that shame which I felt was shared by millions of my fellow Australians. The rest of the headlines spell out in graphic terms the disgraceful and shameless backdown of a Prime Minister who put party factional interests ahead of the national interest. To get a world perspective of how others see Australia's actions I turn to the Soviet Union. The Novosti Press Agency-APN-of Zubovsky Bulvar, 4 119021 Moscow, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics carries the Soviet line right around the world. It translates into English and many other languages what the Soviet Press has said, and what the Soviet Press says is what the State says. Agentstvo Pechati Novosti of Tuesday, 12 February 1985 reprints the leading story of Pravda for 9 February this year. Under the headline 'position revised' Pravda enthusiastically reports that Australia's position of co-operating with the United States has been 'revised'. The article lauds the decision; quotes with approval statements of a member of the national executive of the Australian Labor Party-the master, or should I say the mastermind-of the Hawke socialist Government; predictably praises comrade Lange and claims 'a stream of letters has poured to the Prime Minister of New Zealand from Australians expressing support for the stand taken by him'. Mr N. A. Brown —Where did this appear? Mr HODGMAN —In Pravda on 9 February. I-and the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) of course-read it every day. I wonder whether our discredited Prime Minister-the little Caesar of Australian politics who went away as a Hawke and came back as a chicken-is happy to know the joy and enthusiasm with which the Soviet Union has reported the 'revision' of the Australian-United States alliance. In conclusion, I now ask-and demand an answer-yes or no: Does the Australian Prime Minister intend to emulate the action of comrade Lange by calling in the Soviet Ambassador to Australia and telling him that he does not wish his backdown on ANZUS to be written up with such warm approval and congratulations by the Soviet Press? I rest my case. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.32) —In answer to a question that I posed yesterday in relation to who is paying for what in the building and maintenance of Queensland's Bruce Highway, the Minister for Transport and Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) informed the House, much to the embarrassment of National Party members on the other side, that the full costs of this highway are being borne by the Hawke Labor Government. Honourable members probably do not realise the significance of this issue and I thought I had best bring it to the attention of the House. The significance of the revelation is that the Bjelke-Petersen Government has been misleading the people of Queensland regarding its road and highway expenditure. Hundreds of signs have been built on the 1,600 kilometres length of the Bruce Highway, costing in some cases, I am told, about $1,000 a time, proclaiming the fact, in the State Government's terms, that the work is a State Government project. Tens of thousands of dollars are being misused on what are no more than propaganda signs. Mr Slipper —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is talking utter nonsense. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Fisher is new to this Parliament but he may have noticed that I have warned that honourable members who raise frivolous points of order will be named forthwith. It is only his inexperience that prevents me from taking that action now. Mr WRIGHT —I accept the comment from a novice but it is totally incorrect. Blatant untruths are being told, and I will demonstrate this. False credit is being taken and money on the signs is being wasted. I believe it could have better been used on safety signs or some sort of supportive road safety project. There seems to be no end to the lengths to which the Bjelke-Petersen Government will go in advancing its own political ends. It has now produced thousands of brochures promoting the development of this road, again a road that it is not even paying for. It is not the first time that the National Party Government in Queensland has done it. Some time ago a special grant of $20m was given for roads in north Queensland. It was never used in the north. There is no record of the money being used on roads at all. I suspect that the money was used on the metropolitan electrification scheme in Brisbane. That claim has never been denied and there has never been any detail as to how the money was spent. I believe that the time has come for this Government to think very carefully about the road funding and particularly the allocations to Queensland for roads. Every time local authorities go to the State Government the excuse is given that the Commonwealth is not giving any money to the State. It says all the time that it cannot build the roads because there is no money forthcoming from this national Parliament. I need to restate the comments made by the Minister yesterday when he pointed out that for 1984-85 $270m has been given to Queensland by the Hawke Labor Government. In fact the Hawke Labor Government is paying 62 per cent of road expenditure in the State. Yet we see the inadequacy of the roads around Queensland. In my electorate there is a desperate need for money to be spent on what we call the grain roads. The Mt Morgan range is dangerous. The Yeppoon tourist road is a disgrace. The Dingo-Middlemount road is hazardous to life. I believe it is totally wrong and immoral for a State government to take moneys from a road like that and spend them on a road servicing Bjelke-Petersen's son. There is a need to rethink road funding allocations for Queensland and I suggest that thought be given to making the money directly available to the local authorities, to give the local authorities a say in where the priorities ought to be. Councillor Jim Turner of the Belyando Shire Council, and other grain road councils, have prepared an excellent submission. They know where the money ought to be spent. But the State is spending it where it wants to. It spends the money in National Party electorates. There is clearly a need to give the local authorities a say, to allow them to determine where the local roads allocation ought to be spent and to allow them to have some say as to where money for arterial roads ought to be spent. I suggest to honourable members that there is some value in this. It would give new status to local authorities. It would decentralise decision making. It would guarantee that the country and provincial roads of Queensland would be catered for. It would be more in keeping with what we see as a partnership role between the three levels of government. It certainly would end the abuse by the Queensland State Government. There are 134 shire councils and councils desperately in need of funds-funds that are being withheld by the State Government regardless of the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars are being given by this national Parliament. There is a desperate and urgent need for the Government to review its present approach to the Queensland Government-and I urge it to do so-and give funding for roads directly to the local authorities. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.37) —It is now some 12 months since the introduction of Medicare and I believe it is appropriate once again in this Parliament to review its operations. In summary, the effect of Medicare has been to squeeze out the private enterprise dollar from medical services in this country, which has meant that the total amount of funding available for health services has decreased substantially. That means that services have to be curtailed and people will be squeezed out of the provision of health services. Who then has the Government chosen as the sacrificial lamb? Collectively, it is country people. I will put before the House three examples of how Medicare severely disadvantages my constituents in Gippsland and all country people, especially in Victoria. Firstly, with regard to bush nursing hospitals, already the Toora private bush nursing hospital within my electorate has closed. Two others at Mirboo North and Heyfield are encountering severe budgetary difficulties and are in danger of closing down. These are not private hospitals as such; they are community-owned hospitals which service relatively isolated communities. Consequently, those people are being deprived of a hospital service close to their community. For the purpose of this argument, leaving aside the employment opportunities, it means that those people in those communities in South Gippsland, Mirboo North and across the Strzlecki Ranges and Heyfield in East Gippsland must travel relatively long distances to visit relatives in hospital as well as to be hospitalised. That worries me as it worries those communities. Secondly, we have a shortage of Medicare officers throughout country areas. Again, this deprives country people of their entitlement, given that they pay a one per cent levy on their income by way of taxation, as does every other taxpayer in Australia. Again, this Government has failed to take into account the distances that must be travelled in the country. It has also failed to take into account the disparity in and shortage of public transport. The third example I wish to put before the House is one that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) failed to correct despite representations that were made to him. I refer to cases in which a visiting specialist to a country hospital is given a lump sum payment which includes after-care treatment. But, of course, the specialist returns to the city leaving the after-care the responsibility of the local general practitioner. Under the Medicare arrangements the general practitioner is not allowed to share in the fee given to the specialist. The Australian Medical Association has advised me that at present fee splitting is unethical although, admittedly, it is looking at the situation. Why must the patient pay again for after-care when Medicare is supposed to have taken care of that aspect of his treatment already? In conclusion, Medicare has resulted in tremendous suffering and has accentuated the difficulties of medical services in country areas. Those difficulties already existed and were unacceptable. Public hospitals in country areas have the same problems as do public hospitals in metropolitan areas. Country hospitals are overcrowded because people will not pay extra insurance on top of the one per cent levy to attend private hospitals. This problem is further accentuated by the closing of private bush nursing hospitals, which has resulted from the callous exercise of governmental power and, in some cases, ministerial discretion. Mr N. A. Brown —Deliberate. Mr McGAURAN —That is right. There is not one member of the Government side representing a country electorate, let alone those who represent city electorates, who can hold his head high and say that he has properly discharged his responsibilities to his voters on taking office. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.43) —I have been asked to comment on a matter that was raised in the House today by my colleague the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous). The honourable member drew attention to the Cain Government's 10 year development plan. I would like to say something about that plan because I believe it to be a bold initiative which has shown that the Government of Victoria is prepared to lay itself open to be accountable in terms of the development of that State. It is a move which I think has been both positive and very well responded to. Under the Cain Government, for the first time the business sector, the trade union sector and the community at large have a plan and a blueprint upon which they can base their business decisions, lifestyles and projections for the development of Victoria. I want to compare the Cain Government record in this respect with that of its predecessor, the Liberal-National Party coalition in Victoria. Under it there was a period of stagnation. There were no plans and no future projections-just maps on tables and walls of projects that did not come to fruition. I also want to draw attention to the announcement yesterday by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of the admission of new banks into Australia. The Victorian development plan has also played its role in attracting these banks to Australia and the components of them that will be making their way to Victoria. It is evident from commitments given to the Treasurer as a result of the entry of foreign banks that new jobs will be created in Victoria. Large scale building works will be undertaken as these banks open substantial offices in prime sites in the central business district and there will be competition. In the area from which I come-the area of non-bank financial intermediaries-I know that the opening up of competition will also be welcomed because provisions have been made in the conditions laid down by the Government to ensure that those non-bank financial intermediaries have available to them the benefits of true competition within the banking sector. I