Tuesday, 19 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —On 21 February, I announced details of representation arrangements for the Ministry in each chamber. At that time I indicated that both the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones) would represent respective parts of the portfolio responsibilities of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) in this chamber. I wish now to advise the House that Senator Button will be represented solely in this chamber by the Minister for Science. I also wish to inform the House that the Minister for Trade left Australia this morning to visit Bangkok, Dublin, Paris, Geneva and Bonn. He will be attending a meeting of the Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific, chairing a meeting of Australian trade commissioners in Europe, holding discussions with officials of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and dealing with other trade and youth policy matters. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) will act as Minister for Trade until Mr Dawkins returns on 31 March. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) will represent the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) in this chamber. I also inform the House that I will be travelling to Canada on Thursday at the invitation of the Canadian Government to address the Canadian economic summit meeting. Canada has a good conservative government. Obviously the Conservative Party in Canada has better taste than the conservative party in Australia. I am sure I will take the good wishes of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) with me to Mr Mulroney. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) will act as Prime Minister until I return on Monday evening. The Clerk-Notice has been received from the Leader of the Opposition of his intention at the next sitting to move: That this House censures the Government in that since the last sitting of the House the Government has inflicted upon Australia a further series of unprecedented national security debacles that have resulted in: (1) The grave weakening of the ANZUS alliance as an operative force in the region and a contributor to the Western alliance; (2) The alienation of the ASEAN nations; (3) The weakening of Australia's contribution to international peace and disarmament; (4) The replacement of Australia's once solid international standing by a reputation for unreliability, inconsistency and naivety, and (5) The subordination of the national interest to the demands of the Labor Party's factions. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —by leave-I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith the motion of censure of the Government of which he has given notice for the next sitting. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG —I wish to inform the House that I accept the notice of motion given by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) as a motion of censure of the Government for the purpose of standing order 110. Motion of Censure Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.05) —I move: That this House censures the Government in that since the last sitting of the House the Government has inflicted upon Australia a further series of unprecedented national security debacles that have resulted in: (1) The grave weakening of the ANZUS alliance as an operative force in the region and a contributor to the Western alliance; (2) The alienation of the Association of South East Asian Nations; (3) The weakening of Australia's contribution to international peace and disarmament; (4) The replacement of Australia's once solid international standing by a reputation for unreliability, inconsistency and naivety; and (5) The subordination of the national interest to the demands of the Labor Party's factions. It is only 25 days since we moved a censure against this Government and this Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) for weakness, naivety and willingness to compromise Australia's national interest. The consequences of the Government's actions since then compel the Opposition again to censure the Government. Since the House rose, the ANZUS pact, fundamental in the words of both the Government as well as, of course, ourselves, fundamental to our security and our contribution to the Western alliance, has been declared by none other than the Prime Minister to be no longer operative. The Prime Minister's policy on Indo-China, executed by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), has left Australia isolated from ASEAN, criticised by the People's Republic of China and lied to by the Vietnamese. The Government, despite the pleas of the Egyptian and Israeli governments, has reaffirmed its decision to end Australia's participation in the Sinai peacekeeping force, to the detriment of the peace process in the Middle East. Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government Hawke Government These events follow immediately on the Government's reneging on its commitment to assist the United States in testing the MX missile, its refusal to support the United States strategic modernisation program and its rejection of the United States measures that brought the Soviet Union back to the disarmament negotiations. This Government has given Australia a reputation for unreliability, inconsistency and naivety. There is a common thread in this rather chaotic tapestry. Wherever we look, be it towards the United States and New Zealand, ASEAN and China or Israel and Egypt, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have let our friends and allies down. They have damaged the national interest and they have left our alliances in tatters and our foreign policy in disarray. The causes of this are the totally distorted perspectives that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister bring to matters of national security and, of course, to our basic regional and international interests. The inescapable conclusion is that they see issues in isolation. Instead of bringing these into a global perspective, seeing where Australia stands within the Western alliance, with ANZUS and what flows from that, these elements are viewed in isolation and they do not understand the total impact of their actions on Australia's vital interests. Furthermore-and critically important-under pressure from the Left this Government continually deludes itself that the issues it continuously compromises on are not central but merely marginal. It does not understand that the centre will collapse if the flanks are surrendered. Let us look at the outcomes of its incomprehension: ASEAN was declared, by the Government, to be the centrepiece of its regional policy, but at the same time it undertook the Vietnam sideshow to appease the Left. The Vietnam excursion has eroded our credibility with ASEAN and it has failed. ANZUS was acknowledged as being central to our security. The refusal to act in the ANZUS crisis was a sacrifice to left wing pacifism and ANZUS is not now operative. It pleases the Left so much. It has long been its aim to destroy ANZUS and, in its leader's own words: 'It is no longer operative'. The US alliance and the avoidance of nuclear war are said to be fundamental. But, to appease the Left, the Government reneged on the MX commitment, undermined America's disarmament negotiating positions at the United Nations and rejected the very basis on which the United States successfully brought the Soviet Union to the negotiating table. While the Prime Minister was announcing that ANZUS was no longer operative, the Foreign Minister was on his way to Vietnam on a futile mission that alienated us from ASEAN and, of course, from China. ASEAN has long been concerned about Australia's naive attitude which has been expressed so often-the naivete that has flowed through the Foreign Minister's pronouncements. Its attitude to Vietnam's attempts to fulfil its traditional imperial designs on Kampuchea have been seen to have been totally naive. The effect that this naivete has had in undermining ASEAN's diplomatic stance on Kampuchea has oft been commented upon. But, when the Hawke Government assumed office, it assured the Australian people that it would give ASEAN high priority. The Governor-General's Speech of 21 April 1983 stated: My advisers seek to ensure that relations with the member nations of ASEAN are placed on the firmest possible footing . . . This was an apparent recognition that Australia's future security and wellbeing was inextricably linked with ASEAN. Yet, from the beginning, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister, rather than supporting ASEAN on a position vital to its security, have acted in ways that have scarred our relations with Vietnam, ASEAN and everyone they have turned to, because of their lack of focus on the central importance of ASEAN, rather than the importance they place on appeasing Vietnam. Let me recall that part of the basis for the last censure motion that we moved was the belief that the Government's failure to act in the ANZUS crisis under pressure from its left wing would inevitably result in the destruction of ANZUS. That unravelling has been announced by the Prime Minister since we were last in this place. The Government has progressively moved Australia's Indo-China policy from what ought to be a principled search for a peaceful solution to the Kampuchean problem to open sympathy with the Vietnamese. The absolutely open sympathy with the Vietnamese overrides any principled search for peace in Kampuchea. Nothing more clearly indicates this point than the Foreign Minister's March statement which reads: I understand the reasons why Vietnam went across the border into Kampuchea. They have been provoked and their security breached a number of times by the Pol Pot forces. He also stated that the Kampuchean people have to accept a second best solution and prefer to have the Vietnamese forces to guarantee their security. I contrast that with the ASEAN joint statement of 11 February which called on the international community to increase support and assistance to the Kampuchean people 'in their political and military struggle to liberate their homeland from foreign occupation'. There could be no greater chasm in perceptions and policies than that evidenced by the contrast between the Foreign Minister's statement and the statement by ASEAN. A very interesting quotation came out of this visit. The Foreign Minister has said that the Prime Minister, with respect to his Indo-China exercise, told him: I want it clearly understood that I support you. It was my initiative, and you've been faithfully carrying it out. That was the Foreign Minister about the Prime Minister's instructions to him. The Prime Minister has to explain why he sent his Foreign Minister to talk on a grand peace settlement at the height of Vietnam's onslaught on Kampuchea. He must explain why he authorised his Foreign Minister to meet the Kampuchean Prime Minister, Hun Sen. Presumably he knows Mr Hun Sen's background. Hun Sen was, like his leader Heng Samrin, one of Pol Pot's military aides in the Khmer Rouge. It is not sufficient for the Government to say that it sits down with a person such as Hun Sen because it needs to know what he thinks. One does not ask Hun Sen what he thinks; frankly, one asks Hanoi. The Government's disarray and naivety on foreign policy is manifest in the contradictory statements made within 24 hours by the Foreign Minister. On 9 March he described the Vietnamese Government's so-called clarifications as: . . . the most important development to take place in the Kampuchean border situation to this point. He also accepted Vietnamese assurances that the Vietnamese had not gone into Thailand. Honourable members will have seen the cartoon in the Australian. They were going to show him flying pigs. He would have accepted them. The assurance given by the Vietnamese to some flying Australian rabbit was to the effect that these incursions would not occur. He blithely accepted that on 9 March. However, on 10 March the Foreign Minister, confronted by the irrefutable evidence from the Thais that Vietnamese forces had crossed the border, was forced to back down completely and then accuse the Vietnamese of lying. The Foreign Minister admitted that the Vietnamese had not been: . . . honest in the assurances they gave me. Whilst the conflict continues there is no prospect of any matter being considered seriously. The fact is that the Vietnamese assurances should never have been accepted. Presumably our intelligence was telling the Foreign Minister of the situation. If it was not, why not? What is wrong with the Foreign Minister's administration? Alternatively, he could have learnt about it from the 5 March United States Department public briefing on the Vietnamese incursions into Thailand. Of course, under this Government-this is a fairly fundamental point-one does not believe and one does not trust friends, and increasingly our friends reciprocate. The Government has sought to shore up its credibility by claiming that the clarification it received from the Vietnamese Government on what it means by the elimination of Pol Pot and one-party free elections, is supposedly, a significant breakthrough. Singapore's Foreign Minister Dhanabalan spelt out very clearly what these clarifications amounted to. In today's Age newspaper he is reported as stating that they revealed 'nothing new'. The only thing the Minister says he has going for him now in this desperate endeavour to put some element of credibility into his trip is that he got first class clarifications from the Vietnamese. Even the Singapore Foreign Minister, in seeking to help the Australian Minister, has said that nothing new was revealed and that in some respects it was made plain that what the Vietnamese sought was: . . . over-lordship in Indo-China. Of course, the Thai Foreign Minister said exactly the same thing. I remind honourable members that this is the region that was to be the focal point of our foreign policy. We were going to get our regional relationships right. In the course of the last 15 months four out of the five ASEAN Foreign Ministers have condemned our Foreign Minister as being totally naive and have taken on this Government. So much so for allegedly restoring some balance in our relations! We all know that the Left is very keen on the restoration of relations of the most effective form with Vietnam. Labor's left wing supports the Vietnamese for clearly ideological reasons. It would ultimately like to resume aid to Vietnam. In the meantime, it forces the Government to stumble down the path of nothing short of appeasement in Indo-China. That has been the result. Worse than that result in many ways-if it were stated to be the aim that would be bad enough-is that now the Thais are even posing the question whether we are still friends. Imagine the day when countries with which we are on the closest possible terms have to ask our Foreign Minister: 'Are we still friends?' The official Chinese Press has called Australia's Foreign Minister a 'cat's paw' of the Vietnamese, and Dr Mochtar, the Indonesian Foreign Minister, said very gently that the events did not help Mr Hayden's credibility. It is some duo we have running foreign policy-a cat's paw and a drover's dog! No wonder they fight like cat and dog! Where does this leave Australia's role in Indo-China? As Dr Mochtar said: . . . it rather makes it difficult now I think. I mean Australia would have to restore the confidence of some of her neighbours. The challenge put down by Dr Mochtar is that we now have to restore the confidence of some of our neighbours-some fine practice in the field of foreign policy. What Australia has done in Indo-China is wrong in practice-we have let down our friends and our allies in the region and we have eroded their diplomatic stand on Kampuchea-but it is also wrong in principle. It was Vietnam which brutally invaded Kampuchea six years ago and still refuses to withdraw. I listened to the prattle from the Left in this country, implying that this was done as some act of humanity. Vietnam did not do this for any reason of humanity, but to install a puppet government. Mr Beazley —You resigned from the Fraser Government. Mr PEACOCK —If that is a reference to my stand on Pol Pot, I will argue it any day with you fellows because you were the ones who recognised him in the first place. The House will recall the circumstance. Indeed, I will remind the House that the Pol Pot forces took over in Kampuchea. They could not get to Peking quickly enough. They found a fellow in the street and bestowed recognition on him, and three weeks later they were still unable to tell me the name of the man they communicated with. The same sort of practice is going on today. Quite frankly, I put the matter in these terms, if Government members want it in shorthand: We have just seen the Foreign Minister practising Fourex diplomacy and ending up like a bull in an Indo-China shop. There is no doubt of that. The concern that this involves is felt by Australia. The reality is that this can be explained away on the basis of either relations with Prime Ministers or relations with other countries as involving too much Fourex. The fact is that we are talking about matters of national security. We are therefore talking about the interests of every Australian man, woman and child. That is fundamental to the conduct of government and to the practice of diplomacy which has been so appallingly destroyed in the conduct of foreign affairs in the course of the last two-and-a-half weeks. It is a concern not merely in terms of relations with ASEAN but with what transpired in regard to ANZUS itself. On 22 February the Prime Minister moved an amendment in this House which said: . . . this House reaffirms the Government's commitment to the ANZUS alliance. He did that on 22 February. On 28 February, on the termination of the United States defence co-operation and intelligence sharing with New Zealand, the Prime Minister refused to come into the House to explain the situation to the Australian people. When I asked him whether he would call a special meeting of the ANZUS Council to address the ANZUS crisis, he told the House: The question of the calling of a meeting of the ANZUS Council to which the honourable gentleman referred is already under consideration. The Prime Minister misled this House because when he answered that question he knew that the United States had already made the decision which had made ANZUS inoperative. In early February, the Americans had advised him of the final blow to ANZUS, that they would not participate in the scheduled meeting of the ANZUS Council. The Prime Minister hid this from the House. He hid it from the Australian people and, from what we understand, he hid it from no less than the New Zealand Government. The reasons for his deception are clear. He had already caved in to the Left on missiles and he had refused to play a constructive role in the ANZUS crisis. The Prime Minister was afraid that the combination of the burden of our MX commitment to the United States and the destruction of ANZUS would lead the Australian people to understand the magnitude of the damage that this Government has done to our national security. The Prime Minister was right to be afraid. The United States is our main ally, and we let it down. ANZUS has been the cornerstone of our security for 34 years. It is now inoperative. The Government now seeks to justify its dereliction of duty over ANZUS by saying that it will preserve the bilateral defence relationship between Australia and the United States. This statement misses the point. The ANZUS Treaty is now a hollow shell and we are left with something much less. The termination of defence co-operation between the United States and New Zealand has diminished Australia's and the region's security. This Government has constantly maintained that ANZUS is 'fundamental' to our security. Yet when this House rose it announced that a focal point of ANZUS-the meeting of the Council of Ministers-would not be held. It went beyond that and said it is now inoperative. I was intrigued to know that the Prime Minister said on the Willesee program that he had put his job on the line over national security. We had had the ending of ANZUS, the break in our relations with our closest regional friends, damage done in the minds of four out of the five Foreign Ministers concerned, the most basic treaty not in operation, and no ministerial council meeting will be held under that treaty. So much for the alleged security of our nation, yet the Prime Minister is still here. So much for the words. What of the substance? The substance indicates no clear concept on the part of the Government but an attempt time and again to do deals and to wrap up this problem and that problem. There is no conceptual framework around the Government's foreign policy and, worse still, no concern that the security of all Australians may well be jeopardised. If one says that a treaty is fundamental to a nation's security and then says that it is inoperative, what is the inescapable conclusion? It is obvious. Yet again, masked in rhetoric, the Government will tell us that no damage whatsoever has been done to our security, to our defence relationship or to our regional relationships. I should mention another factor over and above the unravelling of ANZUS in the course of the last weeks, because, the unreliability of our foreign policy is not confined to our friends on both sides of the Pacific. It will be recalled that the Prime Minister shed a tear in this House when speaking on the question of our relationship with a long established friend, a nation which we have supported from the time of her inception in the United Nations as a nation. Australia has been a longstanding, firm supporter of Israel and has maintained a certain stance on the Middle East which, apart from a hiccup in the period of the Whitlam Government, has been bipartisan. In 1981 the Fraser Government decided to provide 100 men and some helicopters to the multinational peacekeeping force in the Sinai. I have heard this man speak and pledge his support for that not only from the heart but also from the mind. What has happened since Parliament last sat? There has been a typical compromise of principle. The Hawke Government has decided to withdraw the force, notwithstanding the fact that the Israeli and Egyptian governments have asked it to reconsider its decision. Let me make it quite clear that this Coalition, the Opposition, believes that Australia's contribution should remain while necessary and while contributing to peace. It is clear that it is still doing this. Once again, under pressure from the left wing, we let down our friends. It seems that only those who are not our friends gain succour, help, assistance and dialogue from this Government. It has become increasingly clear that the Prime Minister's basic philosophy in the conduct of foreign policy is appeasement both at home and abroad. He appeased a virulently anti-American wing of his Party factions in regard to the MX missile, he has helped undermine the ANZUS Treaty, he has encouraged the Foreign Minister, to the dismay of ASEAN Foreign Ministers, to achieve the disaster that I have just outlined and we now no longer play any part in the search for peace between Israel and the Arab nations. The consequences of the Prime Minister's administration over the last two years have therefore been the undermining of our credibility as a responsible member of the Western alliance, an undermining of our position in the Asian region and towards ASEAN and an undermining of our own security and our position in the world. These consequences flow not from judgments made calmly and rationally on the basis of an understanding of Australia's national interests, not from thoughtful and searching debate about the issues involved. On the contrary, they flow from the Prime Minister's flawed judgment of the national interest, compounded by fear of the threatening noises from the turbulent factions. What the Prime Minister does not realise is that one cannot treat matters of national security by wheeling and dealing, as he used to do in the past and as he is now doing, with factional party interests. Nor can one make the sorts of deals that are made on the only ground he seems to comprehend-that of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. One cannot make the deals that the ACTU makes-give a bit here, talk a bit there-in foreign policy. When it comes to foreign policy, where the fundamental interests of Australia, its friends and allies are at stake, one should take a totally different approach. If the Prime Minister does not start standing up to the left wing of his own party, if he continues to let Australia's foreign policy slide in its present direction, an epitaph will be written on his Administration. I concluded in my last speech on this matter with a reference that clearly upset the Prime Minister so I will not develop that again. It was a reference to the way in which he had scurried from the principles of John Curtin. He was not prepared to talk to members of his Party and win them to his view on matters of great import to the nation but he scuttled away to do a deal and make an arrangement with a particular faction. If this continues not only will this nation and our friends suffer but also the epitaph that will be written on his Administration may well be a cruel parody of John Kennedy's grand statement. It would seem that we will not pay the price nor bear the burdens but we will shirk hardships, dump friends and appease foes because we no longer care enough about the survival and success of liberty. That is the inescapable conclusion down the line for a man who puts appeasement of factions ahead of the security of his nation. Mr SPEAKER —The time of the Leader of the Opposition has expired. Is the motion seconded? Mr McVeigh —Mr Speaker, honourable members opposite are displaying signs. They have placards up. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would remind members on the back benches that a warning has already been given about the displaying of signs in the House. I suggest that if they wish to defy the Chair they must accept the action the Chair takes. Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.36) —I will deal with each of the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) and demonstrate again the insatiable and regrettable desire he has to put Australia down and to put Australia's national interests down. Let me come first to the question of ANZUS, on which he spent some time. There is no doubt that the problems in regard to ANZUS which arose because of the decision of the New Zealand Government in regard to the access of United States naval vessels to her ports have created for Australia a most difficult and complex situation. It has created a problem for us, coming as we do into the situation concerning the United States and New Zealand. The facts are that this Government's steady response, in those difficult circumstances created by others, has preserved Australia's national security interests and it has in fact earned the respect of both of our allies, the United States and New Zealand. Moreover, it is important to understand that this Government's steady response to the difficulties created by others offers the basis for a full restoration of the trilateral operative arrangements under ANZUS when circumstances permit. Since the decision of the New Zealand Government which has precipitated this problem, the Government has been guided by three major objectives. It is important that they be understood. The first is to preserve the ANZUS Treaty; the second is to ensure the continued strength and viability of the Australia-United States alliance; and the third is to maintain to the fullest extent possible Australia's traditional, friendly bilateral relationship with New Zealand. All that we have done to date, notwithstanding the best efforts of the Opposition to sow doubt in the minds of Australians and of foreign governments, has served those three major policy objectives. Let the first fact be made clear; that the ANZUS Treaty continues to exist, a point not in dispute between any of the three ANZUS partners. Nor is there any wish or intention on the part of any of those partners to do away with the Treaty. Mr Hodgman —You must be joking. Mr HAWKE —It is said that I must be joking. Perhaps those opposite will believe what is said by the President of the United States and what is said by other spokesmen for the United States. The United States in particular has made it clear through a number of statements, through various spokesmen, that it does not intend to replace the ANZUS Treaty. Mr Hodgman —Have you read what they are writing about you in Pravda? In Moscow they think you are marvellous. Mr HAWKE —Let us get those facts clear, particularly for the benefit of the honourable member who in his benighted way keeps dragging Moscow into it. Let me first of all refer to the statement by Mr Bernard Kolb, a State Department spokesman. This is what he had to say on 5 March: There are 'no plans to terminate the ANZUS Treaty linking Australia, New Zealand and the United States in a South Pacific alliance . . . The United States regard the ANZUS Treaty as still in existence, there are no plans to terminate the Treaty or the alliance structure'. That is the statement of a spokesman for the United States State Department on 5 March. Of course, what those opposite would say is that the spokesmen for the United States are lying. Is that what they say? Do they or do they not believe what they are saying? On 6 March, the following day, in Kuala Lumpur, Assistant Secretary of State Wolfowitz, before meeting the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Bill Hayden, said: There is no basis for any speculation about a bilateral United States Treaty. We view the ANZUS Treaty as a very sound framework for security co-operation. We view the ANZUS Treaty relationships with Australia as solid and secure. I believe the words that the President himself has used: These are the words of Assistant Secretary Wolfowitz: We view the ANZUS Treaty relationships with Australia as solid and secure. Then we had today the news which should totally nail the misrepresentations that have come from the Leader of the Opposition. On the 12.30 p.m. news today, Australian Broadcasting Corporation journalist Middleton dealt with what is happening currently in the United States Congress. He said: They are considering a draft resolution which would call on the United States to bring ANZUS to a formal conclusion. Middleton continued: At the congressional hearings the Assistant Secretary of State Wolfowitz indicated his opposition to such a move. On the 12.30 news today Middleton said: At the same hearings Mr Wolfowitz and a senior Defense Department official, Mr James Kelly, considered that the New Zealand ban had not given the Soviet Union the strategic edge in the South Pacific partly because of the maintenance of strong military ties with Australia. There we have representatives of the United States Administration saying that these adverse results have not occurred. They had not occurred because, in the view of the United States Administration, the maintenance of the strong military ties with Australia had prevented that result. Those are the facts. Those are the statements of the United States Administration. If the people on the other side of this place want to say that the United States Administration is lying, they are entitled to say that but they will be judged accordingly. We in this place and the people of Australia are entitled to ask: What is the position of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the ANZUS Treaty? I remind the House that from the election of the New Zealand Labour Party Government last year until the banning of the entry of USS Buchanan from New Zealand, the Leader of the Opposition consistently called for the booting out of New Zealand from ANZUS and for its replacement by a bilateral treaty. That was the position adopted from the outset by the Leader of the Opposition: 'Boot New Zealand out of the alliance and create a new bilateral treaty'. On 8 October in this Parliament he called on us to take on the New Zealand Government and to lay the groundwork of negotiation for a bilateral treaty. He said the same thing just a little later. He said 'Take on New Zealand. Boot it out. If by three months it has not changed its position, kick it out'. That was the position of the Leader of the Opposition in regard to the ANZUS Treaty. He said quite clearly: 'Get rid of New Zealand; kick it out'. Mr Goodluck —That's right. Mr HAWKE —The honourable member for Franklin says: 'That's right'. The honourable member had a lot of sense in not going to Thredbo. It could not have been worth while. Having said well back into last year that we should kick New Zealand out, having adopted the role of arsonist, of trying to set fire to the Treaty and trying to get rid of New Zealand, the Leader of the Opposition-the man who talks about consistency of approach-then decided that he would take another tack. Having said: 'Get rid of them; kick them out; bully them', he said 'Oh, no' and attacked the Government on another course. On 28 February this man who had been the proponent of the destruction of New Zealand, the excommunication of New Zealand, having called upon me for three months to kick New Zealand out, said: 'No, I have changed my view now. It is your role and duty to call a special meeting of the ANZUS Council'. On 4 March, having consistently adopted this bullying and hectoring approach towards New Zealand, he went on AM and said that we in Australia should in fact mediate and try to get the parties together. There is absolutely no consistency in his approach-kick New Zealand out one month and the next month try to bring it back in. I will not spend any time on the contribution of the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) because I have too much respect for him. I usually respect what the honourable member has to say. So, with charity, I will overlook his proposition about what we should do. He said that we should call a conference to determine Australia's security responsibilities. Just listen to whom he said one should call to that conference. He said that we should call a conference of representatives of ASEAN, the South Pacific Forum, China, Japan, Canada and the United States to form the basis for an evaluation of ANZUS. Has one ever heard anything more ridiculous? He said that we should get this collection of aligned, non-aligned, communist, non-communist, developed and undeveloped countries together and ask them to establish the processes for determining Australia's national security interests. What a ridiculous proposition! The Leader of the National Party of Australia, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), weighed in with the proposition that we should undertake economic sanctions against New Zealand. I invite members of the House to look at what he had to say on 27 February. He said: Just going to cutting off intelligence is not enough. He said: You should also look at what you may be able to do under the Closer Economic Relations-start imposing economic sanctions on them. One therefore has only to look at the way in which the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition have vacillated to see what credence one can give to their approach in this matter. Another persistent strain in the approach by the Opposition in this area over recent weeks has been its calling into question, which it had done again today, of the American alliance-the alliance between the United States and Australia. This is a deeply dishonest line and the Opposition knows it is dishonest. It is a tragedy that the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have so little real concern for the welfare of this country that they will lie about this matter, knowing that the American-Australian alliance has not been damaged in any way. In pushing this line it is important that the people of Australia should understand that the Leader of the Opposition is not simply calling into question the credibility of this Government, myself as Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden). What must be understood is that the Opposition is bringing into question the credibility of the President of the United States, the Secretary of State of the United States and all the spokespersons who, since this matter has arisen, have expressed the view of the United States Administration. Cutting out all the cant, it is as simple as this: The Leader of the Opposition is calling the President of the United States a liar, and that is something with which he has to live. He is calling Reagan a liar, he is calling Shultz a liar and he is calling all spokespersons for the United States liars on this issue. That is something with which he will have to live. I will not take up the time of the House going to all of the sources that I could on this issue. However, I remind the House again of the following statement of President Reagan on 7 February in the United States: Australia is a reliable ally, an important trading partner, a trusted friend and a fellow democracy. As honourable members will recall, he went on to say that he could not overstate the value that the United States placed on its friendship with Australia. On 20 February, Secretary of State Shultz issued a Press statement which included the following: I am pleased by the announcement of Prime Minister Hawke of Australia on 19 February that his Cabinet has reaffirmed Australia's support for the ANZUS Alliance and for the full responsibilities that the Alliance entails. That was the statement of firstly, the President of the United States and then Secretary of State Shultz. The Government could, if it wished, refer to a considerably larger number of statements from other spokespersons for the United States which have made it clear from their point of view that the alliance relationship between Australia and the United States has never been in a sounder position. What about New Zealand? Of course, just as the Opposition's approach to more powerful countries than ours is one of mindless deference, when it comes to smaller countries the Opposition simply takes the attitude of the bully. We are not, and we will not be, in the business of attempting to bully New Zealand. It is a reflection upon the integrity of the Opposition that it would seek to do so. The national security interests of this country demand that we maintain an effective bilateral defence relationship with New Zealand because, unfortunately, there are signs of potential increases in instability in the South Pacific region. It would be an act of gross derogation of our duties to the people of Australia if we did not maintain in the best possible shape our bilateral defence relationships with New Zealand. For that reason the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) will go to New Zealand at the end of this month for three or four days to conduct and continue discussions with his counterparts in New Zealand so that our bilateral relationship will be maintained in good shape. I will be meeting in Canberra with Mr Lange at his request in a few weeks. Whilst one could go on talking about the way in which the Opposition has played havoc with the national interest of this country, I simply content myself with the observations that were made in the Sun Herald on 10 March. I ask those on the opposite side of the House to listen to what was said by the distinguished commentator, Peter Robinson, and I ask all members of this House and the people of Australia to make their judgment on the Leader of the Opposition in the light of Peter Robinson's statement. There is no doubt that honourable members opposite will want to make a lot of noise because they will not like the independent assessment that has been made of them and their leader and their posturing on this matter. Despite the fact that honourable members opposite will not like it, I ask the House to notice what Peter Robinson said in his column 'Candid Comment' on 10 March. He stated: As for Andrew Peacock, it was said after the last election that he would return to the political battlefield with renewed vigour and increased stature as an Opposition leader. There is precious little sign of this to date. His attempts to castigate the Hawke Government for being ''weak'' over ANZUS have not only been crudely unconvincing, but seem to me to reek of the flaw which all too often characterises conservative oppositions- I ask the House to note this- the willingness to undermine national interests in order to score minor political points . . . After having said that the Leader of the Opposition was about undermining Australia's national interests Peter Robinson went on to say: It also seems to me to be bad politics . . . if his remarks have any effect at all it will be to sow seeds of doubt about Australia in American minds. He asked the question: Can this really be in the national interest? The answer is obvious. What Robinson is saying and what the people of Australia are saying is that the way in which the Leader of the Opposition is going on is manifestly against the interests of this country. I leave ANZUS to come to the question of Indo-China. I simply say at the outset how appalled the members of this House and the people of Australia must be with this