return to the initiative of the Victorian Government in establishing a 10 year development plan which has provided the business sector and those in the community who are looking to planning their future with a blueprint from which they can make their projections and on which they can positively come to Victoria. I am sure that that development plan and the initiative it represents is a move that will be followed by other States as they see the advantages and the results that will flow to Victoria from that. Mr BRAITHWAITE(Dawson)(10.45) —I rise tonight in response to the address by the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who seems to be treating this House as a coward's castle from which, from as far south as Canberra, he can make allegations that he is not prepared to make in Queensland. He comes to us as a rather discredited former Leader of the Opposition in Queensland to continue his attack on the Queensland Premier from this point further south. He has not fooled anyone with the complaints he has raised. In fact, I understand the same principle applies in the other States as applies in Queensland. With respect to the bicentennial road development program and the upgrading of Queensland roads, he did not say that an equally expensive sign to that of the Queensland Government indicates that work is being carried out as part of the bicentennial road development program. Over nine years I have found that State governments everywhere try to claim credit for themselves. However, they do not fool anyone. In the nine years I have represented the seat of Dawson I have found that the person in the street and the person travelling on the roads is very well aware of where the money comes from and who is to be blamed for a lack of it. In my period of representation I have had no greater difficulty then that of trying to gain support for the allocation of additional funds. I explain to any honourable member who is not familiar with the Queensland road situation that Queensland, with the exception of Western Australia, has the longest roads to service and the greatest climatic variations of any State. I wish that the honourable member for Capricornia would join me, when the new road Act comes into operation at the end of June, in arguing not for less funds, as he treasonably did in his speech, but for more funds for Queensland in recognition of the fact that we have such long stretches of roads and varying climatic conditions, because in the past we have not received a fair proportion of the funds for roads. The honourable member for Capricornia might also ask his Government why if the bicentennial road development program has been so successful, the indexed value of the 2c a litre levy fuel has been placed in Consolidated Revenue and not used for roads. The need for additional funds for roads exists not only in Queensland but all over Australia. The honourable member might find on calculation that $500,000 will be taken from motorists all over Australia through the indexed levy but will not be used for roads, which the honourable member and I agree are desperately in need of that extra funding. Instead, it will go to Consolidated Revenue. The honourable member for Capricornia might have found it of more interest to his constituents had he asked what the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) was doing about the categorisation of private hospitals. I understand that the Mater Misericordiae Hospitals in his city will suffer a reduction in funding from the categorisation, just as the Mater Misericordiae Hospitals in Mackay will suffer a loss of $1m. These hospitals will lose funds merely because they will be reclassified from group 1 to group 3. Why is the honourable member for Capricornia not making a point in this House about that matter, which vitally affects his constituents? Mr Wright —I take a point of order, Mr Speaker. It ought to be made known to the House that such meetings have been held with the private hospitals in Brisbane and the honourable member for Dawson has not even bothered to come to them. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Capricornia should have observed my previous warning to members. Mr BRAITHWAITE —Mr Speaker, I do not have to tell you the reputation of the man-he speaks from his own mouth-as far as his ignorance is concerned. Of the private hospitals in Queensland, 14 will suffer a reduction in funding. The private hospitals system feels that this is just the first step down the road towards nationalising the hospital system in Queensland. I say that because the one hospital for which I can speak with authority will lose $1m, which means that pre-natal care, post-natal care, intensive care and nurses' training will be wiped out. This is a hospital that has recently undertaken a $6m expansion in order to give the people of Mackay and the region the type of hospital service they want and a choice so far as the public system is concerned. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(10.50) —Earlier this evening we heard in this place a speech that I can describe only as disgraceful. During the time I have been a member of the Parliament a trend has developed whereby on occasions some honourable members have had scant regard for the facts, and sometimes the whole truth, in parts of their speeches. The speech to which I refer was made earlier this evening by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). It was interesting to note that the honourable member came into this House with a lot of gusto, looking rather ruddy-faced. Mr Hand —Perhaps he was having a party. Mr CHARLES —He was probably having a party downstairs. One wonders why he was in such an up-tempo mood. I wish to bring to the notice of the Parliament the so-called facts that were not facts which the honourable member brought before the House. He talked about the United States alliance and how it was in disarray and falling apart, about how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had not done this and that and was a disgrace to the country in Australia's eyes. According to him, the whole world was going down. We were all heading downhill so fast that it was not funny. According to the honourable member all of this was out of communist magazine, a Moscow magazine. I must admit that I wonder how he reads it. He is supposedly the most reactionary member of the Parliament, yet he is the only member of the Parliament who can quote all the material that comes out of Moscow. I wonder, if we waited outside the Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, how many times we would actually see him going