Leader of the Opposition getting up and referring to the 'Vietnam side-show'. He, the man who from 1969 to 1972 was Minister for the Army in the Fraser Government, comes along and talks about the efforts of Bill Hayden and this Government to achieve peace in that tortured area and refers to a 'Vietnam side-show' when the truth is that that Party of which he is now Leader presided over Australia's involvement in the Vietnam war, which was one of the most divisive and discredited episodes in Australia's history. Let me make it quite clear that when the Government decided in April 1983 to do what we could to facilitate a settlement in Cambodia, Bill Hayden and I fully appreciated the difficulties and the risks involved. We did so because the Cambodian crisis represents the greatest threat to stability in our region, not just because it offers the opportunity for unwanted external influence to involve ourselves in our region but also because of the enormous suffering of the Cambodian people, the suffering that they have endured for more than a decade and the suffering for which the policies of the previous conservative governments have to bear a full share of responsibility. So when Bill Hayden and I began this initiative we did it for all those basic reasons, knowing full well that it would be a difficult and delicate task. We at no point overestimated our capacity or our influence, but we did believe we owed it to the people of Australia, for the reasons I have given, and that we owed it to the people of the region to do what we could to try to bring the parties together. It should be understood by those who have a broad conceptual grasp of the nature of this problem what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said: 'We do not want little bits here, little bits there, decisions on this issue and decisions on that issue. What we want is a broad conceptual framework'. That is right. The great tragedy is that the Opposition will not demonstrate that broad conceptual grasp. The situation in Indo-China does not lend itself to some easy magical solution. There are deep, fundamental national antagonisms of long-standing duration. Let me just refer to some of those deep-seated conflicting interests that are involved in the problem. First of all we have the centuries old antagonism between China and Vietnam. Secondly, we have the situation of Vietnam's historical pretensions to leadership in the region. Thirdly, we have the horrendous memories and legacy associated with the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Fourthly, we have the apprehension amongst some of the ASEAN countries about China. Fifthly, we have the Soviet Union's drive to spread its influence globally, including on China's borders. When we have those fundamental, deep-seated factors operating, some of them spreading back over the centuries, it is absurd to believe that we can produce a magic wand and provide an answer. Given that mixture of deep and long-standing antagonisms and apprehension, our Government believes it has no alternative to the slow and difficult process of trying to get the countries involved in understanding that their interests are going to be better served by having peace in this region than by wasting enormous resources in the mutually antagonistic set piece which has emerged in that area. I say in this place without equivocation-and I will say it anywhere in Australia-that Bill Hayden, the Foreign Minister of this Government, has assiduously pursued Australia's interests and he has pursued those interests with honesty and integrity. The Foreign Minister and I have kept in close contact at all points in these endeavours. In doing so, Bill Hayden has established close co-operative and consultative relationships with his counterparts throughout the region which put totally into the shade any activities or actions of any of his conservative predecessors. The Government's policies on Indo-China are based on five principles which we share with our ASEAN neighbours. Those principles are these: Before there can be a settlement there must be a withdrawal of Vietnamese forces from Cambodia. There must be an act of self-determination in Cambodia. Cambodia should enjoy a healthy and productive association with the nations of the region. The territorial integrity of all nations of the region should be guaranteed and the boundaries should be respected. In light of that, I repeat without the slightest element of equivocation whatsoever that I have the fullest confidence in Bill Hayden as Foreign Minister of this Government. He has, as I say, worked assiduously for two years on this initiative and he has earned the respect of all parties involved. Let me make it quite clear without referring to any other source that we know that Bill Hayden has the confidence of his counterparts. Let me simply refer to an article in the Age newspaper of today. Under the heading, 'Hanoi peace visit a convenient stick, Singapore Minister', it states: Singapore's Foreign Minister, Mr Dhanabalan, says he believes some of the reactions in Australia to the recent visit to Vietnam by the Foreign Minister, Mr Hayden, 'seem to be hysterical'. Mr Dhanabalan said that reactions here are hysterical. Mr Dhanabalan is quite clearly saying that conservative forces in this country are simply seeking to take advantage of a particular situation to hit Mr Hayden with a stick. He is saying that the reaction is hysterical. If Mr Dhanabalan is saying that the reaction of the Opposition on this issue is hysterical, we can rest assured that that is what the people of Australia are also saying. The basic truth is that, throughout the Indo-Chinese tragedy, as we look back over the years the conservative parties in this country in regard to that tragedy have consistently supported confrontation, divisiveness and war. Against that consistent approach of the conservative forces of this country to the tragedy of Indo-China by their emphasis on confrontation, divisiveness and war, my Party and this Government have consistently pursued the path of peace and we will continue to do so. Finally, I turn to the reference by the Leader of the Opposition to the Middle East. In his snide way, he sought to suggest that this Government and I have sold out some commitment to the integrity and viability of the state of Israel. That is not true. It is as well to remember what was said in this place in May of last year when the Foreign Minister announced that we would extend our participation in the multinational force and observer group for another two years, and that involved a total period of three years following the election in March 1983. In making that announcement on 7 May, the Foreign Minister made it clear that we would not play any part in bringing about any increased stability. During that period our extension would involve looking for a replacement. That is going ahead. At no stage in the past, present or future have we or will we play a role in destabilising that region. We will not do that. We have every reason to believe that a suitable replacement for the Australian force will be found. I conclude by saying that the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in this place has shown a combination of ignorance and prejudice and has been irremediably stained by a determination on the Opposition's part to repudiate the basic national strategic interests of this country. For that reason the Opposition will earn not only the censure but also the contempt of the Australian people. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister's time has expired. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(3.07) —During his comments a few moments ago the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) quoted Peter Robinson who, in an article on the weekend in reference to my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) said that in some way he had undermined Australia's national interests to secure minor political points. It is exactly for that reason, because of the actions of this Prime Minister, this Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and this Government, that for the second time at the commencement of a sitting period we have moved a motion of censure. We believe that those actions are so serious and so disadvantageous to Australia's national interest that we are canvassing another censure motion. We are raising the matter not only because we are concerned about Australia's position as a nation and the image the Government is creating; we are also concerned that those actions have been taken on the basis of factionalism within the Australian Labor Party. Let us sheet home to this Robinson fellow the circumstances that in fact are the genesis of the second censure motion against this Government in three sitting weeks of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. This is an issue which cannot be brushed lightly aside. Members of the Labor Party walk out of the chamber when I am speaking. Honourable members opposite who spoke after my colleague the Leader of the Opposition spoke not on the basis of the merits and quality of the argument but on the basis that they know they have no answer. Honourable members opposite cannot stand in this place and defend themselves. We heard the Prime Minister's really quite ridiculous attempt at the new-found 'Bill and I'. Talk about Tweedledum and Tweedledee! That is more of the drover's dog! No wonder honourable members opposite are not prepared to debate the matter. They have no answer. No more fundamental attitude can be taken by a government of Australia than a responsible attempt to preserve in its international dealings those long-established relationships with our friends and allies and an equally important relationship with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations. It is because of the Government's failure in those two areas that we are launching this second censure motion. I think we need to look a little at the contents of the Prime Minister's defence, for that is what it was. It was not a matter of his being able to come into this House and to say that all is well in our relationships, because it is not. That is the first thing that the people of Australia need to remember. It is not a matter of a government being in control of its international relationships. It is not even a matter of the factions of the Labor Party having their act together, with the left hand or the right hand-if there is such a thing-knowing what is going on. The reality is that the Labor Party has seriously prejudiced Australia's standing with our allies and with the countries of ASEAN and that the Prime Minister came in here today with a totally inept defence. Let us look at the circumstances of what he is doing and where he is going. I believe it is very important that the people of Australia realise what is happening. The people need to put these matters in perspective. The first thing to be said is that the Labor Government welcomed a senior representative of the Soviet Government to Australia last week. I make no comment about the attitude of the Labor Party to the Soviet Union other than to say that I am very apprehensive about it. But I would mention that President Konstantin Chernenko died only a few days ago and the Government thought sufficiently of the relationship to send a senior Minister, the leader of the Labor Party in the Senate, to attend the funeral on this nation's behalf, but no mention of the late President Chernenko has been made in this House today. I say on behalf of our parties that we would hope that the Soviet Union under Mr Gorbachev can act more responsibly than it has in the past. So far as we are concerned, the people of Australia have no argument with the people of the Soviet Union. Our argument is with the way in which that country's politics are pursued. Part of the concern and part of the reason we are raising these matters of the relationship between the Labor Party and the ASEAN countries are that we worry about the Soviet build up in Cam Ranh Bay. People need to know that today Cam Ranh Bay is the most significant Soviet base in the world outside the Soviet Union, and it has escalated dramatically and significantly over the last few years. This House cannot just ignore the death of the President of one of the two super-powers in the world. We hope that, under the leadership of Mr Gorbachev, there will be some signs of responsibility and understanding in the affairs of the world and a lessening of the tensions the Soviets have tried so hard to develop. This side of the House also extends sympathy to the family of the Right Honourable John Adams, the former Prime Minister of Barbados, a Commonwealth country. We also happen to share the view that within the Commonwealth and within the world Australia has a responsibility to try to encourage goodwill, understanding and co-operation. It does not reflect very much to the credit of the Labor Party that it equally ignores the death of a leader of one of the nations of the West Indies whose sportsmen have been performing with such valour and success in Australia over the summer season. Let me get back to what the Labor Party has done. The genesis of our first censure motion was the fact that the Prime Minister in Brussels-not in the United States or in Australia-changed his mind about co-operation with the United States about MX missile testing. One needs to remember that the basis of that change of mind was not on the matter of principle. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had said that co-operation with the United States on MX missile testing was the responsible thing to do. The House will remember that what the Prime Minister did was make some international telephone calls to Tokyo and the depths of Africa. It was then decided among his supporters that Hawke simply did not have the numbers, and that is our concern in the whole of this unhappy circumstance. Mr N. A. Brown —Numbers. Factions. Mr SINCLAIR —Precisely. In the instance of the MX missile program, in relations with New Zealand and the United States as to the right way to behave, in relations with ASEAN and the fiasco over the Foreign Minister's visit to Vietnam, one must face the consequence that the Prime Minister says one thing and does another. The Government pretends that something is the right thing to do, but the factions have the day. The Prime Minister has lost all ability to lead his Party-if he ever had that ability-and lost the ability to do the right thing. Prime Ministers in Australia, and indeed anywhere, have a responsibility above all else to consider carefully the facts that are more at their fingertips than those of any other member of this place and, having considered those facts, do the right thing. This Prime Minister cannot do the right thing and if he is not in that position, having considered the actions that a country or a government should undertake, he has no business to be Prime Minister. The consequence that we see of the events involving the relationship between Prime Minister Hawke and the United States is not that the United States Administration is not defending the relationship but that the Prime Minister is doing his best to impede it. It is Prime Minister Hawke who is doing his best to weaken that relationship. The United States has acted admirably. Whether it has been President Reagan, Paul Wolfowitz, George Shultz, Cincpac or any other officials or members of the United States Administration, each person has been doing his best to preserve the relationship. But the Prime Minister is shooting from the lip. He sees that he does not have the numbers. Instead of doing as he should, he is letting the whole relationship go. That the Prime Minister came into this House today and laid down a three-pronged approach on what he is seeking to do with ANZUS is absolutely laughable. Let us look at what he said. His first aim was to 'preserve ANZUS'. In my view, sadly, and from Australia's point of view, to have acted as the Prime Minister did on the MX missile on a non-co-operative basis in not providing the limited support the United States wanted is nearly as bad as the New Zealand Government's decision not to allow visits of United States naval ships. It does not matter that the United States Administration is defending the relationship. It is a matter of principle. It is a matter of what we should do. We on this side of the House have no doubts about what we would do. We would do the right thing. We would say to the United States: 'We are prepared to co-operate. We want to know what you are doing and we are going to preserve our ANZUS relationship'. The second point that the Prime Minister made was that he wanted to protect the viability of the Australian-United States alliance. Honourable members will recall that the genesis of this censure motion came from an action of the Prime Minister. Not in this Parliament, not during the first sitting period when if there is a matter of major policy it should be discussed but outside this Parliament, at the beginning of the second week of the session, the Prime Minister announced there would be no ANZUS Council meeting. A little while ago my colleague the Leader of the Opposition referred quite properly to an answer he was given. I remind honourable members that this answer was given on the final sitting day of the first sitting period of this year. The Prime Minister came into this House and when the Leader of the Opposition asked him what he thought about having a special ANZUS Council meeting, the Prime Minister left every member of this House under the general belief that it was something he would look at very carefully. It was on the cards. It seemed to me that he gave a very positive and worthwhile answer to a problem which we all believe is extraordinarily serious. But hardly before the question and answer had been printed in the daily Hansard, the Prime Minister decided that he would let the public know that that was not the position at all. At the time he gave that answer, to use the myopic words of the Prime Minister, we suspect that he dealt in lies in giving an answer in this place that was totally unrelated to the then known truth. Mr Hodgman —He misled us. Mr SINCLAIR —He misled us, as my colleague says. He misled this Parliament because he knew full well that there would be no ANZUS Council meeting. Not only would there not be a special meeting but also there would not be an ordinary meeting. That is extraordinarily serious. If the Prime Minister wanted to preserve the Australian-United States alliance, he could have issued a joint statement. It would have been the proper thing to do. We all know that if there are three parties to a contract and one of the parties is not acting responsibly, the other two parties get together and show they have some commonality. Did the Government do that? Of course not. What it seems happened was that the United States said: 'We want to cancel this Council meeting. Let us make a joint statement'. That was not the attitude of this Government. That was not the attitude of Prime Minister Hawke. Oh no, he made one on his own. It was not revealed in this House and it was quite contrary to the implication of the answer he had given in this Parliament on the last Thursday of the first sitting. In regard to the Prime Minister's second point, frankly, we do not believe that he has complied with it. The Prime Minister's third aim was to preserve friendly bilateral relations with New Zealand. Let us put our concern into perspective. We are concerned that neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign Minister have undertaken anywhere near sufficiently the responsibility that they should exercise in the positions they hold. They should put pressure on the New Zealand Government to change its mind about visits of United States naval ships. Honourable members should make no mistake about it. People outside Australia look at Australasia as embracing Australia and New Zealand. We are tarred with the same brush, no matter what happens across the Tasman. Of course, we have a very close relationship and it is one that we on this side of the House have developed. The Prime Minister alleged that in some way we were trying to prejudice that relationship. What nonsense! It was our Government that developed the New Zealand-Australia Free Trade Agreement. It was the coalition Government that developed the whole concept of a closer economic relationship. It was our Government that tried to develop a relationship and it is this Labor Government that is not prepared to exercise responsibility by saying to New Zealand: 'Frankly, that foreign policy idiocy that you are trying to pursue is just not applicable. It is not something that we can live with. It will prejudice security, it will destroy ANZUS and it will fragment what was seen as a totally secure relationship between the three parties to ANZUS, which lay behind every defence and security arrangement in the whole of the Pacific and Indian Oceans'. Our concern is that instead of the Prime Minister saying that he is trying to preserve friendly and bilateral relations with New Zealand, the Government is not doing anything to establish proper relations with New Zealand nor applying pressure to its parliamentary political colleagues or affiliates by saying to them: 'What you are doing with ANZUS is destroying it'. Frankly, it is not good enough. The second circumstance of our censure motion is the actions and behaviour of the Foreign Minister. I am told that he will come into the House in a few minutes to give us his answer to the criticism that has been heaped on him by four out of the five ASEAN Foreign Ministers and just about every section of the media in Australia. We need to remember that on each occasion on which the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister have gone outside Australia we have had troubles. The Prime Minister told us today that he is going to Canada at the end of the week. Pity help the Canadians! Mr Peacock —He is going as an example of what not to do. Don't let this happen to you! Mr SINCLAIR —That is probably the only reason that he can be going. We need to remember that the Prime Minister, on his first overseas visit, changed his mind about uranium export policy. On the second occasion on which he went away he decided that he would change the ground rules concerning the assets test for pensioners. That is not an inconsequential matter for all those out in the electorate today who are suffering because this Government does not understand that trying to penalise those who have worked and saved throughout their lives just is not the right thing to do. Thirdly, the last time the Prime Minister went outside Australia the Foreign Minister and the Minister for Defence were defending the MX missile testing co-operation. The Prime Minister, in Brussels, said: 'No, no'. I ask: What will he do in Canada? Honourable members will remember that when the Foreign Minister went to Vietnam the other week a number of things happened. First, he set about what was supposed to be this remarkably 'Bob and I' approach towards peace in Indo-China. Let it be understood that the Opposition, for its part, is very concerned about the developments in Indo-China. We are very worried that within Kampuchea or Cambodia-whichever description is used for that country-there should be a recognition that the government of Heng Samrin is no more than a puppet government, that the Vietnamese have involved themselves in a military invasion, that many people within that country have lost their lives and that we no more support the politics that that government has pursued than we did those of Pol Pot, about which my colleague the Leader of the Opposition spoke a while ago. We seek not to take a unilateral approach to peace in Cambodia or Vietnam but to maintain a co-operative approach to the countries of ASEAN. It is there that the Foreign Minister has blown it. He does not seem to understand that Australia on her own will not be able to secure peace in Vietnam or Cambodia. We understand the problems and we recognise the difficulties. We fully endorse the view that the Prime Minister has expressed about the effect on the people of Cambodia. We seek a responsible Government foreign policy and a responsible and sensible Foreign Minister who will go to the area and assist the ASEAN countries. This Foreign Minister has gone on his own, has been deliberately deceived by the Vietnamese Government and has adopted a policy which has alienated us from ASEAN. Those three elements reflect the reason why throughout the Australian media we have had the comments and criticisms that we have seen. All we have to do is look at the series of headlines. They include: 'Foreign policy is sliding into chaos' in the Australian of 12 March, 'Hayden tarnished by foreign policy fiascos' in the Age of 14 March and 'Soviets, Chipp lend support to Hayden'-that is a great virtue, is it not-in the Australian on 15 March 1985. Mr Macphee —Who was that again? Mr SINCLAIR —The Soviets and Chipp. It is a great duo is it not? It is like the Bob and Bill duo. It makes one wonder. Another headline, 'An uncomfortable couple of months in Hayden's political career', was given to an article by Paul Malone in the Canberra Times of 15 March. We also have 'Hayden was let down by analysis' by David Jenkins and 'Thach's border assurance ''bare faced lie''.' We have this Foreign Minister who, we have been told by the Prime Minister today, is really a man of honesty and integrity. But the point is that he is a man of naivete. He is a man who lacks ability, and I am not too sure that he does not lack stability either. The point of it all is that he was misled. He got out on a platform and totally endorsed the position the Vietnamese had told him about, went to Bangkok, and found he was wrong; and, frankly, the whole of the initiative he sought to take has reflected a great deal of discredit on Australia. I do not care two wits whether or not the Foreign Minister, when he goes outside Australia, is presenting a point of view for the Labor Party. My concern is that he is presenting one that represents Australia. If in the result of his negotiations Bill Hayden, as the Foreign Minister of Australia, loses face, sadly so does Australia. Our concern on this side of the House is that the whole of this sad record of the Foreign Minister has been one of disaster. I am afraid that the 'Hayden pedestal' and the 'Hayden credibility impaired', to read from a few of these other articles, have now put the Australian people in the position of needing to recognise that he is no longer able to exercise the responsibility as Foreign Minister, whatever the vote of confidence the Prime Minister might have given him today. Frankly, in the course of the last fortnight, to a greater degree than at any other time since the election of this Government, we have seen the total ineptitude of the Labor Party in exercising the most fundamental responsibility that a government bears, that is, for acting in a proper way in relations between Australia and its allies and between Australia and countries in this region. The Foreign Minister has failed, and with him this Government has failed. The only answer is for the Foreign Minister to resign, and let us then start having a bit of responsibility in our dealings with the countries in our region and the countries which are our allies. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.27) —The bulk of the address to the Parliament by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) was devoted to my recent visit to South East Asia and particularly Indo-China. Therefore, I hope it will not be misunderstood as a display of personal vanity if I devote most and probably all of my comments to the same visit. It will be a matter of preserving my self-interest. I would be one of the first to confess that in the past few weeks I have felt somewhat battered and bruised by public commentary in relation to that visit, but I should add that I am not repentant in any way at all. The Opposition case presented by the Leader of the Opposition was lucid and cogent. But there was one thing amiss: It was based on a series of wrong assumptions. I will come to that later. For the record, I want first to clear up some facts in relation to sections of the Public Service which provide splendid support services for a person fulfilling the role I have as Foreign Minister. Some reports tended to question the quality of performance and support provided by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the intelligence resources backing government. I make it quite clear that as far as I am concerned the Department of Foreign Affairs has consistently behaved and performed in a splendid fashion. It serves the government of the day fairly, impartially and energetically. It does not serve a political party at any stage; it seeks to serve the people of Australia through the elected government. I have nothing but praise for the support I get from it. There have been some suggestions that parts of the intelligence community which provided briefing for me-in particular we are thinking of the Joint Intelligence Organisation and the Office of National Assessments-may have been seriously defective in the analysis which they provided. I make it clear that I am entirely satisfied with the material provided. I have always had a very high regard for JIO. I extend the same respect for ONA. I want that clearly understood because, it there are any causes for criticism, in the field it is all my own work and I am prepared to accept that responsibility. The situation is not clear cut-not as clear cut perhaps as the sharp headline in the late extra edition of a major capital city-when one is working in the field. The assessments provided to me by the intelligence services were as comprehensive as they could be, but intelligence services cannot manufacture information. So that the record is clear, I should point out that the first assessment I received after leaving Australia came to me as an intelligence assessment as distinct from a series of communications based on third party information. From past experience, much of that third party information can err, to a greater or lesser extent, from the hard facts when it is subjected later to the severe scrutiny of substantial intelligence analysis that takes place when hard core comparative data becomes available. While one takes cognisance of third party sources, one is much more likely to be influenced by the sort of information that comes from the disciplined, rigorous intelligence service analysis. On 6 March I received a cable. I will declassify some small part of it: Little change to the brief of 28 February. That was the JIO briefing to me, which I will quote from in a few minutes. The cable continues: There are indications that the build up noticed since February continues. Artillery shelling and minor incursions continue in the central sector. I emphasise the word 'minor'. The cable made it clear that there had been some sort of incursion. That is not unusual in the border area of Kampuchea and Thailand at a time of conflict like the present. On the 7th instant I received another assessment in this form: Vietnamese and Thai forces are engaged just inside Thai territory in the vicinity of Tatum and Samrong Kiat along the northern Cambodian border. While not/not clear at this stage, it is probable that some of the Vietnamese units have begun to withdraw from the vicinity of Tatum. I emphasise the words 'begun to withdraw'. That was not an insignificant qualification which must bear on one's mind. It seems to me that some of the public commentators and self-appointed pundits were clear in their own minds that the situation was abundantly obvious from beginning to end. I would say that the evidence from official sources would suggest otherwise. The assessment continues: Domestically, both General Arthit and Interior Minister have state there is no/no case for concern in the situation. That is scarcely cause for the sort of panic and apprehension which some commentary suggested. On 11 March, when I had reached Singapore, I received a wind-up cable which said, among other things: Very little reliable information is at hand and reports to date shed little light on the situation. In another part the cable said: At least 3,000 Vietnamese troops penetrated Thailand at the point of the border. More detail was given. That occurred well after I had left Vietnam. That is the time that the substantial information started to become available. Even then there was a lack of clarity and assuredness as to the full nature of what had taken place. I want that on the record as I want my next comment on the record, because I noticed that a commentator took the opportunity this morning to snipe at the intelligence assessments of the respective bodies which I have mentioned. Last night I saw a cable of yesterday's date from a major friendly power which has extraordinary capabilities for intelligence gathering. It was just as uncertain and stressed the uncertain condition of the situation in the border region as did those reports which I have received. In a few minutes I will quote an extract from a cable from Thailand which makes it clear that the Thais who are there fighting have experienced the same sort of difficulty. Mr Howard —Will you table it? Mr HAYDEN —No. I certainly will not table any cables. I am declassifying extracts from them. I went into Vietnam with confusing advice from third party sources. I mentioned before that there was a range of sources. For instance, on 6 March, on the eve of my entry into Hanoi, I received a cable from Bangkok which said: Details remain unclear about current developments along the border. There is some confusion and contradiction in details being provided and it is hard at this stage to vouch for the accuracy of all the claims being made. Mr Sinclair —Will you table the documents now or at the end of your speech? Mr HAYDEN —No. They are classified. I am happy to show them to the right honourable member later for his confidential information. The reason I raise this is that it is not as clear cut and dried as some self-appointed specialists who have been commentating on these matters in public would have us believe. That information was the best which was available and which could be reliably and prudently presented. It varies in no substantial way at all from that sort of information which I mentioned came from a major friendly power which has an extraordinary capacity to collect this sort of intelligence and which again was as recent as last night. There was some other commentary which was just as awry as that to which I have referred. For instance, there were comments that a two-year bureaucratic war here in Australia to try to have the initiative from Australia in support of a peace settlement in Indo-China terminated was about to succeed. The report mentioned that intelligence agencies were involved in this and I believe ONA in particular got a guernsey. I have made inquiries and it is denied by all senior officials, I gather, from those agencies. My Department tells me this. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) knows nothing about it. He made it clear today that the initiative continues. But these things appear as commentary, presumably from people who are supposed to be professionals and specialists in this field, and receive a sort of patina of respectability and authority. On the basis of the evidence available, that is totally unjustified. In another report it was said that JIO had warned me in a briefing before I left that Vietnam was in Thailand and this particular report was couched in terms of the atmospherics of attack on Tatum. So that there is no misapprehension, I will tell honourable members what the briefing said: You attended the JIO brief on 28 February where, inter alia, you were told- Vietnamese forces had intruded into Thailand on many occasions in the past to pursue resistance forces or destroy their bases. The most recent incident was an incursion near the KR base at Phrom Melai a few weeks before . . . The Sihanoukists were the only faction not yet affected by the border actions. If the Vietnamese did decide to attack the ANS main camp at Tatum on the Dangrek Escarpment, JIO advised that the only practicable method of attack would require entry into Thai territory and an approach from the north. Again, that assertion, put forward so confidently as an authoritative one, does not stand up. I think the lesson is that because something appears in print doesn't mean it has to be fact. It was alleged that I beat up the presentation in Hanoi, but on the date I held a Press conference in Hanoi, the 8th instant, I said that I had a clearer picture as a result of discussions I had had with Vietnamese officials but I had no specifics. I was very careful to limit any propensity towards excessive enthusiasm. In any event, do the commentators who write this sort of material know all of the discussions I have had? Obviously I cannot tell them all the details. I cannot tell them of a 45-minute confidential conversation I had with Vietnamese Foreign Minister Nguyen Co Thach. They do not know the content and the significance. They are not aware of four major points which are now on a document in a highly classified secret file in the Department. Very few people will see that. They do not know of two other observations which have been made to me by Nguyen Co Thach which have enormous significance for potential developments in the region. I think that in all the circumstances I had every reason to be encouraged, but I cannot tell everything I know. I certainly did not beat up the presentation. It was said elsewhere in commentary that I believed Vietnam too quickly, that I had believed Vietnam and that I indicated that I endorsed what Vietnam said. The records of Press conferences-full verbatim transcripts are available for anyone who wants to see them-show that, not once but more than that, I said that I did not endorse that undertaking from Vietnam in respect of its claim that there were no troops of its in Thailand. Furthermore, I said that I did not endorse any of the propositions that had been put to me. I merely extract what I can, seek to test it and present it to other interested parties to establish their responses and where we might go from there, if anywhere. It was said that I responded too quickly to Thailand's presentation when I arrived in Bangkok. That is not true either. What happened was that our embassy officials in Bangkok said that they firmly believed there had been a large scale invasion, much larger than had been anticipated. In a sense the prospect therein of a dramatic change in tactics was very real and, if that were to take place, could have disturbing consequences. In any event, the advice from the embassy was influential but the embassy was in no position to put hard figures or hard analytical conclusions on what had taken place; more information was required. I invite honourable members or any other interested party to look at the transcripts of what I said there and elsewhere. I was always careful. It has been said by commentary-and I am being tried and condemned on the basis of what commentators have said in this House today-that I directly accused the Vietnamese of lies and that this was a naivety on my part, having said earlier that I believed them. I never said I believed them. I was very careful of what I said. I was equally careful not to accuse them of lying for a number of reasons. I carefully chose other forms of expression. The record even shows that I declined to endorse the use of the word 'lied' or variations of it when it was put to me as a question. One reason is that I will make no progress in the sort of role that has been set for me if I charge around abusing people in that offensive sort of way. Facts become unravelled at the edges and fray into the centre from many sources in that part of the world. No one source has a monopoly on the careless handling of facts from time to time. It is not always intentional, I hasten to add, but nonetheless my experience teaches me to be careful and that is why I was careful there. While I have doubts about the account given to Dr Mochtar by Vietnam-that is, map confusion led to the incursions taking place by Vietnam-nonetheless, the fact that there is a long history of misunderstandings in that region caused me to exercise great caution in responding to these matters. There is no doubt at all, on the basis of evidence that I have been able to put together subsequently, that Vietnamese forces went across the border. But is it honestly suggested to me that although there is some uncertainty, not through any fault of our intelligence services-in this, they are no different from other intelligence services-as to the exact nature of what has been and is taking place I should go to Vietnam and say: 'Look, as best as I can find out from the uncertain facts available to me, I reckon you are doing the wrong thing there'. They would be justified in saying to me: 'That is a bit stupid as a presentation. You don't know and admit you are uncertain of your facts'. Nonetheless, I did what not many people do. Not once, but several times, I told them that we would condemn that sort of undertaking. I left no doubt as to our feeling. They denied that that sort of thing took place. I want to make the point that I did not resort to what has been attributed to me either in accepting uncritically their guarantees or in responding to them by declaring them to be liars. I am putting together cumulatively a series of indictments which have been levelled against me and which the public record shows cannot be justified in any way at all. I have been around long enough to know that the public record will stay in its pristine condition. I merely put it on the record here for consideration at a later and calmer time. Of course, I thought that the novel crispness and quality of this sort of commentary was summed up by one analyst late last week who sagely warned us all that there are only two conditions under which the communists will negotiate-one is when they are winning a war and the other is when they are losing a war. It seems to me that some commentary got caught up in the slipstream of a speeding ambulance. I repeat: I approach this responsibility, and have always, with the knowledge that facts can get blurred in the region. Let me quote some examples of the sort of thing that I mean. Many of these examples are quite innocent; I have no doubt that this one was innocent. But this is the reason why one has to approach these problems carefully. The first example concerns the San Rong Kiat incursion of 1984. Mr Carlton —They don't recognise the Prime Minister. Mr HAYDEN —If the honourable member thinks that the ASEAN countries speaking for themselves are as unhappy as he say they are when he claims to speak for them, I will quote from a number of cables to show that he is on the wrong track. In the San Rong Kiat incursion of 1984 the Thai military closed the area to the Press and issued a series of reports of very deep intrusion, captured and disabled Vietnamese tanks in Thai territory and 40 or more captured Vietnamese prisoners of war. It was eventually established that the incursions might not have been as deep as reported. No tanks were found and the prisoners of war turned out to be several dozen emaciated prisoners of the Khmer Rouge taken some months before. That was not a fault of the authorities; it was a mix-up in the message coming through. But that is how things can go astray. Soon after I became Minister for Foreign Affairs I had presented to me a report from April 1982 which was made during the period of the previous Government. I released it publicly. For some curious reason, the previous Government never wanted to release it. This technical report from the organic chemistry division of the Department of Defence covered yellow rain. It covered samples that had been sent in which were supposed to be substantial and irrefutable evidence that toxic weapons were being used in Laos. This is what appears under the heading 'Conclusions of Toxicological examination': . . . In fact, of course, we have found no toxicity whatsoever other than can be accounted for by solvent or leaf contents. The report also states: Since the samples are obvious fakes, they convey no information at all as to the veracity or otherwise of reports of chemical attacks. The reasons for their fabrication can only be guessed at; monetary gain, desire to ingratiate oneself with authority, or as a disinformation campaign. That is why I was careful; facts can get brutally mangled in the field. In February this year there was a report that the Vietnamese had been using poisonous gas artillery shells. When the sample was taken away for analysis it was found to be a completely conventional, quite orthodox artillery shell. There had been a misunderstanding. But in the intervening period, a great deal of emotion and resentment had been generated. In the meantime, paradigms of the violent, ruthless, unrestrained and unethical nature of the Vietnamese were paraded about. That is why I apply caution when I deal with any of the assertions made by a number of the parties. It is not always their fault. It is a result of the difficult and confusing circumstances with which they have to contend. But if one looks back on what I have said on the public record, which is available to everyone, one will not find justification for the excessive indictments, allegedly based on public commentary, which have been levelled against me in this House. I want to go to some of the criticisms which have been levelled against me that I have offended the ASEAN countries. I will deal with those for a few minutes. For instance my meeting with Hun Sen created problems. I spoke with Foreign Minister Air Vice Marshal Siddhi of Thailand and Mr Dhanabalan, Foreign Minister of Singapore. I gave them ample opportunity. I discussed what I had explored with Hun Sen. Neither of them took the opportunity to be critical about that. Neither of them thought to pass any critical observation, not even of mild reservation. More than that, I understand that Hun Sen is on the public record as acknowledging and naming two prominent Western statesmen as having discussed with him the situation in Kampuchea and that they, like us, are concerned about the need for a peaceful settlement. These sorts of discussions go on. (Extension of time granted) It seems to me that if one is genuinely searching for some sort of arrangement or opening that might lead to peace, one talks to as many sides as one can. Another criticism which has been made is that I was in Vietnam while Vietnamese troops were fighting on Thai soil, and that is true. I put to one side the issue as to whether the intelligence sources were able to assess at that early stage the full nature of what was going on, because that is not important. Frankly, I would have gone in any case and I will come to that in a few seconds. However, if that is an issue I would like honourable members to address a few propositions that I put to them. Dr Mochtar, the Foreign Minister of Indonesia, went into Vietnam on the weekend. We know from our intelligence that there are several hundred, probably well more than a thousand, Vietnamese troops still just across the border near Ta Tum. They are still patrolling and moving about and no doubt at the very least they are engaged in sporadic military exchanges. Dr Mochtar has gone in and we have heard none of this criticism to which I have been severely subjected. Dr Mochtar was to go in much earlier in fact and the date was changed because of other arrangements that the Vietnamese felt they had to fulfil. He would have been there at the height of the exchange if he had gone on as originally planned. I made a severe condemnation of the Vietnamese incursion into Thailand when I was in Vietnam. I repeated it elsewhere-in Bangkok and Singapore. I have not noted a concurrent condemnation from Dr Mochtar while he has been in Vietnam while this continuing Vietnamese military pressure has been present in Thailand. There is no doubting what Dr Mochtar feels about this. He is critically on the record many times about Vietnamese incursions into Thai territory. I am just making the point about the inconsistency of moral outrage, of political dudgeon, which is being expressed by the Opposition. Again, my dealings with Nguyen Co Thach, the Foreign Minister of Vietnam, have always been formal and proper. I always refer to him formally. I have declined to appear or to participate in joint Press conferences with him. But Dr Mochtar, no doubt because of a closer association and more marked affinity, participated in a joint Press conference. As they sat side by side, Dr Mochtar-and that is fair enough-referred to him as 'colleague', 'friend', 'distinguished friend' and 'good friend'. Imagine what would have happened to me if I had done that. I would have been through the mincing machine forwards and backwards half a dozen times in this Parliament by now. That is why I am meticulous to maintain a very formal and proper relationship with these people. One positive aspect is that Dr Mochtar had the grace to say that my findings would help him prepare for his trip. I find it an extraordinary proposition that I should not seek to parley for peace in Vietnam because there is a war on. It just happens to be the war that I am concerned about! There is not much point in trying to parley for peace if the war has stopped. I am not under any illusion about how much we might achieve, but I will say this now and if I have time I will go over it a little further later: A number of significant things have been put to me from a number of sources in the course of this latest exercise. As a consequence of that we would be very foolish indeed to think there was nowhere for this issue to go, there was nothing for Australia to contribute and we ought to drop off the dead end. There may not be much and there may not be very far we can go except over a very long time but there is potentially a prospect that something might be done. Let me quote some other things to these people who are worried about contact with fiendish opposite numbers who are the boo-people of the time. Let me recall that the late Lord Casey, probably one of our more distinguished Foreign Ministers, happily accepted the 1954 Indo-China settlement after he had made pleasant and influential contact with Chou En Lai, 18 years before his conservative government was prepared to recognise China. There is an impressive list of instances of Casey taking similar sorts of initiatives and being prepared to stand up for things which were worth while pursuing even though they might not have been popular at the time. I think when his biography is written in detail there will be a most favourable response from Australians, to a man who had certain principles and commitments and was prepared to pursue them for the good of this country and the good of the global order. While I do not pretend that these things are necessarily of the same order in which I am engaged I say that, in their own way they are quite important. China has been offended, it has been said by the Opposition, because of comments I made about Pol Pot. But let us not forget that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), to his credit, on 28 April 1981-he enjoyed my respect when he said this and he has had it ever since on this matter; he has it on many other matters-speaking of this matter, described the Pol Pot administration as a 'butchering regime'. He said that he could not remain a part of a government committed to recognition of the Pol Pot regime. They are sentiments with which we entirely agree. I invite honourable members to look at page 1612 of the parliamentary debate report of that date. I shall not go into the detail; it is not necessary. But it gives a chilling account of the probable deaths through cruel torture of Australian yachtsmen at the hands of the Pol Pot regime. That is part of the reason why Australians still feel deeply offended by the Pol Pot Administration and find it revolting. No wonder Mr Dhanabalan has said in the Age today, of the commentary in Australia and the political conduct, that Australia seems to be hysterical. He has pointed out that the whole issue is largely seen as 'a convenient stick with which to beat Mr Hayden'. Of course; that is obvious. Do honourable members know that the Thai Ambassador contacted my office in Parliament House last Wednesday to say that he was very concerned at the turn commentary was taking in this country at various levels and that he was prepared to go on a particular television program with me to make this clear? I was much impressed, but gratefully declined. If nothing new was achieved by my undertaking why did Tunku Rithauddeen, the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, describe what I had to report back as being important? Why did he ask me to try to get these definitions? He asked: Who are Pol Pot and his associates? What does elimination mean? What is an act of self-determination? Out of all this new questions arise. Re-education camps stick in the craw of Australians. A one-party state is not terribly attractive to anyone in this country. A requirement is that the processes proceed under the Kampuchean constitution and the Khmer Rouge throw down their arms and go back on trust. There are difficulties here for us. I find that there are many more questions to be raised. But the important point is that we got a definition where none had existed before. I challenge anyone to present a published record anywhere in which such a precise set of definitions has been produced. I note comments in the newspapers that there is nothing new. Malaysia happens to think that there is quite a bit which is new. I said earlier, because my time was running out, that I will quote just a few extracts from a cable that I received from Bangkok. It has been said that I have offended the ASEAN countries and that I have put them all off side. The Opposition members, of course, say this. They are scarcely the people qualified to be speaking for governments of other countries. They are not capable of speaking for the Government of this country. Indeed, I doubt that they are effectively capable of coherently speaking for themselves to the electorate. This is dated the 15th instant: On Mr Hayden's visit, our contacts in the MFA-- Thailand- continue to reiterate that they see the visit as having been valuable, and the discussion with Hun Sen also to have been valuable. The conclusions they draw from Mr Hayden's report to Foreign Minister Siddhi are that the Vietnamese bottom line, as revealed by Hun Sen, is quite unacceptable. They are not rejecting it; they are not opposing me speaking to him; they are seeing virtue in it. They go on: In answer to a question they said that they personally thought it valuable that Mr Hayden had gone right through the processes with Hun Sen himself, and that their own understanding of the line had improved. How does that gel against the nonsense that has been drummed up from the Opposition? Let the ASEAN countries speak for themselves. The cable continued: We told the MFA people that we had noticed that they too had experienced great difficulty in the past in sifting the various views, opinions, statements and assertions which emanate from different sections and levels of the Thai services. We noted that the MFA still had some sort of difficulties. It goes on. I will not quote any more. I hope that will terminate some of the pretentious nonsense I have read which has been proposed as a critique of our security intelligence assessments. The people who do that job did the job for previous conservative governments, will do it for future conservative governments and at all times they will do it to the best of their ability, just as they do so for this Government. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Minister for Foreign Affairs completing his speech. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(3.58) —I will quote a cable from Kuala Lumpur dated 14 March. This was a report from the High Commissioner about a discussion he had with the Malaysian Foreign Minister Tunku Rithauddeen. It states: He took particular interest in your discussion with Hun Sen. (There was no/no suggestion at all that he was concerned in any way at your meeting with him). It goes on to state: Rithauddeen commented that your visit had obviously clarified the picture and that there was now a clear scenario of what Heng Samrin and the Vietnamese wanted. He remained of the view, however- this should go in the record to balance it up- that the Vietnamese had no wish to move towards a political settlement at present. Whom do we believe-the Opposition speaking for the ASEAN countries with whom they have had no communication, or the people who speak for the governments in the capital cities of those countries? We have heard from the Thais and the Malaysians. I have pointed out the views of Singapore and Indonesia. Of course, the Philippines tends to be preoccupied with its internal affairs. There is nothing but a thin concoction put forward in this House today aimed at trying to generate political advantages at great cost to the political cohesion of this country and its foreign policy. What Mr Dhanabalan was talking about when he said that Australia seemed to be hysterical and what he was implying when he said that the behaviour was a 'convenient stick with which to beat Mr Hayden' was that really the contrivance of the Opposition among others, because of its clumsiness, had a very strong tendency to drag the ASEAN nations into the rather robust and, I might say, at times brutal domestic debate that takes place in this country on various issues-it happens now to be foreign policy-although they want no bar of it. That is the concern of those countries. A number of other issues have been raised, including the 1987 deadline which was supposed to be confidential, and the CGDK forces able to participate in some sort of settlement in Kampuchea must move in that direction. Why is Vietnam going in that direction if, as it says, it is winning? What is the incentive? I think the incentive is quite clear; it is because of China. China is a great power in the region and it must be respected. Increasingly over time it is going to expand its positive influence throughout the region. If there is to be stability, finally there must be some sort of settlement with China. China's position is a principled one. We acknowledge that; we always have. We are well aware of the principles she has laid down. I find it a matter of integrity to learn to live with and handle differences with other countries, for example, the ASEAN countries. It does not mean that we have to fracture or demolish relationships, although of course I acknowledge uninformed commentary which suggests that that has happened. The record I have outlined makes it clear that that has not happened. Commentary would have honourable members accept that I have done awful damage to personal relationships. The record I have outlined makes it clear that that does not stand up. There is nothing wrong with speculation, but it ought to be informed. The record makes it clear that it was ill-informed. That is the basis of the attack against me from the Opposition. In looking at history, particularly modern history, I believe that integrity is an important thing to apply when pursuing foreign policy. For instance-to move away from more substantial considerations there-our military intelligence assessments differ from those of some countries with a key concern about this issue. I made it clear to those countries that there are differences and what the nature of those differences are. I think it is to the credit of our intelligence assessment bodies that their analyses allow them intelligently and informedly to arrive at conclusions which may be at variation. They are looking after our national interest and applying their skills in an honest way. We do not seek to exaggerate this difference. In fact by and large I have kept it very low key and very much out of public debate, but debates such as this give us little choice because here one is projected into a position where one has to defend oneself. The nature of Australian political debate is very robust in our characteristic hurly-burly, all-in style. We understand it but our neighbours do not. They fear that they are being drawn into situations that they would prefer to be kept away from, particularly from Australian domestic politics. I can well understand that. But more than that, they fear that some of these differences will be emphasised in circumstances they would prefer not to occur. Once that happens the very thing that Opposition spokesmen are talking about will occur-the strength of some of their positions for negotiation could be undesirably diminished. The differences I am talking about-the military intelligence assessments-are no different from those which were being provided for the last Government. I had my first military intelligence assessment of the situation in Indo-China not long after becoming Foreign Minister. It is quite clear that these people will not concoct something for me and a different story for the conservatives. The Opposition's approach to foreign affairs is to fawn all over the place and hope that it will be welcomed-a sort of deferential, servile approach to this very important national responsibility. We hear much from it about special relationships. What does it mean? It is deferential in foreign affairs to the point of self-effacement, so it has nothing there. What is it getting for this country? What has it got for us? It has no concrete achievements in foreign affairs. The other area of relationship is a commercial one. What advantages did we get from the Opposition when it was in government? Do not forget that we have been in government for about five-and-a-half of the last 36 years, so any long term problems we have must quite properly be sheeted home to the previous Government. The Opposition cannot win on foreign policy because it lacks the skeletal framework to hold it up. What about commerce? I shall give the figures of Australia's trade performance for the years 1973 and 1983. We had just under 2 per cent of the world trade in 1973, and in 1983 we have just over one per cent. Trade with Japan was nearly 12 per cent of total Japanese trade in 1973 and we are now down to 4 per cent. Our trade with East Asia-that is, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea and Hong Kong-was approaching 5 1/2 per cent but we are now down to nearly 3 per cent. ASEAN trade-this is the area of great success under the conservative coalition and its special relationship; the Opposition knows how to handle the ASEAN connection!-has fallen from fractionally over 3 per cent to 2 per cent in that 10 year period. China trade has fallen from 2.8 per cent to 1.8 per cent. So where do we stand? What does the Opposition hope to achieve? What is its record? Show us! That is the difference between a reactive and an historical approach to foreign policy. We can try to take charge of the course of events with a long term perceptive, or cringe and be servile in the way the Opposition has when in government. Look what happened to it. Nothing to show for foreign policy and duds and failures in commercial policy. We are on the right track, and others say we are on the right track. General Moerdani, the Chief of the armed services in Indonesia, has said things not dissimilar from views that have sometimes been expressed by us. The Centre for Strategic and Intelligence Studies, a think-tank in Indonesia, conducted a seminar in Vietnam. The aim of that was not so much to exchange ideas but to bring people together and to get ideas, if possible. I happen to know there have been other unspecified-by that I mean that I will not specify them-initiatives in the region. We believe that the struggle for peace is justified, and I make no apologies for my role. From what I have learnt in speaking to Mr Thach and Mr Hun Sen, and from certain propositions which were put to me by the Deputy Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Mr Kapitsa, last week-and we will respond to them-I believe there is every justification for us to continue exploring this initiative. I do not want to exaggerate just where it might end up. It might stop right where it is, but on the other hand it may proceed. Mr Coleman —It might get worse. Mr HAYDEN —That is a possibility. The honourable member says that it might get worse, but it is better to try and to fail than never to have tried at all and to witness the whole regional situation progressively slide into some sort of instability generated by mounting super-power competitiveness in the region. The answers are not going to come easily. One thing I said to Hun Sen in Ho Chi Minh City was that, while we accept that Pol Pot cannot participate in settlements because of the callousness and odiousness of his background, we cannot write off 80,000 to 90,000 Khmer Rouge people. Whatever they might be called later, as a formula we cannot write them off. There will have to be contact and some sort of dialogue with them. That is rejected at this stage, but this may call for more resourcefulness and somehow down the road a new stage of development might take place. It might not, but it might. Things such as proximity talks might have to be looked at, using third parties, surrogates, or some other sort of contact. The rabidness of this debate today, in response to my presence in Vietnam, the fellow traveller smears, the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) suggesting I should be over at the Soviet embassy and that I am an appeaser-all this sort of puerile nonsense-is redolent of the completely spurious debate in this country for nearly two decades as to whether we ought to recognise communist China. Whitlam went to China as Leader of the Opposition. I still remember the then Prime Minister McMahon saying that the Chinese played with him like a fisherman plays a big fat trout which has been hooked on the line. A short time later the Americans were in China and the whole world collapsed around the conservatives. How much healthier the world is because we are having dialogue and exchanges with the Chinese. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to explore these issues to a considerable extent. I am grateful for its patience. I have had to sit quietly, clenching my teeth, for a couple of weeks while there has been damaging and inaccurate commentary about me, waiting for this opportunity to put, I believe, the record straight. I compliment those journalists who were with me and who reported the developments which took place as faithfully and as accurately as the circumstances would allow them. It was quite clear, however, on my return to Australia that the record of what had occurred had suffered rather badly because of an excitability which led people to claim that I had said things which the record shows convincingly that I did not say. More than that, the record shows that, contrary to what has been asserted or attributed to anonymous sources-allegedly from governments in the ASEAN countries-the ASEAN countries are prepared, or more than prepared, to live with what has taken place. A number of quotes that I have used show that they welcome aspects of it. Let us give Australia a bit of credit for trying to play a worthwhile role in a difficult situation. Finally, why do we have a right to try to play this role? It is very simple. We are part of the region. We are not in the region of Antarctica. Things that happen in the region can affect us and can have profound consequences for our children. We have responsibilities to future generations, too. When there has been strategic turbulence in our area, Australia has just about always been involved. We were involved quite considerably in the Second World War. We were involved quite notably at the time of confrontation in regard to Malaysia. We lost about 500 young Australians in Vietnam. I make no judgment, provocative or otherwise, about the wiseness of that conflict. I recall only that not many countries in the region made that sort of sacrifice. Proportionate to our commitment, it was a very high cost. We have military detachments in the region which are welcomed. In fact, we are importuned to keep them there. So, we are wanted there. But if we have a history of being involved there and of being wanted there and in particular if we are to have this military involvement with the potential, should turbulence get out of hand, that we could be drawn into some sort of unstable security vortex, we want to know what is happening and we want to make a contribution in respect of our views and interests in relation to potential developments. It is modest; I think it has been worthwhile. I am pleased and honoured that the Prime Minister continues to extend his support and confidence to me. I take the responsibility for any shortcomings in the field, but we will keep trying. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That the honourable member for Goldstein be able to speak without limitation of time. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(4.13) —Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a great shame that members of the Government are leaving the chamber because they ought not to be under any illusions about the accuracy of the picture. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden)-the chastened Foreign Minister who is before us-has embarked upon an exercise which is not designed to reduce super-power tensions in our part of the world, but which has greatly aggravated the potential for those tensions. The United States got the Government off the hook on which the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) had placed it when he backed down from his undertaking about the refuelling of United States planes monitoring MX missile tests. In fact, no one has got the Government off the hook on this occasion as a result of the Foreign Minister's exercise. Indeed, the statements of the Association of South East Asian Nations have added extra nails to ensure that he stays there in the full view of the world. Nothing that he has said today has eased his discomfort. Indeed, Soviet praise for the Foreign Minister's position has destroyed his capacity to undo the damage which he has caused. Yet today he has said to us that he is unrepentant. All the long-winded explanations about intelligence information are irrelevant. Let me remind the House that three days before the Foreign Minister went to Hanoi the world knew that Vietnam was invading Thailand. On 6 March, Bernard Kalb, a spokesman for the State Department in Washington, stated: On March 5, the Vietnamese army launched a series of further attacks against Khmer resistance forces. The largest was directed against the headquarters of the Sihanoukist National Army at Ta Tum. During the attack a large number of Vietnamese troops crossed the border into Thai territory, where they have been engaged by the Royal Thai Army. The United States strongly condemns these further Vietnamese violations of Thai territory. Vietnam's offensive against the Cambodian resistance and the 250,000 Khmer civilians who have sought refuge along the Thai-Cambodian border from Hanoi's occupation of their country belie Hanoi's public claims that it seeks a political solution in Cambodia and improved relations with other countries, including the United States and its neighbour. In the face of the difficult challenges confronting Thailand, we would emphasize our firm and strong commitment to Thailand's security and welfare. That statement was made by the spokesman for the State Department. We believe not only that the Australian Government should have confirmed its support for Thailand, our ally and friend of many years, but also that the Foreign Minister should have called off his visit to Hanoi. That was public knowledge. The fact is that he should never have gone in the first place. Let me now refer to something which bears on that point. The statement to which I will refer has been made by people who are real authorities on Vietnam, that is, Vietnamese who came to Australia as refugees. Before the Foreign Minister's visit to Hanoi, the Australian Vietnamese community produced a statement in the following terms: Perhaps the Foreign Minister from Australia believes that flushed with successful attacks against the Khmer resistance, Hanoi would now be more amenable to suggestions of talks? And into this scene of ''new developments'', in will come the 'white knight of peace' who will, with his well-chosen words, bring the ASEAN countries and Hanoi together, and the Khmer people will live happily ever after? We'd like to believe in this Hollywood scenario, but alas, one must now realise that there is a great difference between wishful thinking and reality. Communist regimes in the world, in general, and Hanoi, in particular, have signed many treaties, peace accords, agreements, understandings-call them what you like-, but their record of compliance is virtually non-existent. In the end, only innocent and defenceless people suffer. . . . . ''Fighting while talking'' is a well-worn Communist tactic and it is a great surprise to us to see that the world is still full of suckers who are prepared to believe in the words of Communist rulers. For the sake of Australia, we do hope Mr Hayden is not one of them. Of course, we know he proved to be precisely that. Mr Tuckey —Gullible Bill! Mr MACPHEE —'Gullible Bill', as one honourable member calls out. Quite simply, he should not have gone there. His explanation today about what he said at his Press conferences is as irrelevant as the long winded explanation about the intelligence information. The fact is that, when he gave that explanation today, it was reminiscent of the Prime Minister parsing the clauses of the joint communique that he issued with the Secretary of State, Mr Shultz. It is beside the point. The errors have been made and the explanations do not hold water. The ASEAN and Chinese Foreign Ministers also studied the records of what our Foreign Minister said before they made their statements criticising it. They did not rely simply on Press reports. They had access to records of public Press conferences. It is simply a well known tactic that after the Vietnamese have engaged in military offensives, they follow up with diplomatic offensives to try to mitigate the political fallout of their military actions. Everyone knew that here they were, in a dry season, making a major assault on the Cambodian resistance, whether or not they had to go through Thailand. Our Foreign Minister went there, heading off an offensive-a major diplomatic mission by Dr Mochtar, Indonesia's Foreign Minister on behalf of all of the ASEAN Foreign Ministers-grandstanding and trying, he says, to reduce super-power tension. What he was doing was enabling the Vietnamese, sooner than they might have otherwise tried, to get some sort of diplomatic mitigation of their horrendous assault and genocide against the Cambodian people, their invasion of the sovereignty of that country and their invasion of the sovereignty of one of our closest allies-Thailand. These are very serious matters. For the first time since Australia's alliances with the United States and its South East Asian neighbours were forged in the fires of the Second World War, Australia is now without any coherent foreign policy. What a tragedy that is. We are now a full member of the Security Council of the United Nations, but we are directionless. Our policy is utterly unpredictable. No one, not only countries in our region but also countries in the United Nations, knows what we will do next. Today we have no statement from the Prime Minister or the Foreign Minister of our foreign policy objectives. What we have instead are evasions and endeavours to escape the embarrassment in which they have placed themselves. Our position in the Asia-Pacific basin is no longer one of respect and clarity. It is one of uncertainty, mistrust and confusion. To the extent we have any discernible direction at all, it is one of abandoning our allies and encouraging the puppet regimes of communist aggressors. The foundation stone of the defence for our part of the world, the ANZUS Treaty, is, in the words of the Australian Prime Minister, inoperative. Nothing he said today changes that. What the Prime Minister did was resort to the language of the New Zealand Prime Minister and say that the Treaty still stands. It still stands because in a technical sense nobody has given notice of wanting it not to stand. However, it does not stand in a military sense. It is indeed inoperative. Our ASEAN neighbours and allies, in particular Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore, have not only been offended by the incompetent manoeuvrings of the Australian Foreign Minister but also have been betrayed by the Australian Government. They have felt it necessary to protest publicly. Our Government, in the way it has been lurching from one international ineptitude to another, is confounding our friends and giving heart to those countries which are determined to destabilise the region in which we live. It has promoted and helped encourage expansionism and instability in South East Asia and it has heightened, not reduced, international tensions. Not content with this dangerous and incompetent meddling in Indo-China, the Government also has shown the same remarkable insensitivity to the precarious peace in the Middle East. The Government's insistence on removing Australian troops from the international peace-keeping force in the Sinai is not only diametrically opposed to the publicly stated wishes of both Israel and Egypt but also symptomatic of the systematic weakening of our contribution to international peace and disarmament. So low have we descended in the esteem of our allies that the Russians have felt bold enough to offer Australia a pact to replace our alliance with the Americans when our relationship with the United States breaks down completely. Who would have imagined that we could have a Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister here and that Australians would read on Saturday the announcement that the Soviets want us to remove the Australian bases and have a pact with them. What denouncement of that proposition and the absurdity of it have we seen from the Government? There is no doubt that in the eyes of the world the Australian Foreign Minister is seen to be gullible, unreliable and inconsistent. There is a clear perception that he is as much a tool of the pro-Vietnam elements in the Socialist Left of the Labor Party as is the so-called Prime Minister of Cambodia, Mr Hun Sen, a puppet of the Soviet Union and Vietnam. In precipitating a public rebuke and a condemnation by the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Dr Mochtar, the Government's conduct of its relationships with our closest ally has reached its lowest ebb. Dr Mochtar's criticism was devastating in diplomatic parlance. The implementation of our policy, whatever it is, is a cause of very great concern to allies with which a succession of Liberal and National Party governments built up the closest possible relationship. That has now been tragically and wastefully undermined. Neither Australia nor the ASEAN countries recognise the Heng Samrin Government in Cambodia. Why then did the Foreign Minister jeopardise Australia's international reputation by placing such importance on meeting that Government's so-called Prime Minister? Much has been said today about the Pol Pot regime. Let us remember, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) reminded us, that the Pol Pot regime was recognised by the Whitlam Government. That recognition was withdrawn by the Fraser Government in consultation with China and with our ASEAN neighbours. In fact, Heng Samrin was one of Pol Pot's lieutenants. He was every bit as much a butcher as was Pol Pot. It is his so-called Prime Minister that our Foreign Minister embraced in Ho Chi Minh City when the world knew three days before that in fact there was an invasion of our friend Thailand by the Government in whose country he then was. That is an extraordinary situation in which to find ourselves. A campaign of genocide is being waged by Vietnam against the Cambodians. They are determined to wipe out any resistance in order that they can put in a puppet government. Our grandstanding Foreign Minister has gone to that country. Not only has there been serious humiliation to him but also there has been serious humiliation to us as a country. Of course, there has been great suffering for the Cambodian people and a complete undermining of the diplomacy of Prince Sihanouk, who had come to Australia only a week before, spoken to the Foreign Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and myself and explained that he came with the blessing of China, and Thailand in particular, in order to try to get Australia to support his initiative for talks aimed at bringing peace to the region. In fact, far from supporting those talks, the Foreign Minister has now, by his own admission, undermined any prospect Prince Sihanouk had of getting all the interested parties together. There was no way in the world that China would attend talks convened by Australia. However, there was a chance that China would attend talks that included the Vietnamese Government if its friend Sihanouk were able to convene the meeting. Here we have a situation in which the Foreign Minister talked to the Vietnamese Foreign Minister and believed what he said. However, Dr Kissinger is on public record as saying that the Vietnamese Foreign Minister was not to be believed. Indeed, he described him as the world's greatest liar. Mr Beazley —He talked to him. Mr MACPHEE —He talked to him but he would not believe all he told him. The fact is that the Chinese People's Daily used the expression quoted by several honourable members here today about the Foreign Minister's being a cat's paw. Let us not lose sight of what he was doing as a cat's paw. He was being used as a cat's paw by the Vietnamese so they could achieve criminal ends. That is the magnitude of the criticism of our Foreign Minister. That is a very serious matter. Mr Dhanabalan, the Singapore Foreign Minister, whom the headline in the Age newspaper suggests is trying to bail out our Foreign Minister, has done no such thing. Some 18 months ago he said our Foreign Minister was bending over backwards to please Hanoi and last Saturday in an interview with the Age he said: I am aware that there are strong sympathies for Vietnam in Australia in various factions of the Labor Party. Our neighbours know. They are well informed. Their intelligence networks are not only working but also are listened to. We