in and out. Be that as it may, the facts are that the United States alliance, the ANZUS alliance, is as strong as ever. In fact, it is stronger than ever because of commitments the Hawke Government has made over a whole range of issues, including the porting situation, the joint facilities, and the independent opinions that have been put forward by this Government in discussions with our American friends from time to time. I say that the alliance is stronger because at least now the United States of America respects Australia and this country is putting forward an independent viewpoint, whether we agree or disagree. There are times when we disagree with the Americans. The Americans now realise that we are not a country that is totally sycophantic to the Americans, as was the case during the last three decades when we had almost consecutive conservative governments such as the 'All the way with L.B.J.' corps we saw in the 1960s, when we all marched off to Vietnam. Mr Hand —They sent everybody else off to do their rotten fighting. Mr CHARLES —That is absolutely correct. That situation has continued for many years. I am a strong supporter of the ANZUS alliance, as is the Hawke Government. There are plenty of examples to prove that point. We may from time to time disagree with the United States of America. I am sure that will occur in the future. If there is to be a respectable and strong relationship, whether between countries or between individuals, each should have respect for the other's opinion. I believe that that is occurring within the ANZUS alliance at present. I disagree with New Zealand's position. So does the Government. That has been made plain. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has said that. The situation is really that diplomacy, I think, should be explored a little more by the Americans and the New Zealanders, at least in the short term. I have raised those comments to put the position of this Government very firmly as against the absolute lunacy that was put to the House by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) earlier this evening in an outrageous speech that did not do this Parliament any good or any honour. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.56) —I rise this evening to defend some of the most vulnerable members of my electorate, the senior citizens of my electorate, who not only are under attack from the point of view of the assets test but also currently-believe it or not in Australia-are quite literally under attack because the very homes in which they live are in danger of being blown out of the beachside area in which they are located. The senior citizens to whom I refer live at two little hamlets called Port Parham and Webb Beach. Honourable members may well be forgiven if they know not where Port Parham and Webb Beach are. I hope that they will forgive me if I spend just 30 seconds in a brief geography lesson. Honourable members will be familiar with South Australia and with St Vincents Gulf on which the city of Adelaide is located. At the top of St Vincents Gulf is Port Wakefield, which, of course, is at the heart of the electorate of Wakefield. Just south of Port Wakefield there is an Army proof and experimental range which has been located there since 1920. As a result of that proof and experimental range having been used wisely to test rounds of ammunition and shells for the Army during the Second World War, all the beaches from Port Wakefield for 30 kilometres south are now polluted with Army shells. Those beaches are not accessible. They cannot be used by South Australians as recreation beaches. South Australians accept this as part of the price they pay for defending the nation. The proposal currently before the residents of Port Wakefield and the residents of these two hamlets, Port Parham and Webb Beach, just beyond the proof range, is to extend the proof range so that Port Parham and Webb Beach also will be shelled by the testing from Port Wakefield. The patriotic citizens of South Australia accept this reluctantly in the interests of the nation's defence. However, the reality is that for three years the people of Port Parham and Webb Beach have not known whether they will be bought out or blown out of the water. Mr Hand —That is a bit rough. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his sympathy. In spite of the fact that on becoming a member of this House I not only inherited this problem but also alerted the then Minister for Defence to it, I have had no reaction from him. Let me be fair. Mr Hand —What did the previous Government do? Mr ANDREW —Members of the previous Government were in the process of making a decision when I inherited this problem two years ago. Mr Hand —And they are still trying to make up their minds. Mr ANDREW —Precisely. It is perfectly fair to interject that it took the Fraser Government one year to make a decision. I accept that delay. However, it has taken this Government two years to announce nothing at all. In those 2 years the very senior citizens whom the Government claims to be most sensitive towards have been left not knowing whether there is a future in the communities in which they live. In April 1984, almost twelve months ago, under pressure from the South Australian Government and, may I modestly say, the member for Wakefield, the former Minister for Defence said: 'Oh, dear me. Tut, tut. I do not know what we will do so we will have an environmental impact statement.' Mr Howe —A very wise decision. Mr ANDREW —A wise decision, to be sure. But in fact we are still waiting on the outcome of that EIS. That is why I am speaking tonight. We were promised that in November 1984 that announcement would be made. Come November the answer was: 'We are caught up in an election. This is no time for making announcements. Wait until January'. Patiently my constituents and I waited until January. The answer then was: 'No, there is a change of Minister now. We will have to brief the new Minister. Wait until March'. March is tomorrow. How much longer will I and the residents of Port Parham and Webb Beach be waiting for that decision? These are senior citizens who have retired there and invested their life savings in these two hamlets. They know not whether to paint their houses or to sell them. They do not know whether they have any future at all. It is the indolence of this Government that is causing them their present suffering. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, 19 March. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11 p.m. until Tuesday, 19 March at 2 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.