have here a situation in which the Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister said, after all that criticism, that he did not believe that the Vietnamese Government was lying when it spoke to the Australian Foreign Minister in the way it did. He then said that the Soviets were prepared to offer a pact if the United States bases in Australia were closed. Significantly, as well as that, he refused to discuss the build-up of the Soviet presence in the Pacific and South East Asia. That presence is very significant. There is not just the current Vietnamese offensive in Cambodia but also the biggest build-up of Hanoi's army, air force and navy that is imaginable. Throughout the region there are efforts by the Soviet Union to establish fishing bases and fishing rights and have a maritime presence in the islands of the South Pacific. This is the sort of door that the Foreign Minister has opened as a result of his undermining of the diplomatic efforts of the countries which border Indo-China and Cambodia in particular. I am talking about China and Thailand. When Dr Mochtar makes his criticisms we should listen very carefully. The Government has not just made us a laughing stock; it has aligned Australia with Vietnam's aggression and Soviet imperialism in our region. In doing so the Foreign Minister has offended and undermined the position of our allies. Yet he has been praised by the one super-power which has a demonstrated record of hostility to the stability of our area. One part of the Foreign Minister's trip which he did not discuss today was his infamous meeting with the Prime Minister of Cambodia, the puppet of Vietnam. One has only to think about the effect of that meeting. It was to give de facto recognition to the puppet government of Vietnam. Yet our Foreign Minister said that he went there in private capacity. No Foreign Minister can go anywhere in a private capacity. Foreign Ministers do not have private capacities. Mr Spender —He used his diplomatic passport. Mr MACPHEE —Of course he used his diplomatic passport. He does not possess any other. By that meeting he aroused antagonism towards Australia from China and the ASEAN countries as well as from Prince Sihanouk and all the other Cambodian leaders. Yet this Foreign Minister has just written to all members of this Parliament-this is very significant-asking that they not visit Taiwan lest it give offence to China. What a misreading of the situation that is. Australian parliamentarians have visited Taiwan for many years. It has not offended the Chinese. The People's Republic of China knows that political and commercial considerations lead Australian parliamentarians to go to Taiwan, but the People's Republic of China would be offended by the undermining of its efforts for peace through the legitimate Cambodian leaders. It cannot regard as anything but most unfriendly action by an Australian Foreign Minister in talking to the stooge of its hostile neighbour, Vietnam. Australia's Foreign Minister has now accused the Thai Government of leaking information to the Bangkok Post. That accusation can hardly improve Australian's relations with Thailand, but even if it were correct it would show the lengths to which the Thais are offended by the actions of the Foreign Minister. Several of us on the Opposition front bench as former Ministers dealt with Air Marshal Siddhi and other Thai Ministers. Not only did we not find that any information from those discussions was leaked to the Bangkok Post or to anywhere else, but also we often had joint Press conferences. We always had harmony. In this case a situation arises in which there may have been a leak, and certainly it is compounded by accusations by the Foreign Minister that there was a leak. There is no doubt whatever that this Government has created a diplomatic disaster and great uncertainty. So much for its concern for human rights. It has jeopardised the prospects of peace in Cambodia and the prospects of Cambodians forming a government of their own people under their own self-determination. So much for the Government's concern for human rights, self-determination and friendly relations with our neighbours. So much for its concern about the stability and peace of our region. This Government is praised by the Soviet Union at a time when the Soviet Union is building up a presence in the Pacific Ocean, seeking to match its presence in the Indian Ocean. The Opposition condemns the Soviet build-up both in Vietnam and in the South Pacific, but this Government has not done so. The Opposition equally condemns the interest shown in our region by Libya and Cuba. Such developments can only threaten peace and security in our region. The door has been opened by the uncertainty of the ANZUS alliance and where Australia's foreign policy is going and the Soviet Union, Libya, Cuba and other countries are quick to take advantage. The Prime Minister derided a suggestion I made on 5 March that there be a Pacific conference. Now that ASEAN is inoperative, now that 40 years have passed since World War II, I suggested that there be a conference at which all interested countries of the west Pacific or Pacific Basin get together and decide how they believe peace, security and stability in the area may be best maintained over the next decade or two. It was a very sensible suggestion. I did not suggest a formal alliance between those countries. I merely suggested that, because we all have a vested interest in the peace of that part of the world in which we live, we should examine the threat to that peace and stability and determine on a bilateral basis what our relationships should be. It was imperative then that we worked out a meaningful bilateral relationship with the United States. It is all the more imperative now that efforts be made, because the underpinning security which ASEAN and other countries in the Pacific enjoyed has now been taken away by the destruction of ANZUS. I seriously believe that a constructive role of that nature should be taken by the Australian Government, not the kind of role that we have seen. When the Opposition comes to government, it will pick up the pieces bilaterally and multilaterally. The posture now taken by the present Government will please only the socialist Left. The Foreign Minister has taken on the appearance of a puppet of the socialist Left. It is no wonder he had such rapport with the Cambodian puppet of the communist Vietnamese. It is no wonder he won praise from the Soviet Union. We believe that the Foreign Minister and the Government generally stand condemned and should be censured by this House. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(4.36) —The honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) spoke as though this House had not been treated to one of the most detailed and extensive justifications of an absolutely essential initiative by the present Government. He ignored every point that was made and, particularly, he ignored the detailed comments of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) setting the record straight on precisely the attitudes of our friends in the Association of South East Asian Nations, the activities he pursued in Indo-China and the extent to which they found useful the product of the visits and conversations he undertook. That was all studiously ignored and set to one side. The honourable member for Goldstein relied for his case totally on demonstrably erroneous misinterpretations in the media of statements made by the Foreign Minister during his visit. That is a pity, because it effectively provided the Government with no real opportunity to debate. There has been no real sense on the other side as to what policy on Indo-China or what South East Asian policy should be pursued by us. All we had from the other side was a type of 1960s speech, a farrago of prejudice and vaguely expressed concern without any disciplined framework. In the contribution of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) at the start of the censure debate-when sufficient numbers of members were awake to listen to him-one discerned an accusation on his part that the present Government had no conceptual framework for its relationships either with South East Asia or with New Zealand and the United States of America. The Leader of the Opposition having made that accusation, which I regard as very serious, the House waited in vain for a statement by the Opposition on its conceptual framework for Australia's foreign policy relationships. We waited for a statement from the Opposition on relations with New Zealand. Where was the Opposition's suggestion for a compromise? The Opposition may actually have a few serious suggestions to which the Government might be prepared to listen. However, Government members have waited through several hours of speeches, and no such suggestions have been put forward. Where was the alternative framework for our foreign policy toward New Zealand and the crisis which has emerged in relationships between New Zealand and the United States? None was put. The Government waited for an Opposition view on ANZUS which would provide us with some sort of analysis from the other side-not just assertions-of where the Australian and American relationship, because of events in New Zealand, is supposed to have collapsed or been diminished. Again, absolutely none was put by the other side. Government members waited for a conceptual framework for our policy towards Vietnam or ASEAN and the relationships between Vietnam and the ASEAN states. We also waited for a conceptual framework for South East Asian policy from the Opposition. Again, none was put. As I said, the Opposition has some time in which to put forward those views. We wait for the Opposition's views on arms control and disarmament, since it sits there so cheerfully in the middle of its censure motion. On this matter that we are supposed to be censured on there has been not one sentence in the hours of presentation of argument on what the Opposition believed to be some sort of foreign policy perspective, on one of the four or five points in its motion of censure. It ought not to be surprising that we do not find any framework of analysis or foreign policy on the part of honourable members opposite, because when they were in government they had none and while they have been in Opposition they have had none. Let us get into the bowl of spaghetti that the Liberals call foreign policy and see whether we can find any method at all in the absurdities that they have put forward here. Let us look first at the Australia-New Zealand-United States relationship and at the Opposition's performance in the current situation, and in years past. Insofar as we can discern any sort of direction from the Opposition on where it thinks this Government ought to be going, it made a suggestion last year shortly prior to the election campaign that what we needed to do was to lay it on the line to the New Zealanders and to boot them out and say: 'If there is no agreement, we will have a bilateral treaty with the United States in three months'. The Opposition even set a time limit on it. We even had an ultimatum presented from the Opposition benches on what we ought to do about New Zealand. A couple of weeks ago in this place when the Opposition was going through one of its little foreign policy exercises we had a wringing of hands and a mewling and pulling from the Leader of the Opposition, who said: 'Why is this Government not going out to find a compromise? We have this enormous crisis on our hands. Where is the compromise position that this Government could reach? Why is it not using its good offices with New Zealand to try to make it change its mind?'. On that point we have had complete confusion from the Opposition and there has been no essential criticism from the Opposition regarding the basis of our policy and our acceptance of the situation in which we find ourselves. We wish to make absolutely certain that three things occur: Firstly, that the relationship between us and the United States remains unimpaired; secondly, that a bilateral relationship with New Zealand continues to be a possibility and continues to be in operation; and, thirdly, that we are positioned so that at some point, when there are possibilities for some movement back to an operational trilateral relationship, we will be in a situation in which the other two parties will feel comfortable in coming with us into that relationship. The Opposition has made an additional suggestion as it has gone down the line, and I referred to it earlier; that is, the idea that we ought to negotiate a bilateral treaty. I think it is important to dwell on that point because it was made at least in the few months prior to the previous election. It was suggested that after delivering an ultimatum we ought to proceed to position ourselves to be ready to negotiate such a treaty. This has never been explained by the honourable members opposite. I suppose if one is trying to look around for a framework or some sort of sense in their foreign policy and if one is approaching the issue, as I do, with the best will in the world, there may be something to what they are up to and there may be some method in their madness. So I will approach things from the Opposition's point of view. I ask honourable members to remember all the things that the Opposition said to us about the horrors of the uncertainties that have been created and the terrors that we all now confront as a result of the events which have occurred. I cannot think of anything more destabilising for this region and for our relationships with any country in this region than a reversal on this issue by this Government or a contradiction by this Government of the assurances given by the President of the United States and others in the United States Administration that they are perfectly happy with the arrangements in place with Australia under the ANZUS Treaty, even in the present circumstances. If we were to turn away from the present situation we would have to try to go through the rigmarole of negotiating another treaty with the United States and go through all the problems that that involves such as the endless congressional hearings, with all the possibilities for doubts that they raise as to whether or not this or that guarantee really applies in this or that circumstance. This is the sort of conception and framework with which the Opposition has presented us. There is no doubt at all that our neighbours in South East Asia and the South Pacific have been very pleased to see a strong relationship between Australia and the United States. That is something which they have used in diplomatic circles in the past. They have considered it as being important to them. What has been suggested by the Opposition, insofar as there is any method at all to its madness, is that we ought not accept at face value the statements of the President of the United States, the Secretary of the State of the United States and the United States officials associated with regional desks, we ought to jettison all those statements, forget about them and turn everything over and set up some form of bilateral treaty. So there has been no method and no sensible argument in the position that the Opposition has put forward. That is not surprising because honourable members opposite have never had any conceptual framework regarding their relationship with the United States under ANZUS. Over the years they have persistently wrapped themselves in a flag of unreasonable expectations and impossible scenarios and they have never sought to offer any sensible justification in this place. Mr Tuckey —Did you write this yesterday? Mr BEAZLEY —The honourable member will hear about this quite often because this issue happens to be central to foreign policy debate in this country. It happens to be the central point relating to the failure of successive Tory governments in managing foreign relations in this country. If ever honourable members opposite were to get back on to the Government benches again, which they never will because they have obviously learned nothing, it would be a central point in the failure of their foreign policies in the future. They have wrapped themselves in that flag and created impossible scenarios. They have never stood up to the Australian public and justified in detail the important day to day elements of the relationship between Australia and the United States that constitute the real day to day underpinning of ANZUS. Honourable members opposite have never been prepared to present to the Australian people a solid justification as to why those relationships ought to be maintained. They have shrouded themselves in secrecy. For instance, they have ignored the very substantial contributions made by the joint installations to arms control verification and early warning systems, all of which are essential to the stability of Soviet- American relationships. These were all matters which the Americans were perfectly happy to have publicly discussed, as we found out when we got into office. Honourable members opposite ran away from those issues and in the process betrayed the Australian people's interest in that area. The only interest honourable member opposite have ever had in the alliance is that interest that has been identified today by the journalist Peter Robinson, namely, an opportunity to play politics on the odd occasion with national security issues. That is not the basis of a conceptual framework for foreign policy; all it is is the basis for ultimate disaster. If honourable members opposite think that these disasters have no impact, the Opposition's policy was a factor-I will get on to this in a minute-in the deaths of a substantial number of young Australians in the course of the Vietnam war. Now we look for the Opposition's position on Indo-China and South East Asia, and here it has a proven record of failure, a Midas touch of failure. The Opposition has never had a policy on Indo-China which has held up. Its policy towards Indo-China has moved from being based on deceit to being based at least on murderous effect if not intent at several different important points in history. Honourable members opposite have not had a sensible policy on Indo-China since Casey gave them one in 1954. This was a policy which they ran away from as soon as the decade of the 1950s was over and Casey was out of the way. Their policy in that area has been a failure. Unfortunately, they have never had to pay a proper political price in this country for the destruction of the lives of hundreds of young Australians which occurred when that policy was pursued. After the disaster of the Opposition's Vietnam policy, we had its policy on the Pol Pot regime. It is true that the Whitlam Government was an early recogniser of the Pol Pot regime. Mr Howard —Early? You raced there with indecent haste. Mr BEAZLEY —I am glad that we have this moral indignation from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition because he was a member of the Cabinet from which his current leader felt it necessary to resign when he found himself, in attempting to pull out of recognition of Pol Pot, stymied by the attitude of his leadership. I will get on to what must have been the attitude of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition at that time, if that is the way he wishes me to go. When it became evident that Pol Pot was pursuing unprecedently murderous policies in Kampuchea, was any effort made by honourable members opposite to deal with this problem? Was there any sense of and need for intervention of a diplomatic nature to attempt to overcome that problem? There was nothing. A wringing and a washing of hands was all that took place, and they clung to Pol Pot like a limpet when Pol Pot was finally thrown out. The circumstances of Pol Pot being thrown out have created a different political problem with which we now have to deal; there is no question about that. But they left our policy morally deprived for years by continuing official recognition of Pol Pot well beyond the point when he was removed from office and well beyond the point when his murderous policies were thoroughly understood by the Australian people and members of this Parliament. I suggest to honourable members opposite that, if they wish to see how at least one of their Ministers at that point felt about all that, they look at the resignation speech of the Leader of the Opposition when he left the office of Foreign Minister, because there was a policy which simply would not stand up and which was morally reprehensible. It is understandable that honourable members opposite would cling to that policy, because that was true to their historical record. This Opposition when in government was always prepared to cling to failure, to attach itself to failure, rather than confront a serious intellectual difficulty in overcoming and thinking itself through the crisis to a new policy position. It has never been able to handle the decisions taken by the United States of America which quite critically altered the strategic environment of South East Asia and the South Pacific after the enunciation of the Guam doctrine by Nixon, which has since been consistently reaffirmed. The Opposition when in government could never comprehend the change in American policy towards China or any of the complexities of the situation in Indo-China. It has to be said, as was said by the Foreign Minister, that if we decide to pursue a policy that is based on something other than sitting down, waiting for somebody to tell us what his views are then clapping our hands, we will involve ourselves, at least at the diplomatic level, if not at the military level, in some degree of risk. We may go down a course which may not have the effect we intend. Even if we go down the correct course our friends, or enemies for that matter, may not necessarily understand us at every point or, even if they understand us, will not necessarily accept what we are doing. That happens to be the fate of any power which would wish to exercise any degree of responsibility in the region. That is the fate which we happily accept for ourselves in South East Asia. We believe that there are important issues at stake in that area. The Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) told us correctly that there has been a Soviet buildup in South Vietnam. He said to us correctly that this is a matter about which an Australian government ought to have cause for concern. He had absolutely nothing to say about how we ought to handle that problem diplomatically, about what we ought to be doing in regard to the Vietnamese in Kampuchea in resolving that problem which creates an element of instability and concern in our region. He put forward no proposals at all. One of the bases of the policy that we are pursuing in South East Asia is that we wish to see it free of the insecurities that are created by excessive involvement of powers outside that region. We wish to see a South East Asia with a diplomatic arrangement under which it is possible for other South East Asian nations to put to the Vietnamese points on which they are in disagreement-for example, the proposition that the Soviet Union ought to be brought heavily into the region's military and political affairs. Our predecessors were never in a position to make that point to the Vietnamese because they had no moral authority to do so. We, on the other hand, do find ourselves in that position. We and, quite clearly, a number of ASEAN powers wish to see a situation in which those points can be made, heard, understood and acted upon. That is at least a strategy for dealing with the problem. Nothing came forward from the Opposition to deal with that problem-no sensitivity to those issues and no competence in any proposals were put forward for dealing with that level of problem. All we get is this mindless ratbaggery from the Opposition every time there is a serious foreign policy debate in this House. There is no system at all to the thought of members of the Opposition, so we get this sort of farrago of horror stories with no means of dealing with them and no diplomatic strategy. This Opposition has absolutely no right to move a motion of censure of this Government about these issues. It has no right in terms of its record and its current policy and it has no justification in terms of the policies that are being pursued by this Government as far as the central elements of our national security and our relationship with the United States are concerned. From both our point of view and that of the relevant United States officials, that relationship remains unimpaired. It has been well protected by this Government. It is this Government which has pursued a consistent policy on South East Asia; it is this Government which has a concept of a regional arrangement which will ensure our national security and economic interests in the future. We will pursue that policy irrespective of the irrelevant criticisms being made of us by Opposition members from time to time. Those criticisms are badly motivated and irrationally based. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong)(4.57) —I was absolutely delighted that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his remarks referred to the massive buildup by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in South East Asia. In referring to that and in acknowledging what he claimed to be his concern and the concern of the Government about that buildup, the Minister for Defence threw out a challenge to the Opposition and said: 'Give us a constructive proposal to do something about this buildup by the Soviet Union in South East Asia'. I will be delighted to give the Government a constructive proposal. The constructive proposal is that the Australian Labor Party should totally abandon its absurd support for a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific. I will tell honourable members why: The Soviet Union is rapidly becoming the predominant military power in our region due to its large scale buildup in Cam Ranh Bay and the Da-Nang bases in Vietnam. The United States naval and air forces in Vietnam are growing at an alarming rate. They supplement the Vietnamese Army, which is now the third largest in the world. The important thing, and something that the Defence Minister of this country apparently does not realise, is that about one-third of the USSR's SS-20 warheads are deployed in the Soviet far east and are targeted on east Asia and the Pacific. If the USSR were to decide to base its nuclear capable Backfire and Bear long-strike aircraft in Vietnam, several Australian capital cities would be in reach of the Soviet's nuclear strike capacity. An even more serious situation would develop if the USSR relocated some of its SS-20 missiles in Vietnam. If viewed in this light, the Hawke Government's proposal for a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific makes absolutely no sense at all because it would not affect Soviet military nuclear capability in Vietnam. Rather the Soviet nuclear buildup in east Asia underlines the necessity of the United States deterrent in our region. By that intervention the Minister for Defence illustrated very graphically the serious misunderstanding of this Government's approach to foreign affairs and defence; why, for the first time since the debate that raged in this country during the 1960s over Australia's participation in the Vietnam war, matters of foreign policy and defence are now at the top of the agenda of political debate in Australia; and why over the last two months the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister between them have brought the foreign and defence relations of this country to a point of crisis that Australia has not known since the end of the Second World War. It is important in addressing this censure motion to understand the mentality of the two principal players on the other side. It is important to understand that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who would now parade himself as the greatest friend of the United States. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who pretends that under him and under his Government the American-Australian alliance has never been in better shape. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who would pretend that within his own Party he is the defender, as was his great hero, John Curtin, of the United States-Australian relationship. That is the image the Prime Minister would project to the Australian people, that almost alone he is holding back the Socialist Left and is standing up good and strong for all that is pure and important in the relationship between Australia and the United States. Yet that same Prime Minister, out of office, casting around for political friends, seeking to curry favour with the left wing of politics in Australia, was prepared in 1976, to his eternal embarrassment, to sign a call for an independent and non-aligned Australia, to sign a call which opposed military alliances, foreign military bases and military interventions. He signed it along with a veritable rogues' gallery of the left wing of Australian politics. Not only did he sign it, but when taxed with it in 1983, only two weeks after becoming Prime Minister, this is what he said in response to a question asking him to explain why he signed that document: I didn't believe in non-alignment then. If you read the document in question it doesn't follow that from the appending of my signature at that time that I was saying that my unequivocal position was one of non-alignment. Against what was said unequivocally in this document, with such prestigious company as Mr Halfpenny, Mr Carmichael and all the other luminaries of the Socialist Left in Australia, appears the signature of R. J. Hawke, the man who would now parade himself as the last defender within the Australian Labor Party of the American alliance. Of course, it is the same R. J. Hawke who in his 1976 Evatt Memorial Lecture had this to say about the present leader of the free world, Ronald Reagan, the man who in my view has done more than any American President in the last 20 years to bring the Soviet Union to serious negotiations about nuclear disarmament: As one who would have us relive on the international stage his Wild West celluloid fantasies in which, cast as the hero, he triumphed after quick-draw six-gun shoot-outs. It is not without significance that during that lecture the present Prime Minister of Australia had all his references to the Soviet threat around the world in inverted commas. In other words, he spoke in a very theoretical way about the Soviet threat. That really underlines what is wrong with the foreign policy approach of the Hawke Government because on all of the important international issues of the day, effectively the Hawke Government is lining up with the Soviet point of view against that of the United States of America. It may be unfashionable to say that. The Left may not like me saying it, and most of all the Prime Minister may not like it being said; but the reality is that he did it. Let us take the MX missile. The MX missile is an absolutely crucial element in the decision of the Soviet Union to go back to the negotiating table at Geneva. Without the MX missile, without the knowledge of the initiation of the research into the strategic defence initiative, from which the Prime Minister would totally disown himself, it is highly doubtful that the Soviet Union would have returned to the negotiating table. Yet what has the Prime Minister done on the MX missile? It is now etched in the consciousness of every Australian that, faced with the opportunity of putting his job on the line to procure the right decision for the Australian public, the Prime Minister gave in to the Socialist Left. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) so aptly pointed out this afternoon in leading this debate on our behalf, the time to put one's job on the line is when a decision is to be taken, not in some kind of abstract, theoretical vacuum after the decision has been taken and one has backed down. What justification did the Prime Minister give on that occasion? Did he say that it was in Australia's interests not to support the MX missile program? Did he say that it was against the world interest? He said: 'At heart I, Bob Hawke, really would have liked to have gone ahead with it but if I had gone ahead with it the left wing of my Party might have threatened something else. Therefore I had to back down on that. Therefore I, as Prime Minister of Australia, will leave myself in the future open to nothing short of blackmail from the left wing of my own Party on important issues of national security'. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who dishonestly parades himself as the last defender of the American alliance within his own Party. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who, when it suited his political convenience, when he was trying to curry favour with the Left, was prepared to support non-alignment as a policy in Australia. We are dealing with a Prime Minister who, when faced with a test of whether he would put his job on the line, did not. He backed down. He caved in. He showed a lack of courage on that issue and we can only conclude that the same thing is going to occur in the future. He knows now, to his eternal shame and condemnation politically, that if he had stood up to the mad Left in his party on that issue he would have won the issue and, more importantly, he would have won the respect of the Australian community, which in my opinion he has permanently forfeited as a result of this decision. The period in office of the present Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) has been marked by a dangerous ambivalence in Australia's attitude to the Soviet Union and by a continuing deterioration in Australia's relationship with our traditional allies and our neighbours. We all remember that remarkable contribution of the Foreign Minister in Geneva in August of last year when he said that Australia was unhappy with both the United States and the Soviet Union. As far as members of the Opposition are concerned, we want to see the arms talks go on and succeed; but let nobody run away with the idea that the Soviet Union and the United States share an equality of blame so far as the arms race is concerned. The great bulk of the blame rests with the aggressive behaviour and intent of the Soviet Union under successive governments since the end of the Second World War. How long is it since we have heard in this House any condemnation of the continuing Soviet aggression in Afghanistan? After the Minister for Foreign Affairs went to the Soviet Union he admitted in this House that he did not even raise the question of Afghanistan in his discussions with Mr Gromyko. Of course, the Treasurer took the cake when he came into the House when in opposition and said: 'Well, who cares about Afghanistan anyway? Where is it?' It was reminiscent of the people in the 1930s who were saying: 'Why should we be worrying about and putting on gas masks over some remote little country when we do not know where it is'. Worse than that, the present Foreign Minister has directly threatened the United States of America that the joint Australian-American bases were at risk unless the United States came closer to Australia's position on disarmament. The important thing is that, while he has been prepared to do that to the United States, he has not been prepared to raise embarrassing questions in his discussions with the Soviet Foreign Minister. As I said a moment ago, effectively Australia has lined up against the attitudes of the United States and in favour of the attitudes of the Soviet Union on most of the important issues in the nuclear debate at the present time. Not only has the Foreign Minister attacked and threatened the United States on disarmament, he has also said virtually nothing about the massive Soviet conventional and nuclear build-up. He has attacked French colonialism in the Pacific but he has said nothing about the Soviet Union, the world's greatest colonial power, or about Vietnam's colonialism in South East Asia. Not content with taking on the United States and France and staying mute when dry-docking facilities were refused, to our eternal shame, to HMS Invincible, the Foreign Minister has had a series of embarrassing rows with our neighbours over his Vietnam obsession. In Indonesia, Dr Mochtar is on record as criticising his handling of the issue. In 1983 Malaysia walked out of the United Nations during the Foreign Minister's address to that body. The Foreign Minister accused Mr Hayden of causing great confusion in the Association of South East Asian Nations regarding our attitude to Vietnam. In November 1983 Singapore's Foreign Minister accused him of trying to bend over backwards to please Vietnam. Of course, we all know how openly he has antagonised and upset Thailand in recent days. The Foreign Minister, in his defence, sought to paint himself sympathetically as some kind of honest broker in South East Asia who was groping around in a very difficult environment in an honest, open, sincere and genuine way. Of course, he falsely represented the position in a number of respects. For example, he incorrectly implied in his remarks that Hanoi's dry season offensive was directed only against the forces aligned with Pol Pot. The reality is that the dry season offensive was also directed against the non-communist forces of Sihanouk and the anti-communist forces of Son Sann. Over the last six weeks the Foreign Minister has brought more embarrassment, confusion and shame to the conduct of our foreign relations than any person who has occupied that position since the end of World War II. It is not a bad record. He has not only offended the United States in his willingness to heap upon it an equal share of moral blame for the arms race but also he has refused dry docking facilities to a vessel of the Royal Navy. Thirdly, he has antagonised all of our ASEAN friends and, fourthly, he has made the whole conduct of our foreign relations a laughing stock and brought ridicule upon it, not only here but also around the world. Do not let anybody imagine that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has not also been a principal player in this. Let us not have any moral lectures from the Australian Labor Party on supporting Pol Pot. I remind members of the Labor Party that the man who led the charge to recognise Pol Pot was the former Labor Prime Minister of Australia, Mr Whitlam. As late as 1978-the Government lectures us about Pol Pot-at a lecture at the Australian National University Mr Whitlam said: I make bold to doubt all the stories that appear in the newspapers about the treatment of people in Cambodia. I am sufficiently hardened to believe that the last refuge of the patriot in Australia is to blast the regimes in post-war Indo-China. Those were the words of Gough Whitlam, the former Labor Prime Minister of Australia who, as my leader correctly pointed out, led the charge to recognise the Khmer regime in Phon Penh in 1975. Do not let anybody from the Australian Labor Party lecture us in some kind of moral way about the attitudes towards the atrocities of Pol Pot. The Labor Party recognised Pol Pot. The man who led the charge to recognise Pol Pot was still publicly pooh-poohing the stories of the atrocities as late as the end of 1978. Nobody in the Labor Party at that time was willing to dissociate himself from it. Labor Party members were silent. So, from the present Prime Minister down, they have no moral right to lecture us about Pol Pot. This debate has highlighted the foreign policy failures of not only the Prime Minister but also the Foreign Minister. The Foreign Minister has gravely embarrassed this country in South East Asia. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister between them have followed foreign policies, defence policies, attitudes to disarmament and policies on the nuclear issue which are dangerously inconsistent with the long term interests of Australia. Of course, the United States Administration is being polite. The United States Administration has said a number of things on which the Prime Minister now seeks repeatedly to draw. On the two issues that in strategic terms have been so important in bringing the Soviet Union to the negotiating table and are so crucial to all our hopes that those arms control talks may be successful; namely, the MX missile and the President's strategic defence initiative, the present Government of Australia has effectively lined up with the Soviet Union against the United States. I believe that that, as much as anything else, demonstrates the reason this censure motion should be carried by the Parliament. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.16) —It is a pleasure to follow the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), the former Treasurer, in this debate because it seems that having demonstrated during his period in office and subsequently his inability to master the complexities of the economy, and his failure to deal with those complexities successfully, he has now turned his attention to foreign policy. He has shown the same lack of comprehension of the complexities of foreign policy as he did of the economy. I notice that Michelle Grattan, writing in the Age yesterday, noted this tendency of the honourable member for Bennelong. She said: Mr Howard is determined to keep a high public profile. This can touch sensitivities other than Mr Peacock's. His strong pro-'Star Wars' line annoyed Foreign Affairs' spokesman Ian Macphee . . . One can see why. We have heard from the Opposition in this debate a foreign policy stance which is without facts, without principles, totally lacking in a sense of history, without coherence, and ultimately without relevance to the kinds of policies which we should be following. As a critique of the Government's policy it falls flat on its face. Several legs of the Opposition's argument were moved in the censure motion. The first deals with ANZUS. That has been very comprehensively covered by those who have preceded me in this debate, but I want to say one thing in addition; that is, the coalition when in government and in opposition, has always regarded ANZUS as its private property. It greatly resents the fact that a Labor Prime Minister, John Curtin, first made the opening to the United States of America which presaged the negotiation of the ANZUS Treaty. The Opposition resents the fact that the Australian relationship with the United States is closer and more healthy than it ever has been. It resents the fact that the Australian Labor Party, in government and out of it, has been a strong supporter of the ANZUS relationship. The Opposition resents the fact that personal relationships between our leaders-the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and their United States counterparts-are close and cordial. The Opposition resents the fact that progress has been made in that relationship to the extent that it now serves Australian interests more openly than it did during the fawning and cringing that the Opposition went in for when it was in government. The Opposition resents the fact Australia's relations with the United States have not been destroyed. One can see that it is hankering after a situation in which Australia's relationships with the United States fall to the ground so that it can do what it has always done with the ANZUS relationship, and that is to use it to score cheap political tricks within Australia. The Opposition has not succeeded and it will not succeed. Judging by the attempt it has made today, it will do itself more damage in the process of attempting to discredit that relationship than it will if it simply shuts up about it. The second leg in the Opposition's censure motion deals with the so-called alienation of the Association of South East Asian Nations. We have been through that before. The Opposition has never understood the situation in South East Asia, much less in Indo-China itself. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) spoke of a 'principled search for peace in Indo-China'. The words came out of his mouth like manure. The only principles which the Opposition ever brought to bear on the situation in Indo-China were the principles that grew out of the barrel of a gun, fertilised as it were those with agent orange. It is no wonder that the result is an obscenity. What was the principle behind the sending of conscripts to Vietnam? What was the principle that led to over 400 young Australians dying in that country? We have heard talk of false intelligence. In Vietnam, Australia relied on intelligence which has now been shown in the United States to have been false. That intelligence underestimated the strength of the popular resistance to the then puppet governments of Vietnam. We went along with this in a knowing and conniving way. What principles were there? The Opposition has always been blinkered in the way in which it looks at events in South East Asia principally because it has never understood the desire for independence on the part of all countries in South East Asia. One contrasts that with the attitude of the Australian Labor Party, which has always adopted a principled stand towards the situation in Indo-China. In the mid-1960s many young Australians took to the streets to demonstrate against the policies of the then Government. What is more, when we got into government following an election campaign in which Vietnam was a major issue, we put those principles into effect. We abolished conscription very quickly. We withdrew from Vietnam very quickly. Indeed, we led the way for the Americans who by that stage were as anxious to get out as everybody else was. Mr Young —We let the conscientious objectors out of gaol. Mr BILNEY —As the Minister reminds me, we let the conscientious objectors out of gaol. Now, carrying forward those principles, we are engaged in a search for a lasting settlement in Vietnam. That search for a settlement in Vietnam has prompted the nonsense which the Opposition has brought forward in this debate which it characterises as the 'alienation of the ASEAN nations'. I would like to go through the chronology briefly simply to show the seriousness of the efforts that the Foreign Minister has made following the initiative by the Prime Minister to find some lasting settlement in Indo-China. In May 1983, not long after we came to office, Son Sann visited Australia as a guest of the Australian Government. At that time Son Sann said: I am grateful to the Labor Government of Prime Minister Robert Hawke for the recent proposal made by Foreign Minister Bill Hayden on the search for a solution to the problems of the Cambodian refugees along the Khmer-Thai border, and for a political solution to the Cambodian problem. Australia's care and concern for the plight of our people and our country are highly appreciated, and we view Australia's proposal as generous and sincere. In July and August of 1983 Mr Hayden went to all the ASEAN countries, to Laos and to Vietnam and put forward the six points for settlement which have been referred to. At that time Foreign Minister Siddhi of Thailand said: We have no reservations as for Mr Hayden's trip to Hanoi . . . If he can probe further and get more information for us, it would be very useful for our search for peace and a political solution to Kampuchea. So in that case I will say that Mr Hayden has a role to play for us, we have no reservation for his trip at all. That endorsed the role that we were playing in attempting to bring the parties together and to arrive at a settlement. In August the Minister for Foreign Affairs went to China. Chinese Premier Zhao, in speaking about our initiative, said: I hope the Lord will bless you and that you can persuade Vietnam to change its mind and to change its policy . . . If you succeed then you have actually performed a meritorious service. I now turn to the ANZUS communique of 1983. ANZUS is the body in respect of which the Opposition urges courses on us that we are not prepared to follow. The communique stated: The Council Members reaffirmed their conviction that the conflict in Kampuchea should be settled by peaceful means. They support diplomatic efforts which would lead to a comprehensive political solution to the Kampuchean problem. The Council welcomed the efforts of Australian Foreign Minister Hayden to establish common ground in the search for a negotiated settlement. Does that sound as though we are offside with ANZUS? As is well remembered, in October-November of 1983 we refused to co-sponsor the ASEAN resolution on Kampuchea. That led to a reactive cat-amongst-the-pigeons flurry by the Opposition at which it is so good. The Opposition is wonderful at reacting to situations but it is not particularly good at proposing solutions that are based on any sort of sense of history or understanding of the problems. In November 1983 the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister went to Bangkok where they explained our policy on not co-sponsoring the ASEAN resolution and their efforts in the search for peace in Indo-China were further endorsed. In December 1983 Mr Hayden put down in this Parliament what I think is still the best statement of our policy on Indo-China and the complexities of that region. That statement caught the then Opposition spokeman on foreign affairs pretty well on the hop. I will simply quote two extracts from that statement which I think are extremely important to any understanding of this problem. The first is the conclusion of the speech which sets out what we are about. The speech states: This Government has sought to pull together these thoughts and the many other threads into a consistent policy; not one that seeks spectacular or foolhardy results but one that recognises that much patience is required. The Government is aware of the need for a great deal of careful talking, and is prepared to face the likelihood of many discouragements and ultimately, perhaps, the prospect of a continued bleak stalemate. We do, however, have an obligation to try and, in the process, to stake some of our national imagination on the development of an intelligent and broad perspective regarding the future of South East Asia. That is what we are about. We are about a very difficult task in South East Asia. We have taken on what is a very hard row to hoe. Is the Opposition saying that we should not take that on? Is the Oppositions saying that the Australian people do not support the negotiation of a settlement in Indo-China that will remove this festering sore from our doorstep? Is the Opposition saying that 'jaw-jaw' is not better than 'war-war', which is the only solution it knows and which it would have us go back to again? Mr Hodgman —No, we are condemning your appeasement of Vietnam, and that is what it is. Mr BILNEY —The honourable member for Denison interjects that the Opposition is condemning appeasement. If he cannot tell the difference between appeasement and the kind of constructive patient policy that we are following in South East Asia, I pity him. I would like to say that members of the Opposition, in their more thinking moments, endorse what we are doing in Indo-China. I recall that in 1980 the present Leader of the Opposition, when Foreign Minister, spoke in the General Assembly of the United Nations. How does this sound for appeasement? He said: A peaceful and secure South East Asia cannot be achieved until a political settlement has been reached in Kampuchea which is acceptable to all parties concerned and which gives full opportunity to the Kampuchean people to determine their own style of government and way of life. Is the honourable member for Denison ready for the next part of the speech? He said: We accept that Vietnam has legitimate interests to safeguard in relation to Kampuchea. What we cannot accept is that Vietnam and its allies should be able to go on refusing to discuss seriously the fundamental questions of the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops and the legitimacy of the regime in Phnom Penh. That is precisely the effort on which we are engaged. We are trying to bring about that serious discussion of the fundamental question of the occupation of Kampuchea by foreign troops. We are seriously trying to bring about a resolution of the regime in Phnom Penh. So it simply does not good to criticise the hiccups because there is just not going to be this hiccup; there are going to be more hiccups in the course of this long negotiation. This Government remains determined to continue the negotiation and, if possible, to reach a successful conclusion. If it does it will have achieved a wonderful thing for this part of the world. Such a solution is utterly beyond the capacity of the Opposition to imagine, let alone to achieve. The third leg of the Opposition's criticism and censure of the Government-and one has to laugh-is 'The weakening of Australia's contribution to international peace and disarmament'. I can think of no government which has done more to contribute towards peace and disarmament than the Australian Government that came to power in 1983. I will just briefly run through some of the things which I believe are extremely important in this regard. In the two years that we have been in office the Labor Government has taken the initiative in creating a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific. That initiative was attacked by the honourable member for Bennelong, who I now see has left the House, on the basis that it was somehow a fraud or that either it did not go far enough or it went too far. He seemed to base that view on the fact that there should be some opposition to Soviet stationing of tactical or strategic weapons in that area. I think that simply misconceives the situation. The Americans are not interested in that particular part of it. Secondly, we have kept alive the efforts, which were begun, I remind the House, by Mr Whitlam, to create a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean. Thirdly, we have taken a very high profile in attempting to persuade the super-powers to arrive at a comprehensive nuclear test ban, one of this Government's priority objectives. We have gone further than any previous Australian Government in bringing about some progress in that regard. It is a testimony to the strenuousness of our efforts that very recently in Geneva the Soviet Union and the United States began to talk. Whilst it would be claiming too much to say that our efforts were crucial in that regard they have nevertheless been added to those of countries such as Mexico and Sweden which have played a leading role in this effort. Now those talks have begun. I believe that all Australians, with the possible exception of some of the more gung ho people on the Opposition side, will welcome that development and wish that those talks succeed. As a further initiative we have appointed an Ambassador for Disarmament. I noticed that he was in the House earlier this afternoon. His efforts have constituted the sharp end, as it were, of negotiations on disarmament matters. One further initiative-it is impossible to imagine that the Opposition would ever have done this-has been to work very hard for the so-called nuclear freeze resolution in the United Nations. At the thirty-ninth General Assembly for the first time Australia achieved a record vote for any disarmament resolution when 124 nations voted in favour of the nuclear freeze resolution which we co-sponsored. No one voted against it, although there were 24 abstentions. It was an important landmark on the road towards nuclear disarmament. We actively supported and voted for a nuclear freeze and for only the second time the United States refrained from active opposition. That was a very substantial change. The key part of that resolution called for the Conference on Disarmament at Geneva to resume its examination of issues relating to the negotiation of a treaty on the subject of a comprehensive test ban. Those discussions are now proceeding. I think it is clear that the Australian Government's record on peace and disarmament is such as to make ludicrous the Opposition criticism that we have weakened the Australian effort in terms of peace and disarmament. In fact, we have strengthened it. It is also necessary to note that we have continued to contribute to the various peacekeeping forces such as the United Nations military observer group in India and Pakistan. Seven Australians serve on that and have served since 1949. That is something we have carried on. That is also the case with the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus and the United Nations Truce Supervisory Organisation in Israel. All in all I think it is absolutely amazing that the Opposition can dream of criticising the foreign policies of this Government. Members of the Opposition have always reacted to developments. They have never attempted to use Australia's voice to influence those developments. They have always relied on the advice of great and powerful friends and followed their policies. They have never spoken up for an independent Australian stance even in our own region. They have always sought to pursue international relations by means with which Bismarck would have been familiar. They have never sought to follow the principles enunciated by Dr Evatt of negotiation and recognition of every country's independence and desire for peace. Question put: That the motion (Mr Peacock's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Speaker-Hon. Harry Jenkins) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 77 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 14 —— Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. Jull, D. F.Beale, J. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M.Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D.Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J.Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F.Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC.Fife, W. C. Slipper, P. N.Fischer, Tim Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Tuckey, C. W.Halverson, R. G. Watson, DavidHawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D.Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C.Hodgman, W. M. Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jones, BarryBeddall, D. P. Keating, P. J.Bilney, G. N. Kelly, R. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kent, L.Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J.Bowen, Lionel Kerin, J. C.Brown, John Lamb, A. H.Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V.Brumby, J. M. Lee, M.Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J.Charles, D. E. McHugh, J.Charlesworth, R. I. McLeay, LeoChild, J. Maher, M. J.Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P.Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H.Cohen, B. Mildren, J. B.Cross, M. D. Milton, P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Morris, AllanDubois, S. G. Morris, PeterDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Free, R. V. Saunderson, J.Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D.Gear, G. Scott, J. L.Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W.Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H.Griffiths, A. G. Staples, P. R.Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hawke, R. J. L. Tickner, R. E.Hayden, W. G. Uren, T.Holding, A. C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) —Mr Speaker, I ask that questions be placed on the Notice Paper. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members and on behalf of the Prime Minister, I present a report prepared by the Technological Change Committee entitled 'Computer-related Technologies in the Metal Trades Industry'. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr WILLIS(Gellibrand-Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) —For the information of honourable members, I present the report of the Australian Government delegation to the 69th Session of the International Labour Conference held in Geneva from 1 June to 22 June 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —Pursuant to section 162 of the Superannuation Act 1976, I present the annual reports for 1983-84 of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust and the Commissioner for Superannuation. The report of the Superannuation Fund Investment Trust includes the financial statement for the year ended 30 June 1984, together with the report of the Auditor-General with respect to those statements. I also table a further document by the Auditor-General in regard to the statement. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Shippers Council annual report for 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —On behalf of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and for the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism annual report for 1983-84. Mr PETER MORRIS(Shortland-Minister for Transport) —On behalf of the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism and for the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Institute of Sport annual report for 1983-84. Mr BARRY JONES(Lalor-Minister for Science) —For the information of honourable members, I table the Government's response to the report of the Committee of Inquiry into Safety Standards at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Applied Organic Chemistry and Advance Materials Laboratories at Fishermen's Bend, Melbourne, and the death of CSIRO employee Dr R. Bergamasco. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Norfolk Island annual report for 1983-84. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1930, I present the Australian Capital Territory statement of receipts and expenditure for the year ended 30 June 1983. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Capital Territory Fire Brigade annual report for 1983-84, and the Australian Capital Territory Registrar of Motor Vehicle Dealers annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Children's Television Foundation annual report for 1983-84. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to section 36 of the Australian War Memorial Act 1980, I present the Australian War Memorial 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 UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Victoria Grants Commission, 1984 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth Income Tax Funds to individual councils. In September 1984 I approved the recommendations of the Victoria Grants Commission and payments to Victoria were made on 12 September 1984 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland 1984 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth Income Tax Funds to individual councils. In August 1984, I approved the recommendations of the Local Government Grants Commission, Queensland and payments to Queensland were made in early September 1984 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the report of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission, 1984 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth Income Tax Funds to individual councils. In August 1984 I approved the recommendations of the South Australian Local Government Grants Commission and payments to South Australia were made on 4 September 1984 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 10 of the Local Government (Personal Income Tax Sharing) Act 1976, I present the annual report of the State Grants Commission, Tasmania for 1984-85 which contains the Commission's recommendations for distribution of Commonwealth Income Tax Funds to individual councils. In September 1984 I approved the recommendations of the State Grants Commission, Tasmania, and payments to Tasmania were made on 11 September 1984 by the Treasury. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present an amending agreement which finalises arrangements between the Commonwealth and New South Wales in relation to financial assistance provided for approved programs of land acquisition and development undertaken by the Land Commission of New South Wales. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Urban and Regional Development (Financial Assistance) Act 1974, I present an agreement between the Commonwealth, New South Wales and Victoria in relation to urban expansion and redevelopment in the Albury-Wodonga Growth Centre. The Clerk-Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: National Flag 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 N. A. Brown,Mr Everingham,Mr Lloyd and Mr McArthur. 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 Carlton and Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of Federal Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned request Commonwealth and State co-operation and financial commitment to- (a) Providing an infrastructure and making aircraft available for the fighting of bushfires in New South Wales; (b) Further, we request the Commonwealth Government to retain the surplus Grumman Tracker Aircraft (approximately 17) and associated spares, for the purpose of conversion to firefighting aircraft for use on the above project. And your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House will respond to our plea. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp and Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of the Commonwealth respectfully showeth: That we, citizens of the Commonwealth, earnestly request our government to: 1. Cease the discrimination of residents of Rest Homes who need similar care and assistance as those in other Institutions, therefore requiring equal funding. 2. Immediately fund these people so that Rest Homes can survive and continue caring for the aged and disabled for the good of the nation as a whole. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Bilney. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the wild horses of Queensland and the Northern Territory declared a protected species. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House set aside a National Park for these horses and ensure that killing of feral animals be undertaken in a humane manner with proper legislation and enforcement. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives. We, the undersigned, are keen to see a training course for professional midwives re-established in Australia. All the homebirth groups get regular enquiries for such a course. In England the course is called direct entry. Research there has shown that midwives trained as such, without having to go through general nursing training first, had the lowest infant mortality rate among all the obstetric workers. Such a course existed in Australia but was abolished. We ask for it to be re-established and updated to fit in with the latest findings on the safety of homebirth. by Mr Dawkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia shows that many women and families are being seriously disadvantaged by the fact that domiciliary midwifery fees are not an item refundable on the Basic Medical Benefits Schedule. Domiciliary Midwifery care would cost the Government far less than routine hospitalisation for childbirth and, because it is a responsible choice on the part of the birthing family, should not be excluded from the range of options on the basis of cost. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Basic Medical Benefits Schedule be amended to include Domiciliary Midwifery Care. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Dawkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: Pensioners in Australia are currently experiencing serious personal and economic difficulties given the existing level of pensions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will give urgent consideration to increasing the standard rate of pensions to 25% of average weekly earnings. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ronald Edwards. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: We hail as a victory for the not-so-silent majority the decision of the Federal Government to now conduct an inquiry into the effects of hard-core pornography and violence upon people and especially children. We view with grave concern and deplore the decision of the Hawke Government to allow the sale of this objectionable material to continue and become more widespread during the period of this 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 Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: 1. Since the Australian Whale Protection Act 1980 provides for the banning of importation into Australia of all whale byproducts, and 2. the Prime Minister has stated that he and his Government support the international banning of whaling, 3. then consistent with (1) and (2), this Government should immediately legislate to ban the importation of all marine mammal byproducts, including the harp seal of Canada, and 4. through the Australian delegate in the United Nations General Assembly, the Prime Minister should state his Government's support for an international ban on the slaughter of any marine mammal for commercial reasons. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that consistent with legislation on whaling, this Government should ban the importation of marine mammal byproducts and support an international ban on slaughter of any marine mammal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Humphreys. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned Australian citizens respectfully showeth that: (i) The financial situation of students enrolled at Australian post-secondary institutions is already extremely difficult and any increase in the financial commitments of students would gravely worsen their financial difficulties. (ii) The imposition of post-secondary tuition fees of comparable levels to those imposed prior to 1971 would force many currently enrolled students to discontinue their studies and deter many persons willing and able at present to undertake post-secondary study from doing so. (iii) Those students and potential students from social groups currently under-represented and disadvantaged in the education system would be most severely affected by the reintroduction of fees for post-secondary education. Your petitioners therefore pray that: 1. post-secondary tuition fees not be re-introduced for any category of students. 2. any form of Stamp Duty or similar system of the 'user pays' principle in education not be introduced. 3. emphasis should be an increasing access to education by, among other things, increasing student financial assistance. 4. the visa charges upon private overseas students be removed immediately. 5. the Minister for Education and Youth Affairs immediately clarify the Government's attitude to the reintroduction of post-secondary tuition fees. And your petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. by Mr Jull. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in November 1978 more than sixty two per cent of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory in a Referendum rejected the introduction of Territorial Government or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. That until the findings of the Commonwealth Grants Commission Inquiry into Australian Capital Territory finances have been made public and there has been a Referendum of the voters of the Australian Capital Territory as to their attitude to Territorial or Local Government. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Government take no further action or legislation in respect of Territorial or Local Government in the Australian Capital Territory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Kelly. 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 Lloyd. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government: 1. Uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognize that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research have been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognize that any system giving 'property' or ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognize that legalisation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programmes, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the members of the Adamstown Parish of the Uniting Church in Australia are deeply concerned about the proliferation of sexually violent and objectionable hardcore videotape material, and urge the Parliament to ban the import of such materials into this country. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Federal Government will prohibit the importation, production and distribution of violent and pornographic videotape material. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peter Morris. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we, the loyal citizens of Australia firmly express our strong opposition to any proposals to remove or undermine the importance of the place of God and/or the Queen in our national life, and democratic institutions. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Parliament assembled reaffirm our nation's total dependence on God The Creator in accordance with our Australian Constitution, which commences with the words 'Humbly relying on the blessing of Almighty God', and the Standing Orders of both the Senate and the House of Representatives which prescribe that Parliament each day shall open with a special prayer to Almighty God and the Lord's Prayer. We also call on the Parliament assembled to re-affirm our genuine loyalty to our Head of State, the Queen of Australia, Elizabeth II-'God save the Queen'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. 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 of Federal Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we the undersigned wish the present Australian Flag to be retained for all time as the Flag of Australia. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will retain the National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth School Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants for new private schools and for increased private schools enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned wish to protest at the introduction of Medicare. We protest that freedom of choice of doctor and hospital treatment for country people have been severely curtailed by the introduction of Medicare and that benefits paid by Medicare are lower than those paid by private funds, due to the inability of the public to insure for the gap between the benefit paid and the charge made by the doctor. Accordingly we your petitioners would ask that the Federal Government investigate our complaint with respect to Medicare and take steps to restore the freedom of choice of doctor and hospital treatment for country people and to allow private health funds to insure for gap insurance. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government will give this matter earnest consideration. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tuckey. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 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. 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 Tuckey. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: 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 3 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 place in space. (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901 and each point depicting a State and the Territories of the Commonwealth. 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 it form or to its acceptance as the sole Australian National Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners humbly pray that Members of the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled: Will ensure that the existing Australian National Flag remains sacrosanct from change and remains the sole national flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hodgman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite and Mr Lindsay. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Farrer respectfully showeth 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 Tim Fischer. To the Honourable the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Waikerie and surrounds in the State of South Australia showeth: 1. Your petitioners are burdened in manner as follows. 2. Your petitioners reside in that region of the State of South Australia commonly known as the Riverland, the several towns therein having a common economic interest largely dependent upon the vine citrus and fruitgrowing industry. 3. Your petitioners are subject to a discretion in that they are required to pay trunk line rates when they telephone the major towns in the Riverland region situated as they are in the central and eastern areas. 4. Your petitioners are further burdened in that the town of Berri has lately been established as the centre for a number of Federal and State Government offices to service the whole Riverland region. Certain Government offices formerly situated at Waikerie have been closed and others have had their services reduced, resulting in aggravation of the above imposition. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will prevail upon Telecom to fix uniform telephone charge rates throughout the whole of the Riverland region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the residents of Engadine and surrounding areas respectfully showeth that the residents of Engadine and surrounding areas request that a Medicare Office be established for the people of Engadine and surrounding areas. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House will take the necessary measures to support the establishment of a Medicare Office for the people of Engadine and surrounding areas. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Assent reported. Mr SPEAKER —I wish to inform the House of the appointment of senators to be members of joint committees as follows: Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence- Senators Bolkus, Crichton-Browne, Elstob, Hill Jones, MacGibbon, Maguire, Sibraa and Teague. Joint Committee on the Australian Capital Territory- Senators Giles, Lewis, McKiernan and Reid. Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House- Senators Colston, MacGibbon, Reid, Reynolds, Sibraa and Withers. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the National Crime Authority Act 1984, the following members be appointed members of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority: Mr Brumby, Mr Duncan, Mr Griffiths, Mr McGauran and Mr Spender. Mr SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to act in accordance with the national interest in respect of ANZUS and ASEAN. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition)(6.02) —We believe that this matter is of such importance that we are raising the discussion of a matter of public importance- Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the business of the day be called on. Debate resumed from 28 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 SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the honourable member for Fraser I remind honourable members that this is the honourable member's maiden speech. I trust the usual courtesies will be extended to him. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(6.03) —Mr Speaker, may I begin by congratulating you and the Deputy Speaker on your re-election and expressing the hope that your second term may be noted for further development in the effectiveness of the forms of the House for the good government of Australia. The ten-year term of my predecessor, Ken Fry, was noted for continuation of the tradition of attentiveness to constituents and of effective advocacy on local issues which was begun by Jim Fraser, after whom the seat is named. Ken Fry enriched the tradition of excellent service to the community through his wider interests, in particular by his advocacy of just and peaceable foreign policies. Fraser is now the most populous electorate in Australia so there will be plenty of opportunity for me to continue Jim Fraser's and Ken Fry's tradition of service to the local community. I intend to do so. The people of Fraser have always returned an Australian Labor Party member, perhaps because they consider that a Labor Government has the capacity to contribute more than other parties to the creation of a secure, just and peaceful society. It is a privilege and a delight to be able to speak at last in this chamber for I served a nine-year apprenticeship in Parliament House as a staff member of the Labor Party. I would like to record my appreciation to those who made that possible, particularly to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) for the opportunity he gave me to learn about the political process, to take part in the preparation of new economic policies and to work with him implementing the Government's employment, incomes and industrial relations policies. I would also like publicly to acknowledge the dedicated work of the many members of the Labor Party in Fraser who contributed to my election, to express my heartfelt appreciation of their work and to commit myself to working with them for the goals and values which we share. I would like to thank those friends who have had to wait so long to hear this speech. In his speech the Governor-General set out as the Government's goals the creation of 'a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society'. Progress towards those goals has been outstanding. Since April 1983 there has been a net increase in seasonally adjusted employment of 380,000. Unemployment has fallen by 113,000. The rate of inflation has been dramatically cut. More equitable expenditure and taxation policies have been introduced. Australia has begun to take greater initiative internationally with the aim of ending the arms race and reducing regional tensions. It is about policies to add to those achievements that I will speak. My comments are limited to the discussion of three issues: Responsible government for Canberra, the growth of employment and, the arms race. The previous member for Fraser, Ken Fry, gave his maiden speech on the subject of self-government for Canberra, that was nearly eleven years ago. The fact that the issue has been high on the agenda of local political debate for so long suggests the importance of decisiveness now. There are major problems with the present system of government in Canberra. Government is fragmented. A dozen Ministers have responsibility for some part of territorial administration. The people elected by Australian Capital Territory voters have little power and the Ministers with power are not directly accountable to the Australian Capital Territory except by chance. The Australian Capital Territory Budget is prepared by people unaccountable to the Canberra community. No one has responsibility for setting priorities so there are gaps and severe imbalances in services and gross delays in addressing problems. The introduction of responsible government in the Australian Capital Territory would be likely to improve substantially the quality of government and of the balance of community services. There is no reason why this would add significantly to the cost of government. The same types of services would be required however the Territory were governed. Responsible government would simply allow community representatives to make decisions about the balance between those services. Costs are most unlikely to rise more than they would if territorial government continued as at present, for it can be confidently expected that the Commonwealth will agree to support a responsible territorial government in the same way as it does the States. Not only would that be a fair extension of Federal financial arrangements but also it is a necessary condition for maintenance and continued growth of the national capital for which the Commonwealth must always have ultimate responsibility. More on this will have to wait for an appropriate debate. The second profoundly important issue I want to raise is employment. The most important contribution which government and community can make towards creation of a just and secure society is increasing employment opportunities. The opportunity for work is a necessary condition for an adequate standard of living and for personal, physical, psychological and spiritual well being. Work can, of course, be either paid or unpaid and both can be equally valuable. However the Government's goal continues to be, and must be, full employment. This means aiming for paid work, either full time or part time, for all who want it. Unemployment is a personal human and economic tragedy. It is also a gigantic national social and economic disaster. Unemployment is the principal cause of poverty and inequity in the distribution of income, wealth and power. It is also one of the main causes of the symptoms of social breakdown such as family disintegration, drug abuse and crime which are apparent in the community. In opinion polls taken before the last election, unemployment was the issue most commonly mentioned as requiring the attention of government. These polls showed that the community recognised the significance of the Government's achievement in reducing unemployment and still wanted the highest priority to be given to continuation of that trend. This reinforces the importance of the Government's target of 500,000 new jobs in the first three years of office. Achievement of that target requires continuation of high economic growth. During this debate several Opposition members have argued that the Government cares only about equity. That assertion is groundless. Ministers repeatedly emphasise the importance of both economic growth and equity. Labor governments have consistently out-performed Liberal and National Party governments in achieving faster growth. For example, Australia's real income per person grew at an average rate of one per cent a year during the Fraser Government's years, compared with the average of 1.9 per cent for countries of the western world. Since mid-1983, however, it is likely that Australia's per capita growth has been close to the average of Western countries, a striking improvement on the Fraser years. The Fraser Government showed how easy it is for conservative governments to retard economic growth and simultaneously to increase unemployment and inequity. The policies of the present Opposition show that it has learnt nothing from those years of failure; rather it seeks simply to repeat its terrible mistakes. A strange notion being publicised by the Opposition is that the public and private sectors are antagonistic. The Opposition would have us believe that public sector activity constrains business. One common part of that argument is that public borrowing crowds out the private sector from financial markets. Such ideas are no more than self-interest masquerading as technical imperative. The public and private sectors are complementary. Public investment and major community services such as education, health, housing, social security and defence are essential for the efficiency, equity and safety of the nation. Growth in cost-effective public programs encourages and supports business growth. Economic activity in the public and private sectors is interdependent. However, post-war conservative governments constrained private sector development through their neglect of the public sector. One of the most striking characteristics of post-war coalition governments was their neglect of public investment. Public investment had a strongly developmental role for a century in Australia from 1850 to 1950. But after 1950 Australia's infrastructure was allowed to run down. Road construction fell behind vehicle use; water supplies failed to keep up with population growth making water restrictions commonplace; waiting lists for public housing grew to well over 100,000. Thirty years of conservative government in Australia have left us with the smallest public sector in the western world, other than in Spain. It is not a coincidence that during those 30 years Australian per capita growth rates were amongst the lowest in the Western world. As a result, average income in Australia fell during those years from being fifth amongst Western countries to being fifteenth. Though inefficiencies caused by eroding public investment and services were not the only reason for Australia's relative decline, they were one powerful cause. The Labor Government has begun to correct this neglect. Real public investment has been increased. The national road system is being substantially improved. Spending on public housing has been doubled. There have been real improvements in education and health programs. Higher rates of economic growth will be sustained if these improvements are continued. Continued improvements of public services will have a direct as well as an indirect impact on employment. Future employment growth is expected to be concentrated in human services, particularly community services. A large proportion of community services are in the public sector. Unless these are allowed to grow with population, and to improve to meet community aspirations, not only will services be unsatisfactory, but the employment opportunities which they could offer would be withheld. For all these reasons continuation of rapid employment growth depends on maintaining the successful economic policies of the last two years. Such moderately expansionary fiscal policies are most unlikely to lead to significant crowding out of private by public borrowing, for there has been little conclusive evidence of crowding out at any time in Australia. The Brookings Institute review of the Australian economy published last year criticised the Treasury-and by implication the Fraser Government-for their 'deficit fixation' and for 'frightening the bourgeoisie by exaggerating the deficit problem'. The danger of financial crowding out can be minimised by applying neutral monetary policy, so that monetary growth keeps up with the growth of nominal national income, and so does not constrain real growth. The Government's decision to end monetary targeting will assist in achieving the goals of steady economic and employment growth. Monetary policy is potentially the most flexible economic instrument available. Yet governments in many countries during the last decade have put themselves in a monetary straitjacket simply to reassure financial markets of their probity. Australian financial markets now acknowledge the responsibility with which this Government has handled monetary policy and so there was no need to continue with an artificial constraint. The prices and incomes policy is an historically important new instrument which has been effective in reducing inflation. Comprehensive and equitable restraint of incomes has provided a context in which the rate of growth of prices has fallen. Wage and salary earners benefit from maintenance of their real pay from sharing in productivity and growth, and from improvements in the social wage. Business has the benefits not only of sharply reduced inflation but also of reduced industrial conflict and of a more stable and predictable labour market. These benefits will continue only as long as all parties comply with the agreements; the accord, the Summit communique and the national wage case principles. Such voluntary compliance is made attractive by the fact that the system has delivered the promised benefits to all parties, and that the Government continues to offer both unions and business an effective role in the development of policies through genuine consultation. There are many other specific Government policies within the context of these growth-inducing fiscal, monetary and incomes policies which will also contribute to increasing employment activity. Encouragement of research is a particularly important example. The goal of full employment is ambitious. It involves many complex issues, and will take a long time to achieve. Projections indicate that this requires an average growth rate of four per cent for at least 10 years. Yet the opportunities for Parliament to take a significant part in achieving that goal are limited. Therefore, a parliamentary committee on the economy is required, similar to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence. It is an anomaly that at present there are parliamentary committees on a wide range of issues, but none with responsibility for dealing with such centrally important issues as economic growth, employment, inflation and the distribution of income, wealth and power. A committee on the economy could look at the many interrelated aspects of economic policy which must be tackled if unemployment is to be eliminated. Rather than elaborating on these, I want to conclude by mentioning a particularly important direct constraint on sustained economic and employment growth, and threat to our survival-the arms race. The arms race of the last 40 years has involved the diversion of resources to military uses on a scale which is unprecedented in peacetime. Global military expenditure in 1982 was estimated to be $750 billion, one-twentieth of global income. Since 1980 there has been a massive destabilising military build-up in the United States. Real military outlays have been increased by around 10 per cent a year. The Central Intelligence Agency estimated recently that, in contrast, real military expenditure in the Soviet Union has been increasing by about 2 per cent a year since 1976. The arms race has severe economic costs. Every dollar of military expenditure is a dollar of alternative consumption or investment foregone. In the United States all other social and economic programs have been starved of funds to make way for the dramatic increases in military outlays. This retards economic and employment growth below the rate that would have been possible if the same level of expenditure had been used for civilian consumption and investment. While it is true that the rapid growth of defence outlays in the United States has contributed to the recent rapid rate of economic growth, that could have been stimulated with a lower level of public outlays if a smaller proportion had been for military purposes. This is not to suggest that the United States should not spend adequately to defend itself, but greater weight should be given to the high costs of the current weapons build-up, and greater effort given to the search for more cost-effective and stabilising defence strategies. The greatest effort must be given to preventing the military build-up from leading to the destruction of both the economy and society. Such argument alone will have little impact unless Australia uses what influence it has with the United States to stop the current belligerent escalation of the arms race. The Government has already demonstrated such resolve by refusing to support testing of the MX missile and opposing the strategic defence initiative. The civility with which the United States responded to Australia's decision on MX missile testing illustrates the importance attached to United States facilities in Australia and the potential efficacy of initiatives by Australia as a host nation. One valuable suggestion is that Australia should urge all countries to allocate the equivalent of one day's military spending to alternative, constructive economic and social development. Such a decision could be a symbol of a change of orientation which could lead to more substantial reordering of priorities. Australia's strong advocacy of a comprehensive test ban treaty is also a most important contribution. The review conference on the non-proliferation treaty later this year will give Australia an opportunity to urge compliance with that treaty by all the nuclear powers. Article VI of the treaty requires Each of the parties . . . to pursue negotiations . . . relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date . . . It is obvious that Article VI has been neglected. If preservation of the non-proliferation treaty was sufficiently important to require Australia to export uranium, it is sufficiently important for Australia to advocate strongly that the nuclear-weapons states accept their obligations too. It is not possible to comprehensively discuss these issues now, but I look forward to the opportunity of continuing to discuss them, and other important issues, in the House in the future. I thank honourable members for their courtesy in listening to me in silence. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling the honourable member for Macquarie, I remind the House that this is the honourable member's maiden speech and ask honourable members to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(6.20) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your invitation to speak. May I on behalf of my constituents and myself offer my congratulations to you and, through you, to Mr Speaker and to Madam Deputy Speaker on your collective appointments. It is understated to say that I am greatly excited and thankful to be standing here today representing the people of the new electorate of Macquarie. Macquarie is a magnificent, magical electorate west of Sydney extending beyond Oberon in the west and to Wiseman's Ferry in the east. It includes a major part of the Hawkesbury, often referred to as the Rhineland of Australia, and the renowned Blue Mountains, both rich in history and scenic beauty. Scenically and environmentally, the Blue Mountains have been described as ranking with Ayers Rock, the Great Barrier Reef and South West Tasmania as a feature of national significance, helping to define Australia's identity. The great character of the electorate consists of its physical characteristics-the rugged terrain, varied invigorating climates, dramatic scenery and the human response to them. Further to the west beyond Jenolan Caves is the Oberon plateau, an attractive area, enriched by its excellent, highly productive farming and forestry-related industries and its hard working communities, many of whom right now are sadly suffering severe hardship as a result of a drought, fires and market fluctuations. To these people I pledge my firm support. It would be very difficult indeed to find a more beautiful and varied electorate than the 10,000 square kilometres of Macquarie, and I want to place on record now my sincere thanks to the people who have entrusted me to represent them. I am also deeply grateful for the support given by my wife, Elaine, my children, Narelle, Scott, Jason, Cameron and Alyssa, as well as other members of my family, my local, State and Federal Liberal Party members and friends, and Miss Jeanette Thornley, my campaign director. I mention also the generous help from many parliamentary colleagues not the least being the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), who is sitting on my right today, and Mr Kevin Rozzoli, State member for Hawkesbury. Above all else, I thank God for His unfailing guidance in every aspect of the election exercise and beyond, a God well recognised in this House by the many members who took the oath and in the sincere prayer offered daily by the Speaker, not to mention in our constitutional obligations. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am the eleventh person to represent Macquarie, which has retained its name since Federation. I look forward to being the twelfth man for Macquarie. Boundary-wise Macquarie has been an electorate of many sweeping changes. Its most famous member so far has been the late Ben Chifley, Prime Minister, great patriot and man of peace, whose birthdate centenary is being celebrated this year. Other former incumbents of Macquarie of whom fond memories are often expressed by constituents are Mr Reg Gillard and the late Tony Luchetti. As I mentioned earlier the electorate I represent has been called Macquarie since Federation. Governor Macquarie was the longest serving governor during the early days of the colony. Of interest is the fact that many of the problems experienced by him in the early 1800s are very serious problems today. In 1819 he reported that labour had become 'very embarrassingly plentiful' and only half the people could be found work. This 50 per cent unemployment rate was solved by expanding farming operations mainly in the Emu Plains area and by encouraging free enterprise and small business within the colony, a good example being ship building at Windsor. He achieved this at the same time as he reduced government expenditure by 66 per cent. Whilst not nearly of the same proportions, a serious unemployment problem affecting young and old exists throughout the Macquarie electorate today. Sadly, the 'Macquarie solution' is not being followed. A substantial amount of government funding is being injected through the community employment program and other related schemes, but we see little or no reduction in government expenditure and service delivery costs. Instead the bureaucracy is getting bigger. Whilst many worthwhile schemes are being funded, they are by their nature mostly short lived and few provide the workers with salable skills. I am amazed that the Government does not direct a proportion of this huge sum towards small business either on the basis of no interest or low interest long term loans so that skill training employment and continuing employment can be provided. It is worth pointing out that 99 per cent of all businesses in Australia today employ less than 100 people and 93 per cent employ less than 10. The tourism industry and small businesses generally in Macquarie are wide open for this assistance and the self-esteem and living standards of our many unemployed would be raised. The small business backs on which this country really rides would be straightened and greatly strengthened. During Macquarie's governorship, over three hundred miles of roads were laid, including one from Parramatta over the Blue Mountains, following the first crossing in 1813. Almost 200 years later we are still confronted with only one major road, the Great Western Highway, which for most of its mountain extent does not have a detour capacity. This means that, in the event of an accident or other emergency, the road is often closed, sometimes for many hours, causing serious inertia for local and through traffic. The problems of the highway provide serious access difficulties in times of the not infrequent bush fires. Additionally, the single lane nature of much of the road causes a good deal of traffic congestion every weekend and holiday period, when thousands of sightseers converge on the mountains to enjoy their beauty and pleasures. With the current strong promotion of tourism and exciting planned developments the access problems will only worsen. There is an urgent need, Mr Deputy Speaker, for much more Federal Government funding to help alleviate this often frustrating problem. The rapid completion of a multi-lane highway would be a very fitting memorial to the governor who sponsored the original crossing. Governor Macquarie's energetic establishment of schools was a fine example to us all, especially with regard to his strict requirements to maintain sound character building and strong allegiance to the flag and to the Crown. It is very heartening indeed to note a strong commitment amongst the schools of Macquarie to the Australian flag as it is and to what it stands for. Many schools have requested flags, and I sincerely hope that the rumour around at present that the free supply of flags is about to stop is indeed rumour only. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Mr WEBSTER —The emphasis by Macquarie on developing an extensive farming program in the Hawkesbury-the food bowl of Sydney-no doubt made some contribution to the establishment in 1891 of Australia's first institution of higher agricultural education, namely, the Hawkesbury Agricultural College. The college, which now has almost 1,000 full time students, has benefited many thousands of rurally employed people and has now greatly diversified its sphere of operation. The college is greatly in need of capital works funding, having received only 40 per cent of what was sought by submission in 1983 just to do essential minor works. I strongly urge the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to give urgent consideration to providing additional finance so that this world standard college-voted recently by students as the most satisfying college of 32 independently surveyed-can construct necessary new facilities. Governor Macquarie constructed numerous buildings, many of which are still in use today. Some are still functional-for example, the historic Saint Matthews Church at Windsor. Others, such as Hawkesbury District Hospital at Windsor, are outdated and very unsatisfactory, with many areas causing physical inertia and discomfort to patients and staff. The hospital predicament at Windsor is well worth the consideration of the Federal Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), even though the hospital is largely a State concern. Just a few weeks ago a report was released on the pollution of the Hawkesbury River. Very serious problems in maintaining water purity were highlighted. Governor Macquarie, when confronted with pollution problems in the tank stream, immediately banned bathing and washing in the stream. He took swift, decisive action. The Hawkesbury River is part of our national heritage and, as such, demands quick, decisive Federal and State attention to make sure that it does not become a ruined river, as have so many great rivers in the past. Preserving a river such as the Hawkesbury with its increasing surrounding settlement is even more important than preserving the Franklin River, where human habitation is less than sparse. Macquarie's policy concerning Aborigines was a further expression of his great humanitarian conscience. He organised a school for Aboriginal children, a village at Elizabeth Bay for the Sydney tribe and an Aboriginal farm, among many helpful acts. The Government is to be commended for its support of the Macquarie electorate's Aborigines, particularly the Indigenous Peoples Council and its farming operations at Windsor. Many Aboriginal people are benefiting from this extensive farming enterprise. A good deal of other positive action is underway. In his imaginative dealings with convicts, Macquarie demonstrated again his humanitarian traits. He wrote to the Colonial Office informing the Secretary of his intentions of reinstating in society those convicts who had served their sentences and had reformed. The policy of emancipation was revolutionary. This meant that some convicts were re-appointed as magistrates, and emancipists were even invited to Government House. As is the case today, this policy caused a great deal of rumblings and disapproval. I place on record today my sincere thanks to the people of Macquarie, particularly those in Windsor, Richmond and surrounding areas, for their ready acceptance of the young offenders from the Daruk Training Centre into their homes, into their work places, into service club leadership courses and so on. Governor Macquarie's answer to his critics in those days was simply to remind them that there but for the grace of God goes any one of us. My response today is not different. Fires, particularly bushfires, were a problem to the early colony. They still occur regularly and sometimes disastrously throughout the electorate. I have been very much involved in recent years as a local bushfire captain and assistant training officer for the Penrith Shire. The work of the bushfire organisation, the fighters and their families throughout Macquarie is second to none and I strongly commend them all. There is, however, one area that concerns me greatly. That is the news that the government is severely cutting back its funding of the project Aquarius-water bombing by aircraft. This is an excellent and proven means of fighting fires under certain circumstances. The previous honourable member for Macquarie and present honourable member for Lindsay, Mr Ross Free, who also lives in the Blue Mountains, said in his maiden speech in 1981: I commend the Government for taking the step of instituting through the CSIRO experiments on the effectiveness of water bombing and the use of fire retarding chemicals. Clear evidence has come out of major fires which recently occurred at Bright in Victoria and Orange in New South Wales that water bombing from aircraft in some instances saved the day. Regretfully, rather than being able to commend the Government for its support of this project, I must resort to what I hope will only be short lived condemnation as the Government reviews its very needed support for this project. Part of Governor Macquarie's aim in building roads to open up the colony was so that access could be had to the many beauty spots abounding in the area. I have mentioned the magnificence of the scenery throughout the electorate and join wholeheartedly the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) in his desire to rediscover and develop, as he put it recently, the superb scenic jewels of the Blue Mountains. Exciting schemes of world class quality, such as the proposed Leura development and the mile-mark project for Catalina Park at Katoomba, are fully supported and needed to ensure the continued prosperity of the areas. Both schemes can be undertaken with only minor effect on the present lifestyles of the people and the environment. Central to Governor Macquarie's administration, was his concern for public morality and his desire to raise the moral tone of Sydney. In some of his earlier orders the prevailing habit of co-habiting without marriage was denounced. Macquarie could see the dangers to the family of such actions and dealt decisively with many matters of a similar nature. Throughout Macquarie today, there are thousands of Christian people from many different denominations and walks of life who are deeply concerned that we are fast becoming, as Dr Francis Schaeffer put it, 'a nation' under man 'centred around man's self appointed autonomy, governed by man's fluctuating opinions and chiefly existing, it seems, to give man personal peace and affluence'. In other words, the Judao-Christian ethos based on God's absolutes has been supplanted by secularistic, humanistic, arrogantly arbitrary philosophies. The question may well be asked: What did we expect? The humanistic, secularistic thinkers have merely carried their philosophy to its logical end. They have remained, as Francis Schaeffer has said, 'true to their world view in both words and actions, while, unfortunately, Christians have'-seemingly-'equivocated'. Instead of realising that devotion to God is to permeate the whole spectrum of life, we have in the main coasted along complacently, muttering inactive concerns and often serving up erroneous dogmas, such as 'You cannot mix religion and politics' or 'You cannot legislate morality' or 'We just need to pray and witness to people'. I agree with Schaeffer's comment on such an outlook in that what is really meant is that we just do not want to be disturbed. A costly price is being paid for such negligence. A philosophy that allows the killing of an unborn child for the mother's convenience has become prominent. Talk of euthanasia of the aged with a general devaluation of all human life is another prominent philosophy. A good deal of prominence has been given to a philosophy that has euphemised a wrong and self-destructive sexuality into alternative lifestyles. The inactivity of sufficient concerned people has driven the proponents of these philosophies, as Schaeffer puts it, to 'unashamedly seek the banishment of all religious influence from the stream of public life, leaving a totally relativistic value system-a system that has engulfed every area of society which most people have chosen to ignore, the Government, the courts, education and the media'. What we are now seeing under real threat are those very areas which Christians naively took for granted, areas such as the family, the Christian school and the church. Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to all concerned Australian people that it is not too late to change this destructive situation. Mere words will not do. Much stronger action in all political and legal arenas is necessary now. There must be unrelenting striving for the sanctity of human life, the protection of the family, the proper education of our children and our continued right to speak and worship freely. In conclusion, may I say that Governor Macquarie, often referred to as the Father of Australia, accomplished a great deal that was permanent for the good of this land and many of his legacies are with us today. His prediction that 'my name will not readily be forgotten after I have left it' has been richly fulfilled. This prediction of Macquarie's is a challenge to us all to comply with the exhortation in our national anthem to 'toil with hearts and hands: to make this Commonwealth of ours, renowned of all the lands'. It is my determination to fulfil the same prediction made by Macquarie, at least in my electorate. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Before I call the honourable member for Fowler, I point out that this is a maiden speech and I ask honourable members to observe the usual courtesies. Mr GRACE(Fowler)(8.12) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to office and I hope you will pass on my congratulations to the Speaker on his election. At the outset, I express my thanks to the many people who have helped me in my quest to stand in this chamber today. First of all I express my deep gratitude to my family, especially my wife Connie, for the rigours I have put them through since I first became involved in politics, but most particularly through the arduous seven weeks of the 1 December election campaign. I also thank the members of the Australian Labor Party in the electorate of Fowler for their hard work and support during the Federal election campaign and particularly my campaign director, Mr Laurie Clifton, for his most capable administration. I am very happy that as a result of their tireless efforts the overall ALP vote in the electorate was increased. The electorate of Fowler was constituted in 1984 following the redistribution. It is made up of parts of four electorates, the main part having the unlikely parents of the honourable member for Werriwa (Mr Kerin) and the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), with a small contribution by the honourable member for Blaxland (Mr Keating) and the former honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Free). As such, Fowler takes in the western suburbs of Liverpool, Green Valley, Mount Pritchard, Canley Heights, parts of Cabramatta and Warragamba. Fowler is a diverse seat in many ways. It is a mix of industrial, residential, urban and semi-rural landscapes. I have lived in what is now the electorate of Fowler for 25 years and I feel as though I know its people and their problems intimately. I am proud and grateful to be today representing their interests in this House. Fowler is also an electorate populated by people of diverse ethnic origins. No fewer than 69 different ethnic groupings reside in Fowler, and according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics 1981 Census, 31.9 per cent of the residents of Fowler were born overseas. In excess of 50 per cent of residents had at least one parent born overseas. Fowler is indeed one of the melting pots of Australia and is a shining example of how people with vastly different origins can live harmoniously together. I might add, if honourable members have not already guessed, that I am one of the significant minority of Fowler residents who were born overseas. Madam Deputy Speaker, Fowler was named after Lillian Fowler, the first woman mayor in Australia, and one of the foremost feminists of her time. She was an alderman for Newtown from 1929 to 1948 and Mayor of Newtown from 1938 to 1939. However, this was not the extent of her involvement in politics as she was also the State member for Newtown from 1944 to 1950. Mrs Fowler was not only active in State and local government but also she was involved in various community activities. She became a Justice of the Peace in 1920, presiding over Cooma court in 1921, was a director of Picton Lakes tuberculosis Settlement, an executive member of the Women's Voluntary Register during 1939-49, a trustee of the Erskine Hospital and the Newtown Police Boys Club, an active worker for the Methodist Church and was prominent in the Mayor's relief movement in Newtown during the Depression. Mrs Fowler was a woman of forthright views who was dedicated to the service of the people. It is only fitting that a seat was named after her to honour her achievements. Although I am the first to represent the new electorate of Fowler, the area has been represented by some of the finest people ever to grace the ALP, if honourable members will excuse the pun. However, the person most identified with the area now covered by Fowler was Gough Whitlam, member for Werriwa from 1951 to 1977 and Prime Minister from 1972 to 1975. During the time he was member for Werriwa he lived at Cabramatta. It is no coincidence that Gough Whitlam represented Werriwa, for he reflected the aspirations and desires of the people in the urban fringe. He wanted for them the amenities and standards of living that one should expect living in a late twentieth century urban area, basic amenities such as sewerage, kerbed and guttered roads, adequate schooling, recreational fields, places for cultural activities and the like. However, these basic amenities were not given before 1972. It was left to the three short years of the Whitlam Government to give the urban fringe areas such amenities as I have mentioned. The dismissal of the Whitlam Government in 1975 was a great blow to democracy. Democracy is a frightfully meaningless concept without adequate constitutional reform. Constitutional reform can be achieved only by joint all-party agreement. Sadly, the Liberal and National parties have acted time after time to defeat any referendum to reform the Constitution by employing divisive and misleading arguments and scaremongering tactics. There is no point in having joint all-party agreement at constitutional conventions if all parties do not support the referendums when they are put before the voters. The blight on democracy of the dismissal of the Whitlam Government should and will remain to serve as an impetus to the Australian Labor Party to achieve real democracy through constitutional reform. After the overthrow of the Whitlam Government by the reactionary forces that sit opposite, a new darkness came over working class areas such as those now in the electorate of Fowler, that darkness being the shadow of the Fraser years. The Fraser years saw a massive deterioration in manufacturing from 1976 to 1983. In excess of 200,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector were lost. The effects of this were felt in Fowler, as indeed they were felt in most working class electorates. Notwithstanding this, the last Australian Bureau of Statistics survey in 1981 indicated that 30.2 per cent of the working population of Fowler works in the manufacturing sector, well above the national average of 17 per cent. The decline in the manufacturing sector was, of course, matched by soaring unemployment among laid off factory workers and young people unable to find work in the traditional work places. Unemployment in western Sydney during this time was twice the national average, while in some areas youth unemployment was running at 40 per cent. For those lucky enough still to have a job, there was the continuing struggle against high interest rates brought on by the insensitive, illogical and unnecessarily restrictive monetary and fiscal policies perpetrated by the Fraser Government and, in particular, nurtured by the now heir apparent to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock), the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard). His policies produced only high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates, no growth and social divisiveness. I am proud to say that it took one of my fellow Labor colleagues from the western suburbs, the Treasurer (Mr Keating), to turn the Australian economy around and put it back on its feet. He saw that inflationary expectations were not going to be beaten down without an effective prices and incomes accord, such as we have now, and saw that growth, not recession, in the economy was the only way in which the unemployed would find jobs again. There is now a new mood of confidence in this Government among the residents of Fowler. This was reflected in the fact that despite my being a new candidate there was a swing to Labor in the order of 2.2 per cent. The expertise of the honourable member for Blaxland, who has already proved himself to be one of the most outstanding Treasurers in the history of this country, has convinced the voters of Fowler that we should continue to pursue policies that lead to the strengthening and development of Australian industry. The growth of our economy and the future well-being of our citizens depend on a viable and expanding industrial sector. Our industrial sector suffered greatly during the recent world-wide recession, having not only to contend with the down- turn in demand and increases in costs but also higher global protection barriers and increased competition from newly developing countries. Many small firms found that they could not survive. Many large firms found that they had to savagely cut their employment levels. Although there has been a historic shift of increased employment in the service sector, significant reductions in the still unacceptable present level of high unemployment and enhanced long term job prospects cannot be achieved without an expanding industrial sector. The realities of the market-place dictate that there is no future in the return to past policies of previous coalition governments of high protection of inefficient and stagnant industries. This Government is committed to pursuing policies in co-operation with industry and the unions to lead to an efficient outward looking and expanding industrial sector. The Government realises that it must create the right environment in which our industry can operate. To this end it has significantly reduced the rate of inflation to allow our goods to become more competitive in overseas markets and has placed great emphasis in its economic planning to achieve sustained economic growth to foster the recovery and prosperity of industry. It is committed to further reducing the Budget deficit and has announced that it will limit increases in government spending and taxation to allow room for the industrial sector to expand in the economy. The prices and incomes accord benefits industry in that firms can make their expansion plans in the knowledge that they will not suffer the costs of uncontrolled wage increases. The Government has recently implemented its historic decision to float the Australian dollar, a measure which will have long term significance in increasing the efficient allocation of resources and in ensuring the promotion of industry's responsiveness to overseas developments. As well as creating the right environment in which our industry can prosper through the implementation of macroeconomic policies designed for that purpose, the Government has also addressed itself to the issues of planning, restructuring and deregulation in consultation with the unions and business. The steel industry plan introduced at the beginning of last year was developed with a commitment to maintain a viable and efficient national industry which has already led to a dramatic improvement in performance and profitability. The motor vehicle industry plan, which was also announced last year, encourages the motor vehicle industry to restructure, modernise and become more efficient while holding down the prices of cars and reducing job losses in the short term with greater job stability in the long term. Both plans provide that the costs of structural adjustments be borne by the community as a whole. The decision to deregulate the finance sector has had a profound effect. For too long industry has been greatly burdened and hampered in obtaining adequate finance from a market that was not responsive to its needs. It can now deal with a market that is highly competitive and more attuned to its needs, especially with the entry of foreign banks as announced recently by the Treasurer. Industry will be able to observe at first hand, experience and become accustomed to the great benefits that accrue from increased competition. The strengthening and development of the industrial sector is of paramount importance to the future well-being of Australia. Close co-operation between the Government, industry and the unions is essential. We cannot afford a return to past coalition government policies which were inward looking and led to stagnation. We must pursue the challenge of planning for the long term, restructuring, creating growth and the efficient allocation of resources and competition. We must extend our markets, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Unless we continue to pursue the challenge, Australia will be faced with great difficulties in the future. I am sure that, in the life of this Parliament the Hawke Government will continue to improve the economy, to promote growth and employment, to keep inflation down and also continue reforms needed in this country to build a better Australia. I thank the House for the courtesy of being heard in silence. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I remind the House that the next speaker will also make his maiden speech. I ask that the usual courtesies be extended to the honourable member for Cowper. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.27) —I should say right at the outset that I am delighted to be here in this House. I first spoke on the street corners in an election campaign at the age of 18 and since then I have maintained a consuming interest in politics because of the essential importance of politics in our society. Like every other member elected to this House, I owe my presence here to a great many people. First and foremost, I must express my heartfelt thanks to the electors of Cowper who have sent me here to represent them and their interests. I see myself as the servant of my electorate and the people who reside there. It is an honour and a privilege to serve them here and in the electorate. I am a member of the National Party of Australia but I am here to represent every citizen of the Cowper Division. I am also exceptionally fortunate that I have the backing and support of the many thousands of National Party members in Cowper. I am honoured that the Party organisation in Cowper selected me as its candidate, and I am happy to stand here today as a member of the largest and most democratic political party in Australia. I pay tribute to the assistance given to me by the Leader of the National Party, the Rt Hon. Ian Sinclair, and the Deputy Leader, the Hon. Ralph Hunt. Madam Deputy Speaker, I offer you my congratulations on your re-election to your high office and also to Mr Speaker. I wish to acknowledge the unstinting help offered to me by the parliamentary officers and assistance that has been given to me and my staff by many officers of the Public Service. I thank them all. I cannot go further in my maiden speech without acknowledging the great debt that I owe two men who are no longer with us. One was an honourable member of this House and the other was associated with it for many years. The first was David Henry Drummond, whom I knew very well during the period in which I lived in his electorate. Dave Drummond was a great Australian, a grand parliamentarian, and a good man. He was a gentle man, and a gentleman, and I pay tribute to his memory and to his contribution to this nation. The second man I would like to refer to is Ulrich Ellis. He made an enormous contribution to the Australian Country Party over several decades as its historian and as advisor to Country Party leaders including Page, Fadden and McEwen. A great democrat, Ulrich Ellis sought the strengthening and expansion of the Australian Federation by the creation of new States and in the 1960s served with enthusiasm and dedication as campaign director of the New England new State movement, which was when I first met him. I still subscribe to the belief that Australia would be a better place for all of us if a number of new States could be created within our existing Federation. I believe that good government is government that is as close to the people as possible and the existing States of New South Wales and Queensland, for instance, would benefit from political subdivision. Cowper is one of the original seats created at Federation and I am the seventh member elected to represent it. Apart from one hiccup of two years, Cowper has been represented by the Country Party and National Party since 1919 when Dr Earle Page was elected. For the past 21 years, Cowper has been most ably served by my friend the Hon. Ian Robinson, the honourable member for Page, and I take this opportunity of thanking him for all of the encouragement, help and advice he has given me. In 1901 Cowper stretched from the Hunter River to the Queensland border but it has since contracted to that marvellous length of coastline and rich river valleys which stretches between Port Macquarie and Coffs Harbour. Throughout that distance, Cowper reaches from the golden sands of the Pacific Ocean through to the escarpment of the Great Divide. The beautiful rolling hills of the Comboyne Plateau, the marvellous rain-forests of the Eastern Dorrigo Plateau, the rich farmlands surrounding Kempsey and Wauchope, the scenic valleys of the Hastings, the Macleay, the Nambucca and the Bellinger, and finally Coffs Harbour where the mountains meet the sea with banana-clad hills creating a unique horticultural background together form a remarkably productive area. The division of Cowper embraces so much scenic beauty that it is not surprising that so many of our fellow Australians have come to join us in an area which could well be called 'God's own coastline'. Dairy and beef production are important primary industries in Cowper and I take this opportunity to ask the Federal Government to implement the national dairy plan. Cowper is abundantly fertile and produces maize and kiwi fruit, macadamias and blueberries-a delicious fruit which could well be added to the menu of the parliamentary dining room and every dining table in Australia-superb avocados, bananas and many other sub-tropical delicacies. I must say, naturally with great respect to my Queensland colleagues, that when one eats a banana which tastes particularly good and full of flavour it has probably been grown in the electorate of Cowper and almost certainly on the north coast of New South Wales. And, of course, the fresh seafoods of Cowper are excellent. The timber industry is most important to Cowper and it is essential that fanatical, irrational preservationists should not be permitted to destroy it. Timber is a renewable natural resource which must be conserved and managed-not locked up. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to continue to extol the virtues and wonders of the division of Cowper, I would greatly exceed my allotted time. Cowper is very well served by its State members of parliament, Mr Matt Singleton and Mr Bruce Jeffery, and its five local government bodies. There is an increasing diversity of secondary industry being established throughout the towns of the electorate. Tourism is, of course, of vital significance to Cowper and the Tourism Commission of New South Wales figures indicate that the value of direct tourism expenditure within the area during 1983-84 was well in excess of $260m-a major input into employment and economic activity in the area. Need I say more about the beauties and the attractions of Cowper as a tourist destination when I tell the House that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) himself chose to fly into Coffs Harbour to holiday and recuperate after the strains of the last election. I believe that small business is vital to the economic well-being of Australia and small business is the backbone of commercial and agricultural activity in Cowper. Every member of this Parliament should recognise the value of small business and give it every possible support. Since the 1976 census, the population of Cowper has grown by approximately 50 per cent. This is natural growth that has come about because of the marvellous climate and superb environment. This remarkable growth poses some special problems for local government in the provision of infrastructure facilities and I ask the Government to recognise that special circumstances warrant special consideration. I am particularly concerned that a special effort must be made to bring the Pacific Highway at long last right into the twentieth century and to prepare it for the next century. Much work has been carried out already, but it is not good enough that for at least a third of its length motorists are unable to overtake, and the cost to the nation of the long queues forming behind semi-trailers and caravans is enormous. The poor standard of many sections of the Pacific Highway causes a totally unacceptable level of death and injury as well as very costly damage to property. This is a topic on which I hope to speak at length at some future time, but for the present let me say that it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Brisbane should have four lanes to provide a basic transport facility of a standard that many developed countries in the world take for granted. I am very concerned about the provision of ade- quate services for elderly people living in the division of Cowper. We know that 14.1 per cent of our population is over the age of 65 and there is a demonstrated need for more nursing home beds, more hostel facilities for the aged and more aged units, home care services and senior citizen day care centres. Existing nursing homes throughout the electorate are doing a wonderful job in caring for many people, but the demand for facilities for elderly Australians will continue to grow in Cowper because it is so attractive as a retirement area. We have people coming from all over Australia to enjoy the benefits of retirement in pleasant seaside communities such as Port Macquarie, Crescent Heads, Hat Head, South West Rocks, Scotts Head, Nambucca Heads, Valla Beach, Urunga, North Beach, Sawtell and Coffs Harbour. Who can blame them for seeking to escape the rigorous climates of other places to spend their retirement in the balmy sub-tropical climate and environment of Cowper? Madam Deputy Speaker, I fully appreciate that the conventions of this House dictate that honourable members making maiden speeches should be fairly bland and non-controversial. However, if you will bear with me, I must make some reference to the assets test. During the Punic Wars, which honourable members will surely remember as a notable conflict between Rome and Carthage, a Roman senator, Cato the Elder, concluded every speech he made, whatever the subject, with the words 'Carthage must be destroyed'. The assets test is iniquitous and discriminates against country people so I certainly understand the motivation of Cato and, for as long as is necessary, I will be tempted to conclude every utterance I make in this place with the words 'The assets test must go'. I am also very concerned about the high rate of unemployment in my electorate. Admittedly, we all understand that people, if they have to be unemployed, would rather be unemployed in our area than most other places. Consequently we have, along with our high natural growth rate, a disproportionate number of unemployed moving in. I must point out that, in spite of the valiant efforts of the officers of the Commonwealth Employment Service in Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and Port Macquarie, who between them filled 1,365 vacancies during the December quarter of 1984, at the end of December over 11,000 people were registered as unemployed at those offices. We would all agree that the current national unemployment figure of 8.5 per cent is highly unsatisfactory, but the situation in Cowper is, according to unofficial CES departmental projections, far worse. Coffs Harbour area has an unemployment rate of 19.3 per cent; Kempsey has a rate of 17.8 per cent; Port Macquarie's figure is 15.3; Nambucca Shire has 21 per cent; and Bellingen has 20.4 per cent of its workforce unemployed. It is worth noting that within the division of Cowper there is a further variation from the Australian average in terms of unemployment. We are all concerned, highly concerned, that unemployment of young Australians between the ages of 15 and 24 in this country in December 1984 accounted for 50.2 per cent of all unemployment in this country. I share the sentiments of all honourable members in this House who are distressed by this very high rate of youth unemployment. In Cowper, though, we are a little different because youth unemployment there accounts for only 38 per cent whereas unemployed people 25 years and over account for 62 per cent of the total unemployed. While obviously doing everything we possibly can for unemployed young people, we must not forget, we cannot forget, the very large number of breadwinners who are placed in the invidious situation of supporting a family of two or three children, and a mortgage, on the dole. When it comes to the matter of unemployment in this country, I for one cannot accept, and I do not accept, the proposition that widespread unemployment is here to stay. We occupy a continent with an area only slightly less than that of continental United States of America and we have a total population only one-fifteenth of that nation. This country of ours is understaffed and it is government policy, government regulation, government decision and government interference which is preventing free enterprise and private industry from getting on with the job. I appreciate the fact that the community employment program is doing some good and I will continue to support projects in my electorate. In fact, I will secure every dollar for Cowper that I can get. So far, 166 projects have been approved and 641 people, mainly young people, have been placed in short term temporary employment with the aid of the $7m approved or committed by the Federal Government. But we need to realise that people need permanent jobs, full time jobs, not part time palliatives at the end of which young people are thrown back on the scrap heap. The CEP scheme does not always do a great deal for the dignity of our fellow Australians, even though it may put a few dollars in their pockets. I have seen young people, fellow Australians, who have virtually been digging a ditch with a teaspoon, working with a pick and shovel to do work in weeks that a road grader could have done in about half an hour. That is not good enough. It is not good enough to turn young Australians into the white coolies of the Pacific Basin, just to decrease artificially the unemployment figures. I acknowledge that many of the projects promoted under the CEP scheme have been of great benefit to communities throughout Australia. But all too often they have been of a minor, window-dressing nature. I believe that, if the Government is going to provide millions of dollars to alleviate unemployment in this country, we would be better served to have the money put into some major developmental work which would benefit the whole nation-a project such as the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, or the upgrading of the Pacific highway to take it into the twenty-first century. In view of the current situation of the Australian dollar, it is relevant to go back and quote what the late Sir John McEwen said in his maiden speech on 15 November 1934. He said: We must realise that we cannot meet our overseas obligations with Australian paper currency. The only way to meet these commitments is to export goods which we can sell in the markets of the world. There is nothing new under the sun. We are still in the same situation. Sir John McEwen also pointed out that 'our costs of production are too high to allow us to enter into competition with overseas manufacturers'. Not only manufacturing industry, but all industry in this country is suffering from a union and Labor Government class struggle mentality that is straight out of Dickens. It is significant that, since 1970, the United States economy has generated 25 million new jobs, while in the same period the countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Europe have created no new jobs whatsoever. The choice is quite clear. Is Australia going to be a true free enterprise country, a country that can grow, develop and create employment for its people like the United States, or are we going to labour under the dead hand of union and socialist doctrines? Australia can produce itself out of trouble; Australian men and women can work us out of trouble. Australia can provide employment for our people, but only if the Labor Party and union bosses change their ways, get off the backs of the people with initiative and enterprise, and let them get on with the job. I would like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of members of this House and, indeed, the nation, to an educational development which has taken place in the division of Cowper and which I believe is a most exciting and important innovation. I refer to Saint Joseph's Vocational College at Port Macquarie, which is a secondary school with students in years 11 and 12. The college was started in 1979 with the aim of developing and teaching basic skills and confidence needed by young people for subsequent success in seeking employment in industrial or office situations. That aim has been achieved with prodigious success. Honourable members may wonder why I am so enthusiastic about the achievements of Saint Joseph's Vocational College at Port Macquarie, so let me sum them up with just a few figures. In the six years of its existence, 450 young men and women have gone through Saint Joseph's. Of them, 435 left the college to go directly into full time employment. Only 15 of the 450 left school to go on the dole. That is, 96.7 per cent of the total college enrolment went straight to a permanent job the day they left school. That is a remarkable achievement. What other school in Australia can match it? It has become fashionable in some quarters in this country to attack the basic institutions which are the foundation of our society. Therefore, I believe it is incumbent on every member of this House to state where he or she stands. I am a firm believer in the system of constitutional monarchy which is enshrined in our Constitution. I believe that the freedom and liberty of individual Australian citizens must be protected. I believe that every Australian must have equality of opportunity; that there should not be separate laws for separate sections of Australian society. It is fundamental to my personal philosophy that the role of government is not to control people, not to regulate their lives, but to create an environment which encourages self-reliance and initiative on behalf of the individual. Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank you and honourable members for the manner in which you have received my maiden speech and, at the risk of being thought somewhat parochial, let me conclude by saying that what is good for Cowper is good for Australia. God bless Australia. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Before I call the honourable member for McEwen (Mr Cleeland), I point out to the House that this is his maiden speech and I ask the House to extend the usual courtesies to him. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(8.47) —It is with a great deal of pride that I stand in this House today as the inaugural member for McEwen. Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of all constituents of McEwen and members of the Australian Labor Party particularly in McEwen, I congratulate you on your appointment yet again as Deputy Speaker. I would be very pleased if you would convey my congratulations also to Mr Speaker. I place on record my appreciation of the assistance of members of the Australian Labor Party who worked untiringly in McEwen to ensure the return of the Hawke Labor Government. Those members have reason to share my pride today. There are far too many people to name individually, but I note in particular the encouragement and assistance of my very good friend and parliamentary colleague in Victoria, the Honourable Pauline Toner, who for many years has been of great assistance to me in my political activities. It would be impossible for me to be in this place today without the assistance of my wife, Jan, and my three children. We all know that our families, particularly our wives, bear the burden, as it may be, of our activities in political fields. I am extremely grateful for the assistance that my wife and children give me. I also pay tribute to a very great Australian, a man I have admired for many years, Gough Whitlam, whose greater vision of an Australian future led me into very active politics. That is one of the reasons I now stand in this House, as is the case with many members of this side of the House. The Federal electorate of McEwen was created from the 1984 redistribution. It was formed from the former seats of Diamond Valley, Scullin, Bendigo, Burke, Casey, Indi and Murray. It is appropriate that I pay tribute to the present and former members who have in the past represented the present constituents of McEwen. I thank in particular my colleagues the former honourable member for Diamond Valley and present honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) and the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby). It was with regret that I saw pass into history the former Federal seat of Diamond Valley, a seat which was named after an area renowned for its natural beauty and which, since 1964, has formed the Shire of Diamond Valley. Of course, Diamond Valley was far more than that. In the history of this Federal Parliament it was always known as the litmus seat, the seat which indicated how governments would change. The Shire of Diamond Valley is known for its progressive approach to local government and I am proud to have served it as a councillor and Shire President. McEwen honours the memory of the late Sir John McEwen, who was born in 1900 and died in 1980. He was elected to the Victorian Parliament in 1932. He won the Federal seat of Echuca in 1934 and served with distinction in this House until his retirement. He was a Cabinet Minister for most of his parliamentary career and was briefly Prime Minister after the death of Harold Holt. It is somewhat paradoxical that I stand in this House representing a seat bearing Sir John McEwen's name, for I am of a quite different political orientation from his. Yet it is also quite appropriate, for in the days of Sir John McEwen the Country Party would defend its rural interests come hell or high water. Today it has deserted its rural constituency in more than name. It calls itself the National Party of Australia, and is far more representative of extreme right wing philosophies and of the interests of fly by night mining companies than it is of rural dwellers. That is why rural voters are turning increasingly to the Australian Labor Party to represent them and why my Party has the largest rural representation of any party in this House. All the National Party could manage in my seat was a pathetic 8.2 per cent of the vote. McEwen is a seat of great diversity, covering as it does some 14,000 square kilometres and encompassing both urban and rural areas. Whilst only 5 per cent is urban, covering the Shires of Whittlesea, Diamond Valley and Eltham, that 5 per cent represents some 55 per cent of enrolled voters. The Shire of Whittlesea is the fastest growing municipality in metropolitan Melbourne with a population as diverse as the seat of McEwen. The success of the Government's Budget strategy is nowhere more evident with new housing springing up seemingly overnight. The first home buyers assistance scheme is enabling thousands of Australian couples to realise their dream of home ownership. This growth can be seen also in the rolling hills of Diamond Valley and Eltham where new subdivisions and consequential housing has marked the resurgence of the building and allied industries. The residents of the urban areas of McEwen represent a broad cross section of Australian society. The high percentage of people of Mediterranean origin in the west merges with the predominantly anglo-saxon community in the east. Between the southern foothills of the great dividing range and the urban fringe of Melbourne lie the semi-urban towns of Whittlesea, Kinglake, Wallan and Kilmore. Close enough to Melbourne to serve as commuter towns, they provide for future growth in semi-urban development. At Toolangi, for 30 years the home of C. J. Dennis, his singing gardens still live on. Stretching across the electorate is the Great Dividing Range separating the coastal fringes and the central Victorian plains. The towns of Yea, Mansfield and Alexandra lie in the Goulburn Valley, a rich farming area famous for its cattle and sheep. The man from Snowy River rode from Mansfield into the high country of the Victorian Alps, and the area is quite pictorially covered in the film 'The Man from Snowy River'. McEwen's farmers and graziers work in the temperate regions and are renowned for inventiveness and skill in developing techniques for their environment, producing adaptive technology for ready application in a wide range of farming situations. For example, substantial advances have been made in sheep breeding, particularly in selection for commercial characteristics such as wool cut, yield, lambing performance and immunity to disease. The electorate is a large beef producer and exporter. The topography varies from plain country through sloped tableland rising in excess of 1,000 metres above sea level. Diversity of topography, soil types, rainfall and altitude result in diverse agricultural activities. McEwen's farmers, working with advisers, have developed crop-pasture rotations to the point where, with rising fertiliser costs, legume producing nitrogen has become increasingly valuable. The pasture phase of this key farming technique is dominated by legumes and integrated with livestock production. With this development came adaptive technology of dry lands seed production followed by the export of pasture seed. The district surrounding Mansfield is a leading producer of pasture seed and earns valuable export dollars for Australia. Dominating the skyline are the Victorian Alps. Mount Buller, the premier Australian ski resort, stands adjacent to Mount Stirling, earmarked by the Victorian Government for the development of another major ski and tourist resort. From the heights of Mount Buller the waterways of Lake Eildon highlight the landscape. This famous Victorian water playground serves the northern irrigation districts with controlled water supply into the Goulburn River. The northern part of the electorate falls from the mountain ranges into the rich central Victorian plains. 'Seven Creeks Run' at Euroa is known as the first breeding site of Victorian merinos, and the area is rightly recognised for its wool production. From Violet Town, Nagambie and Seymour prime wool and grazing land abounds. Further to the north cereal production becomes the predominant pastoral activity. Broadford and Seymour, adjacent as they are to the major army base of Puckapunyal, home of the Australian Armoured Corps, are attracting new industries. The Australian Paper Manufacturers Ltd and the Allens Sweets (Victoria) Pty Ltd confectionery factory at Broadford are major sources of employment. At Kilmore the new parliamentary annex was constructed. They are prime examples of successful decentralisation. McEwen is also rich in its established vineyards. Many fine wines are being produced in both the Delatite and Goulburn valleys. These areas are now beginning to receive the recognition they deserve and are sure to feature prominently in the future among Australia's major producers of premium wines. I must say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I find it very sad that on the wine list of the Parliamentary dining room none of these fine wines are listed. It is my earnest hope and desire that the Joint Committee on the New Parliament House will recognise the wines available. There are no blended wines in McEwen. They are fine varietal wines and I recommend them very highly. Whilst the rural area represents one of the richest and most successful farming districts in Australia it is not to say that it is free from all problems. On the northern slopes of the Strathbogie Ranges poor farming techniques of the past are now resulting in increased dry land salinity with its subsequential reduced carrying capacity and erosion problems. I have been more than pleased with the measures being undertaken by the present day farmers in their attempt to redress the ecological balance caused by excessive tree removal and overstocking. With increased government assistance salinity-affected land can be reintroduced into productive land. Like all Australians, the electors of McEwen have the expectations and aspirations to live in a society expressing democratic values. They, and their children, expect the right to equality in education, secure and fulfilling employment, home ownership and income security. They have an expectation both to contribute to the wealth of this great nation and to share in its success, to be a part of forging our future without ignoring the lessons of the past. They express increasing concern at the unparallelled expenditure of the major nations on weapons of destruction, a growing disbelief in a world that cannot feed its needy, that cannot house and supply basic education or medical facilities and yet, can continue to build, at great cost, more efficient means of destruction. It is little wonder that among our young there is an increasing cynicism with politics. Those opposite who so blatantly support the expansion of the arms race into outer space and the continuation of the senseless march to Armageddon are not listening to the voices of our growing generations. I recognise and support the Government's initiatives towards constructive disarmament and look forward to the day that the peoples of the world can join together to banish disease and poverty. These expectations are the inalienable right of all and governments will ignore them at their own peril. The Hawke Labor Government, in this its second term, faces an enormous challenge to reform the taxation system so as to achieve a greater degree of fairness and equality. The Government's stated objectives are to ensure that the reform will make the tax scheme simpler, fairer and more efficient. The problem which faces the Government has arisen from 30 years of failure by the Opposition, 30 years in which, with typical lack of ability or principle, it has created an Act which can only be described as a bundle of band-aids. Without any conceived policy to direct it, year after year it added section after section until today a demonstrably total failure of a tax on incomes has occurred. The failure of successive coalition governments to define income or to give directions in interpretation passed to the High Court of Australia a legislative rather than interpretative role. Successive students of tax law have wallowed through precedent after precedent attempting to gain a clear position on what the Act is meant to tax. Starting with the proposition that the Act taxes income the student is led a merry chase to determine assessable income which is, in turn, refined into taxable income. This process involves examining exempt income, rebates, concessional deductions, investment and other allowances affecting the final result. This taxable income is what is presently taxed, not profit. Unless one has a business, income less expenditure is supposedly taxed. However, it is not all that simple. Nothing is simple with an Act of Parliament of over 2,000 pages and over 25 section 82s. There is a section 82, a section 82AAA and a section 82AAAB. If anyone can find the relevant section 82 in the Act, he or she is a complete and utter wizard. Business, according to the whim of the Opposition in Government got special treatment, treatment which varied from business to business, and ended up paying tax on profit adjusted for deductions not available to pay as you earn taxpayers. But that is not to say that business is the winner. Small business in particular has been adversely affected as a result of the combined effects of inflation, the measurement of taxable income by reference to historical costs of inventories and fixed assets and the form in which company taxes are imposed. Together, these create massive liquidity problems for the very firms which, if they are to prosper and grow, even in favourable economic conditions, usually have all the liquidity problems they can handle. We should not be surprised that much of the impetus for tax avoidance has come from the proprietors of small business, many of whom have entered into tax schemes as the only method of survival. One would have thought that the Opposition would have been content with its abrogation of responsibility and its failure, but that was not to be. It then visited upon the Australian taxpayer one of its members, Sir Garfield Barwick, as Chief Justice of Australia, who proceeded to finish the job of demolishing any concept of fairness or equality in the Australian taxation system. But Sir Garfield was not merely content to destroy the myth of equality. Under his determined guidance the High Court opened the doors to the greatest tax rout in this country's history and the present Opposition when in government continued to apply band-aid upon band-aid, always failing to grasp the tough nettle of reform. The position under the Opposition became such that in 1980 Professor Russell Mathews was moved to say: It is plausible to argue that the taxation system has become a major instrument for redistributing incomes and wealth in favour of the rich. A continuation of this situation would be intolerable. As Professor Russell Mathews has so succinctly said: On tax reform, the mythological view is that the existing tax system, for all its faults, can be patched up by a series of piecemeal reforms which attack one problem here and close a loophole there while generally making marginal adjustments which maintain the pretence that the foundations of the tax system are fundamentally sound. This has been the approach of the Opposition and it has led to the present taxation mess. It is still its approach. In the last week we have heard from three or four aspirants to the leadership of the Opposition who have given their different views on which way the Opposition should approach the taxation summit. They still do not have their act together in 1985. We only know that when this Government, which has the courage to reform the taxation system, puts the proposition to the House, members of the Opposition will reject it. They will still talk about band-aid upon band-aid and they will still fail to grasp the real problems of the taxation system of this country. Mr Gear —It is too hard for them. Mr CLEELAND —It is always too hard for them. But I am pleased to be part of a government and a party that does not lack the courage. The Hawke Labor Government will ensure that that does not continue, by implementing a most thorough review of the Australian taxation system which will both destroy the tax evasion industry once and for all and reintroduce justice to small business and the PAYE taxpayer. Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been a great thrill for me to stand here today as the inaugural member for this seat. It is a brand new seat so it has never been represented by a member. It can never be said that anyone has represented this electorate before me. It is a great thrill for me to be a member of this Government. Since 1972, when I started to grow an awareness of Australian politics and whilst watching Gough Whitlam from afar, I turned increasingly to the Australian Labor Party. I became increasingly convinced that it is the only party which is prepared to stand up and tackle those difficult jobs. As a person who practises in the tax field, I watched in absolute amazement during the Fraser years as the tax Act became a totally unworkable mess. It is unbelievable that in 1985 we still have a fiscal taxation system which runs away from the reality of both business and PAYE taxpayers. I am very pleased and proud to be here today as a part of this Government which this year will tackle that task. I thank the House for showing me the usual courtesies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Before calling the honourable member for Bass, I remind the House that it is the honourable member's maiden speech. I ask honourable members to extend to him the usual courtesies. Mr SMITH(Bass)(9.05) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you on your nomination and ask that you pass on my congratulations to Mr Speaker on his re-election to the high position of Speaker. Any new member is bound to find sitting in the chamber of government an initially humbling experience, and it is right that it should be so. I take my place here in the knowledge that I follow in the footsteps of a man who represented the electorate of Bass with great distinction for nearly a decade. I refer, of course, to Kevin Newman. Kevin Newman has served his country in both this chamber, where he attained high ministerial office and, prior to Parliament, the Australian Army, where he attained the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Such a record of service to one's country is an example to us all. Kevin is very well regarded in Tasmania, and Bass in particular, for the sincerity and the energy he displayed when representing his constituents and the broader interests of Tasmania. I wish to place on public record the appreciation of the people of Bass for the very capable and honourable manner in which Kevin Newman discharged his duties as a representative of the people. The people of Bass rewarded him, if that is an appropriate term, with election to Federal Parliament on five separate occasions. In Bass the mantle has now passed to a member of a new and younger generation. I am not tempered by experience of war, but by the experience of the late 1960s and 1970s-years of unrest and in many ways profound social change. There are many people in Bass who gave untiringly of themselves for the cause of Liberalism during the last election. To them all I say a very sincere thank you. To all the electors of Bass I say thank you for the opportunity and honour to be your representative and I pledge myself to attending to my duties to the utmost of my ability. I still feel it is my duty to inform the people who elected me, and those here also, why it is that I sit on this side of the House rather than the other. It used to be said of a previous Labor administration that the difference between it and a Liberal government was the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee. Indeed, that view has enjoyed something of a renaissance of late. It happens to be, however, a view to which I do not subscribe. A Liberal member is generally regarded by sections of the media, and by certain of the honourable gentlemen opposite, as being either a closet conservative or a closet socialist. In truth, I believe a Liberal member to be neither all, yet part of each, filling the void in the political spectrum between those two positions. I am, therefore, what I consider a liberal not only is but ought to be: A person with a social conscience, but not one who sees society as a single monolithic entity. In asserting the role of a social conscience in Liberalism in general, and the Liberal Party in particular, it is well to reflect upon the words of the founder of our Party, Sir Robert Menzies, when he said: We took the name Liberal because we were determined to be a progressive party, willing to make experiments, in no sense reactionary, but believing in the individual, his rights, and his enterprise, and rejecting the socialist panacea. The men who framed our Constitution were for the large part liberal democrats, men of vision and conviction, who not only knew they were on the right path, but also were determined that subsequent generations of Australians would live in a free liberal democratic nation. It is a blessing that they succeeded in their task. Socialists have often used the argument that, if wealth or prosperity is more evenly redistributed by the Government, society as a whole benefits. Such an argument contains an underlying assumption that government should be interventionist, and that bigger government is necessarily beneficial. Big government threatens liberty and is contrary to the spirit of liberalism. That great liberal, Woodrow Wilson, once passed the following astute observation about the size of government: Liberty has never come from the government . . . The history of liberty is the history of the limitation of governmental power, not the increase of it. A concentration of power, no matter where it occurs, is a threat to individual liberty. The federalist approach is the protection our founders adopted to ensure no such concentrations would occur. As a Tasmanian, I shall, whilst in this place, defend strongly the principles of constitutionalism as they operate in our nation, affording as they do protection to the people of the smaller States. The success of the Westminster system is determined in large part by the active role taken by all members in the debates and business of the Parliament. For members to be effective, the individuality of each should not be subsumed by the party they represent. Back bench members must not become mere cyphers of their parliamentary leaders. We do not as yet, and shall never, have a presidential style of election for our Prime Minister. There is a danger involved in going too far down the road of leadership personality politics, whereby the traditions of the Westminster system and the value of individual contributions from members are diminished. Whilst it is true that the political process in Australia is constantly changing to meet new demands, this must not, however, be an excuse for inflicting mortal wounds on either the Federal Constitution or the Westminster system. The two are under attack, not overtly, but under attack nevertheless. A number of eminent Australians have recently highlighted the continued and quite damaging alterations which have been wrought to the Constitution by decisions of the High Court of Australia. Decisions such as that handed down by the Court in the Tasmanian dams case have quite dramatically, and irrevocably, altered the fundamental tenets of the federalist Constitution in a manner the founding fathers would have found impossible to conceive. The independence and integrity of State governments to act within their respective States on a wide range of domestic issues can no longer be automatically assumed. The concept of States rights would appear to be now under threat. The financial arrangements between the States and the Commonwealth are under review. Any review should recognise the special requirements of Tasmania-an island State with a small and decentralised population but which contributes greatly to the national wealth. Such a review must not further enhance the financial domination of the Commonwealth over the smaller States. Australia is predominantly a young nation with a large number of young families. If our nation is to grow in the direction in which it should far more has to be done to assist them. Taxation relief must be afforded to such families. If we, as a nation, do not do more to help these young families we will almost certainly alter in a very real and damaging way the fabric of our society. The family is the corner-stone of our society and we must buttress the institution of family and not in any way discriminate against it. The Liberal Party policy to allow the splitting of income between spouses for taxation purposes has been universally acclaimed by responsible commentators as offering real help for families. The creep that has occurred over the last 30 years in the marginal rates of taxation applied to personal income is shameful. In 1955, the top rate of marginal tax applied to incomes fourteen times the average, whereas this year an income less than twice the average will attract the top tax rate of 60c in the dollar. Effectively, many people now work three days out of five for the biggest-spending, highest-taxing peacetime government this nation has had to suffer. There is something seriously wrong with a society, and the government of that society, which all but condemns one-quarter of its youth to a life of hopelessness and helplessness. I speak here of the enormous tragedy of youth unemployment in this nation, where last month some 23 per cent of all people aged 15 to 19 years had never held full or part time employment. Of course, the reasons are many and the solutions not easy to find, but two things I believe need serious discussion and consideration: Firstly, centralised wage fixing is designed essentially to benefit further those currently in employment and does nothing to aid the cause of those people seeking employment. Secondly, perverse disincentives currently apply as regards the levels of benefits payable under the Tertiary Education Assistance Scheme and those payable under unemployment benefits. Is it any wonder only 43 per cent of Australian high school children continue with their education and fewer still continue with post-secondary or tertiary education. Our nation is in real danger of losing a large percentage of a generation of its youth. In a nation where 50.4 per cent of people are under 30 years of age this is a catastrophic prospect. Real employment growth is desperately needed, but it can come only from sustained economic growth. Successive governments at both State and Federal levels have systematically aided the erosion of real employment growth by capitulating to the demands of special interest groups suffering what can only be described as economic tunnel vision. In the past decade, public sector employment has increased by an almost incomprehensible 50 per cent whereas private sector employment has grown by only 4.1 per cent. The tragedy of such a rate of increase is that in general terms every 100 jobs created in the non-market public sector effectively destroys 165 jobs in the private market sector. Governments have been destroying private sector jobs because they have been diverting the resources of the community into increasingly unproductive areas. Governments have simply not understood the mechanics of wealth creation. Any government must face the unfortunate and inescapable truth that cosmetic schemes are not enough. Our greatest single resource in this nation is our youth. We stand in this Parliament, if for anything, to ensure security for all Australians, young and old, but especially those whose lives lie before them. As leaders, it is incumbent on all of us to seek to find ways and means so that a meaningful life is not denied to our young. For, if we do not, we forfeit any right to be compassionately judged by history. In this year, of all years, we must focus our attention and energies towards addressing the problems confronting our youth. Of concern to all in the electorate of Bass is what has become known as the 'Tyranny of the Bass Strait Distance'. We await at this time a report by the Inter-State Commission on the Tasmanian freight equalisation scheme, a scheme which my predecessor fought for and saw adopted. The scheme is essential to the manufacturers and primary producers of Bass and all Tasmania industry. The continued delay in the presentation of the report is an indictment of this Government. The seat of Bass is centred on Launceston and includes the regional centres of Scottsdale and George Town. There lies within Bass a very rich agricultural industry which, besides having dairy products, vegetables, beef and fat lambs, is now seeing the development of new and exciting products such as essential oils, wine, cut flowers and new strains of high quality hops. However, excessive rises in wage costs, taxes and charges in the rural sector directly threaten the viability of what are some of Australia's most efficiently run farms. Bass also has an extensive forestry industry based on wood chipping, saw-milling and high quality furniture manufacturers, which service national and international markets. The forest industry now employs over 4,000 people directly and indirectly throughout Tasmania, many of them in Bass. It is a significant contributor to the State's economy, also generating substantial export earnings. Future good management will see these benefits continued, with regard also being given to environmental concerns. Whilst shipping costs to and from Tasmania are cause for constant attention, we in Bass are now fighting to have the Launceston Airport runways upgraded. Throughout the recent election campaign no commitment was made by the Government. This matter will receive much attention from Tasmanian representatives as Launceston Airport is the third largest freight terminal in Australia and it serves also as a major entry port for our growing tourism industry. Airline strikes, which occur with monotonous regularity, do great harm to the Tasmanian economy. The airline unions involved must realise that the community will not continue to stand by and see the irresponsible exercise of industrial power. The airline industry is itself one that must be subject to deregulation. Greater competition and a lessening of concentration of operations will lead to greater efficiency and cost savings to the end user and also assist in diffusing the power of irresponsible unions. Tasmania, due to its reliance on air services, should, if equity and responsibleness have any meaning within union ranks, be exempt from all airline strikes so that services are not interrupted or curtailed. Within the seat of Bass there exist some well-known and established manufacturing plants such as the Comalco aluminium smelter at George Town. Such large employers generate much wealth within the community. Supplying services to such large manufacturers are many small business operators such as electricians, plumbers, corner stores and a host of others. Throughout Bass there are many such small business people who feel that by their efforts they add to the nation's wealth yet remain the forgotten contributors to the overall national wealth. Recent research indicates that between December 1978 and December 1982 there was a net gain in employment of 310,000 in Australian firms employing fewer than 50 employees. Over the same period there was a net loss of 288,500 in firms employing more than 50. This indicates the great potential for employment opportunities small business can offer. Small businesses suffer greatly from the imposition of government charges and other costs; they will suffer further, due to the new severance requirements imposed by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. We are quickly coming to the situation in this country in which small business people believe it is just not worth while continuing due to such a burden of costs and excessive taxation. What a sad calamity will be upon us if we do not redress the situation. The Opposition has recognised the importance of this sector to the economy. The Governor-General's Speech, however, failed even to recognise that these firms exist. The small business operator is an entrepreneur, a person who needs to be encouraged, not hindered. We must encourage such people. The 'have a go' spirit which was evident in Australia in our pioneer days must be recaptured. Government can do much to assist by getting out of business's way and not hindering it with excessive regulations and unnecessary taxes and on-costs. The wages explosion has quite clearly had a number of catastrophic spin-offs, which when totalled together point towards economic suicide. An employer employing an employee for 52 weeks actually receives only 37.4 weeks work and yet pays for 71.6 weeks. In other words, for every week worked by an employee, the effective cost to the employer is 1.9 weeks' pay. I am proud to say that the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education, based in Launceston has prepared a proposal for an independent centre of entrepreneurship and innovation, to be known as the Tasmanian Enterprise Foundation, to assist existing small businesses and help to develop new ones. Such a step is a bold and necessary one if we are to meet the challenges of the future in providing high quality services and products for both domestic and international markets. Tasmania is quickly becoming a centre of excellence in specialist product developments which create high value, high quality products that are easily transportable. To buy Tasmanian is to buy quality. We are meeting the challenges of the future in Tasmania, and I am proud to say the people of Bass are helping to show the way. In Tasmania, we have a government that has attacked the dead hand of regulation and taxation imposts. Tasmania is now the true low tax State. We have a government in Tasmania that recognises as a reality that future growth depends on wealth creation which comes from innovative entrepreneurial activity, not from government. We are a community with a hard working people and abundant natural resources. We do, however, require sensible, realistic national policies to reach our full potential. Industrial disputes, educational issues, excessive deficit budgeting, a burgeoning public debt, excessive taxation, the assets test, lack of assistance to small business, the Medicare fiasco, confusion with agricultural policy-all the difficulties created by a national government that gives inadequate leadership-burden the people of Bass. My role is to help lift this burden by helping to ensure this Government is ultimately replaced. The electors of Bass seek stability in their representatives-and in their Parliaments. Early elections, for no apparent reason but for political expediency, are something the electors of Bass do not support, and this was made well known during what was an unnecessarily long election campaign. Finally, we all would acknowledge that leadership carries with it a trust. To be trusted is a greater accolade than to be popular. The unpopular decisions must be made. This Government and its leaders should concentrate on leading rather than on seeking popularity. Should they break the trust given them by the nation they will not only fail those now in our community, but also those yet unborn. Should this Government fail-and recent events give grounds for great concern-then the trust of the nation will be betrayed and Australia's movement down a slippery slide to a bottomless pit of economic and social despair will more quickly ensue. The time for truth is now-not tomorrow. Actions are what this Government will ultimately be judged on, not extravagant verbiage. An attack on family values, a diminution of the effectiveness of our defence forces, a fundamental change to our international alliances, rampant expenditure-all matters that if not reviewed now are a recipe for an enforced government mediocrity, a society debased of meaning and zest, a society without a heart. That is what socialism will bring Australia. I fear the slide down has begun. I stand here with my colleagues to halt that slide and provide a better way for the future of our nation. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(9.25) —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is with a certain sense of deja vu that I rise to participate in the Address-in-Reply debate. It is over 12 years since I gave my maiden speech in this place but, after such a lengthy time away-nine years, which is a record absence for any member of my Party-and as the first member for a new electorate, I would like to cover some of the traditional content of a member's maiden speech, even if one cannot be a maiden more than once in this Parliament. Tonight has been devoted to maiden speeches, and I congratulate the honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and others who have contributed to the debate. I request you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to congratulate Dr Jenkins on his election as Speaker. I know that he will continue to carry out that difficult role with finesse and good humour. He showed those abilities when I was last here, as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees and as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, of which I was a member. I feel most honoured to be elected the first member for Streeton, particularly as 90 per cent of this electorate was contained in the electorate of La Trobe which I formerly represented. It is extremely rewarding to be re-elected by the very same people who turned their backs on the Labor Party in 1975. Rejection can be very depressing and the period in the wilderness deflating, but I can assure those in safe seats that re-election is refreshing and rejuvenating. Those nine years away, however, have been well spent, especially the last five during which I worked as secretary of an academics union. I strongly recommend all those union bashers on the other side to spend a period of time working with a union. To see the hardships faced by those who work for wages alone and to hear the frustrations experienced by those workers who are ignored by their employers would educate Opposition members to understand that the unions have a necessary part to play in representing the workers' interests, and consequently to a large degree the community interest. Though the electorate of Streeton is new, it has been carved out of the electorates of Casey, La Trobe and McMillan, and can best be described as a rural-urban fringe electorate centred on the Dandenongs and upper Yarra Valley. I wish to place on record the excellent representation given to the people of this area by Pete Steedman, the former member for Casey, and by Peter Milton and Barry Cunningham, both of whom were re-elected to this Parliament. Their efforts have contributed to my success at the polls and I pledge to them as well as to the electors that I will do my best to represent the people of Streeton, whatever their background. The analysis of the 1984 Federal election by the Australian Electoral Commission shows that there was no swing against the Australian Labor Party's primary vote in Streeton, and that after distribution of preferences I, as the Labor candidate, received a slightly increased vote. Unfortunately, the Party was denied an absolute majority and the status of 'fairly safe Labor', the title given by the Commission, by the exceptionally high informal vote of 8 per cent. An analysis of the informal vote showed that 45 per cent of them were clearly intended for the ALP as against 17 per cent for all the other parties combined. The high number of informal and wasted votes cannot go unchallenged and the Joint Committee on Electoral Reform, of which I will be a member, will need to make recommendations to overcome the problem so that the system properly reflects the will of the electorate. With the exception of the electorate of Casey, which was lost only because of the high informal vote there, the outer eastern suburbs have returned Labor members. Obviously, the first term of Labor government has been to the satisfaction of people living in those outer areas of Melbourne, for they have endorsed the course we charted-the course of national reconciliation, recovery and reconstruction. These same people share the Government's confidence that the co-operation so essential for Australia's success will be maintained and that only the Australian Labor Party can be trusted to carry out the reforms so essential to make this country an even better place to live in. The excellent result in Streeton is due, too, to the hard work of my campaign committee and campaign director and all the party workers and friends who ensured that the area stayed in Labor hands. I thank them all. My electorate is named after one of Australia's greatest landscape painters, Arthur Streeton. Born at Mount Duneed, near Geelong, he was only 21 when he received international acclaim in Paris for his now famous painting, Golden Summer. Streeton, along with Tom Roberts and Charles Condor, founded the Heidelberg School at Eaglemont, which developed a uniquely Australian rendition of the impressionistic style which had emerged in Europe. These three men-'Smike' Streeton, 'Bulldog' Roberts and 'Kay' Condor, but particularly Streeton-for the first time translated into paint the blue Australian skies and the clear transparency of Australian distances in a way which no overseas born artist could do and which put Australian art on the international map. Of the Australian landscape, Streeton is reported to have once said: Nature's scheme of colour in Australia is gold and blue. In any review of Australia's national flag, perhaps our designers will keep Streeton's words in mind. The landscape of Heidelberg changed under the onslaught of residential settlement during the years those artists were in Europe. In the 1920s both Roberts and Streeton settled in the Dandenongs, the faint ridges of which they could see from their Heidelberg camp on brilliant, clear blue days. This new, largely unspoilt environment around Streeton's home at Olinda inspired him to continue painting and to hold exhibitions right up to the time of his death in 1943. A measure of his prodigious output could be seen just eight years earlier, in 1935, when he was able to list no fewer than 1,110 pictures painted over 52 years. Arthur Streeton was knighted in 1937. At this point I wish to thank the Serjeant-at-Arms, Lyn Simons, for providing prints of two of Arthur Streeton's paintings to hang in my Parliament House office. I also congratulate her on her appointment, being the first woman in the Commonwealth to hold the position of Serjeant-at-Arms. I can attest to her dedication to the task in hand, as we worked together when I was Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation. It was during an inquiry into the Dandenongs, in the centre of my electorate, that she visited my house in Olinda and experienced the beauty of the ranges that has inspired so many artists, poets and essayists, such as Streeton, Roberts, and Vance and Nettie Palmer, to mention just a few. I return to the theme of deja vu I mentioned at the outset. It is said that there is nothing new under the sun, and we have recently witnessed events in the political arena that have proved this to be true. It would seem that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) cannot learn from the past but is determined to turn that adage into a self-fulfilling prophecy. I refer to the turnabout of the Leader of the Opposition on the question of the Opposition's right to deny Supply to a democratically elected government. My previous stint in this chamber was rudely and crudely terminated on 11 November 1975 as a result of the brutal and undemocratic application of numbers in the Senate by the then Opposition to deny Supply to the Whitlam Government. It should be remembered that the senators opposing the Government in the Senate were not all elected by the people. Two of the senators at that time were there as a result of the actions of the Premiers of the conservative States of Queensland and New South Wales, who broke all accepted conventions and appointed anti-Labor senators to fill the places of departed Labor senators. Not content with two anti-democratic acts, they delivered the anti-democratic coup de grace by refusing to pass Supply to the legitimate government elected no more than 18 months earlier. The struggle for the leadership of the Opposition between Mr Snedden and Mr Fraser that preceded the blocking of Supply is about to be repeated 10 years later. As the wets and dries on the other side struggle for the supremacy of their outdated and rejected philosophies, the two contenders-the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard)-struggle for the leadership of a party rejected by the people only four months ago. Each vies to be the one who can promise to block Supply. Under pressure from what the Australian Financial Review editorial of 15 March-I ask honourable members to note that was the Ides of March-referred to as the 'thugs' in the Liberal Party, the present Leader of the Opposition reversed the clear stand he made on the Sunday television program not to deny Supply even if he found any tax legislation not to his liking. He has now gone back on his one statesmanlike announcement-to uphold democratic forms-and turned his back on history, ready to repeat an act that denied the Fraser Government legitimacy all through its years in office. The Australian Financial Review stated: It seems that there are many people on the Opposition side who have not learnt the basic lesson of November 11, 1975. That is, that the denial of Supply as a means of bringing down a democratically elected government, no matter how much it has bungled and how unpopular it may be, should be beyond the pale of acceptable political behaviour. Such sins are contagious and I warn the Opposition and the conservatives in Victoria that, should they exercise their opportunistic desires, they will surely be rejected by the electorate, as they have been at the last two elections. The reasons why they will fail in their plans if they embark on such a course are clearly set out in the Governor-General's Speech. The people re-elected the Hawke Government because, to use the words of the Governor-General's Speech, 'the Government has created a strong momentum towards a change which is necessary to eliminate unemployment, poverty and inequality in our society'. Proposed reforms will include an attack on tax avoidance and evasion. A full taxation review will be undertaken to make the tax system simpler, fairer and more efficient. This approach to the tax system was never taken or tried by the Opposition in its last 7 1/2 years in government. An integral part of the review will be a national tax summit with full community representation. Any lack of co-operation by the Opposition or sectional interests, any lack of desire to participate in a sense of goodwill to build a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society, will be seen by the electorate for what it is, namely, base opposition for opposition's sake. The Opposition has not shown any capacity which might indicate that it recognises that the world has changed over the last 30 years. I refer to the recent debates on the ANZUS Treaty and our relationship with the United States and New Zealand. The Opposition shows no appreciation of the fact that the ANZUS Treaty was written three decades ago as an appeasement to Australia, which was unhappy with the rearming of Japan in the early 1950s, and that its full import has changed with the Guam Doctrine of the early 1970s. The Opposition does not seem to be aware of the proliferation of nuclear arms and the fact that for many people, like myself, the balance of nuclear weaponry is seen more as a balance of terror. The Opposition cannot distinguish between the Treaty per se and the spirit of co-operation behind the document that this Government sees as an integral part of the relationship with the United States under ANZUS. While this Government recognises the need for Australia to express her own national and international sovereignty, the Opposition merely bleats: 'All the way with USA'. While this Government will continue to maintain defence co-operative arrangements with New Zealand, the Opposition wants to punish that country for expressing its independent voice. Mr Kerin —They want to destroy the Anzac spirit. Mr LAMB —As my colleague reminds me, Opposition members want to destroy the spirit of Anzac that has endured for 70 years since the battle of Gallipoli-through the Second World War to today. The Anzac spirit rests on the recognition of comradeship and on the close ties that arise between two neighbouring countries which have a common heritage, culture and outlook. The Anzac spirit must continue and will continue. The Opposition stands condemned for lack of leadership, lack of foresight and lack of understanding of what the Australian people want their Parliament to achieve over the next three years. The people of Streeton have helped to elect the second Hawke Government because they believe that their problems and their concerns will be best understood and that solutions will be best provided by a Labor member in a Labor government. I give a few major examples: On Ash Wednesday 1983 the people in the southern part of the Dandenong Ranges, at Belgrave Heights, Upper Beaconsfield and Cockatoo, were devastated by one of Australia's most horrific bushfires. The people of Cockatoo were determined to rebuild their town and to restore a spirit and confidence that had been shattered. They have established the Cockatoo Community Affairs Association which will guide their development through grass roots co-operation and planning. They do not want decisions about their future made by well-meaning people on high, but they need assistance. They will get that from me and I will be calling on the Federal Government to see that assistance is given. A succession of governments have decided that the Army School of Health at Healesville will be moved to Portsea. This will happen over the next couple of years and the void will leave a big hole in the township's economy, measured at several million dollars per year. On the other hand, a magnificent opportunity exists to redevelop the Commonwealth-owned Army camp site to serve Healesville and the whole Upper Yarra Valley. Several ideas for development have come forward and several merit a full examination. The land forms part of the old Corranderk Aboriginal reserve and the local Aboriginal co-operative has lodged a land claim over the area. Others would like to see an educational or recreational use adopted. I am convinced that with good will on all sides at the local level and with full co-operation from the Federal Government, Healesville could see on that site a unique post-secondary educational institution, incorporating an institute of Aboriginal studies and an exhibition place for Aboriginal history as well as providing educational opportunities for all in the region. It would make an excellent bicentennial project. Mr Deputy Speaker, the years ahead will be exciting and demanding, and I will give them my all. It will be a testing time for the Government to implement its reforms. I know that it will answer that challenge fully. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(9.42) —The series of maiden speeches from the long list of new members on this side of the House is now concluded. I take this opportunity to congratulate all these new members and those on the Government side as well. Their great abilities and their obvious enthusiasm for their parliamentary duties is very encouraging and augers well for the future of the historic institution of Parliament. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall, I am sure, a most unusual happening during the Governor-General's speech on the occasion of the opening of this Parliament on Thursday, 18 February. I say that it was unusual because in my experience of quite a few such occasions in both State and Federal parliaments I have never come across it before. While His Excellency was reading the section on foreign relations in the text which the Government had prepared for him, a significant number of senators and members could not resist at one stage breaking out in a loud guffaw. The solid and proper practice of listening to His Excellency's Speech in silence, reserving comment for later debates, simply broke down. It was most unfortunate. Of course, no discourtesy to the Governor-General was intended but the Government had prepared such an ill-advised text for the occasion that laughter, however brief, seemed at that stage to be the only reaction possible. The section in the speech where this occurred was the one stating how 'firm and mature' were the American alliance and the ANZUS Treaty, and this at the very time of the MX fiasco and the ANZUS crisis. The Government's text had simply departed from all reality. This was not the only occasion on which the Government's text left reality behind. The speech discussed industrial relations without reference to the rash of strikes, even the long and damaging strike of the Government's own employees. It discussed the economy without mentioning the dramatic fall in the dollar with all its implications. It even discussed Medicare without reference to the doctors' resignations in protest against the Government's gradualist nationalisation of medicine. When all this and more is followed by a paean of praise for the maturity and firmness of the ANZUS Treaty and the American alliance, is it any wonder that some people could not continue to sit in silence in the traditional way? Something had to give. In these remarks I will concentrate on that section of the Governor-General's speech concerning foreign relations. It is impossible to discuss the issues without referring to the matters not mentioned in the Government's text, such as the MX fiasco when the Government made a decision to co-operate in the United States testing of the MX, at least to the extent of allowing United States monitoring planes to refuel in Australia and then, while the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) and the Defence Minister (Mr Beazley) were publicly defending the decision against enraged leftist critics, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) announced the Government had submitted to his Party's left wing and welched on its earlier decision. Not only was it a major victory for the Left but it also placed Australia in a similar position to New Zealand, which had declared that it supported the ANZUS Treaty but would not permit nuclear-armed United States navy ships to visit a New Zealand port. Like New Zealand's Prime Minister, the Australian Prime Minister says that he supports ANZUS but not the testing of the MX. This naive formula of supporting a treaty but not what it involves is obviously an attempt in each case to bridge the chasm between what the voting public clearly wants, which is the American alliance, and what the well-organised Left minority in the Labor Party demands; that is, anti-Americanism. The ANZUS and MX crises, with their broad international implications for free world defence policy, made international headlines. I will refer to a couple of them. On 7 February 1985 the International Herald Tribune had it as its main story on the front page. It was also on the front page of the New York Times on 7 February and it was on the front page of the Christian Science Monitor of 9 to 15 February 1985. In the story headed 'Will anti-nuke movement take cue from New Zealand?' the writer starts by saying: 'The NATO alliance took a startling jolt this past week. The New Zealand decision was a dramatic win for the anti-nuclear movement throughout the world, that it might cause a revival of the movement elsewhere', and so on. These were international headlines but the MX incident was only the most publicised of a series of victories which the Left has enjoyed since Labor came to Government in both countries. The basic fact in Australia, as everyone in this House knows, is that the Australian Labor Party is formally and officially divided into three factions, apart from a few independents such as the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who is at the table, and a handful of non-aligned members. The factions are the so-called Right, which supports the Prime Minister; the Centre Left, which supports the Foreign Minister; and the Socialist Left, which some Labor Party critics have unkindly called the fascist Left. These three factions make up the Party. The Right faction is pro-American, the Left is paranoiacally anti-American and the Centre Left tries to mediate. In this situation foreign policy decisions often become a matter of tortuous factional compromise with a good deal of symbolism but always Left-leaning. This shows itself in all areas, from the Middle East, to Indo-China to Central America or wherever there may be a crisis. Let us look at some of the cases. The Socialist Left is anti-Israel and pro-Palestine Liberation Organisation. The Prime Minister is pro-Israel and the Australian public is anti-PLO. Consequently, as far as the policy towards the Middle East is concerned, we get the compromises. The Labor Government has declared that it will withdraw its contribution to the United States sponsored peacekeeping Multinational Force and Observers in the Sinai despite the fact that it had no practical criticisms to make of its work, despite the fact that it was successful, despite the fact that Jerusalem and Cairo want it to stay on, despite the fact that it was bringing credit to Australia, despite the fact that it was having no harmful effect on the Arab trade and so on. Because of the factional compromises, the Government has declared that it will withdraw from the Sinai. But in a compromising way it took a long time to put a date on the withdrawal, and even let it be understood in Jerusalem and Cairo that it might extend its present term. Less symbolic and less publicised has been the change in Australia's United Nations voting pattern on Middle East matters under this Labor Government. In the discussions in the United Nations Australia has agreed in broad principle to the Palestine Liberation Organisation having equal standing with other parties at Middle East conferences. However, it says not just yet, that we agree in principle but we do not agree with it for next week's meeting, as it were. Last year it refused to support a Norwegian United Nations resolution to block an Iranian move which was a first step towards expelling Israel from the United Nations. Interestingly enough, the Foreign Minister in his forward or introduction to the report of the Australian delegation at the thirty-eighth session, 1983, of the United Nations General Assembly, states: There was again an attempt by radical Arab states led by Iran, Libya and Democratic Yemen to challenge Israel's credentials. In the event, a procedural motion was moved by Norway by which the General Assembly decided to take no action on the challenge to Israeli credentials. This motion was adopted by 79 votes to 43, with 19 abstentions. It is interesting that he manages to report this important step, which is, of course, part of an ongoing campaign by these states, led by Libya and Iran, to expel Israel from the United Nations, without also reporting that Australia was asked to support the United Nations resolution publicly by speaking for it but would not do so, although it did, as it happens, vote for it. I was recently in Jerusalem and was many times questioned about what has happened to Australian foreign policy and asked to explain the chill wind which Israelis feel now blowing from Australia. Let us turn from the Middle East to look at Indo-China. Here we find the same factional compromises and pressures. The Socialist Left is pro-Hanoi and wants Australia to give economic aid to the repugnant regime in Vietnam, but since this would obviously be too much for the Australian public, the Labor Government instead gives aid to Hanoi's puppet Heng Samrin regime in Cambodia. It also refused to sponsor the Association of South East Asian Nations United Nations resolution for the withdrawal of Vietnamese troops from Cambodia. It had always co-sponsored this in the past. However, it went to vote for it. An editorial in the Australian of 18 February puts it very well. It states: Australia's policy on Vietnam has been fatuous. We have muted our condemnation of its actions in the unrealistic hope that it will allow us to act as intermediaries in negotiations involving Kampuchea. The Australian Government has also argued that conciliatory words towards Vietnam will help entice it away from the Soviet sphere of influence. Honour, sensitivity towards the refugees who have settled here, and the memory of Australia's soldiers who fought in Vietnam are merely three of the factors which should compel us to condemn in the strongest possible terms, and in every international forum, the barbarism of Vietnam's modern war lords. That editorial was written before the incredible and humiliating debacle of the Foreign Minister's recent visit to Hanoi when he sensationally accepted the lies of Hanoi about having none of its troops in Thailand and when he even conferred with the puppet Prime Minister of the Cambodian Government, which we do not recognise. Of course, that was widely debated this afternoon and I will not add to that. Let us turn from Indo-China to Central America, where the socialist left supports the Nicaraguan Sandinistas and the Salvadoran Farabundo Marti Liberation Front. In the case of Grenada, Australia actually voted in the United Nations for a Nicaraguan resolution condemning the United States for its liberation of the island, only to announce the next day that it wanted its vote corrected to an abstention; a suitable symbol of the compromises and confusion but basic leftism of Australian foreign policy under the Labor Government. Closer to home, the Socialist Left is anti-ASEAN and in particular anti-Indonesian. To appease it, the Foreign Minister continues at public international forums to criticise Indonesia's vulnerable role in East Timor. Only last month he publicised a proposed visit to refugee camps on the Indonesian-Papua New Guinea border, where pictures of him would obviously have been taken for use in anti-Indonesian propaganda, only to find at the very last minute, when he was about to board his aeroplane, that the Papua New Guinea authorities had decided not to permit him to go on such a trouble-making exercise. In the Sydney Morning Herald on 18 February, Hugh White summed it up well, stating that the whole proposed trip to the border had been a wretched political bungle from the start. As for the anti-Soviet pro-nuclear socialist Mitterrand Government, Australia has refused to sell it uranium while France continues to test nuclear weapons in the Pacific, and the Foreign Minister has gladly given France detailed, if unasked for, advice on how to move 'speedily' towards New Caledonian independence. On the question of disarmament and arms control, the Government has been typically confused and faction ridden. One minute the Prime Minister announces Australia's support for the American modernisation program with a view to negotiating arms control from a position of strength, and the next minute declares that Australia, in fact, opposes it. As to the strategic defence initiative, or the so-called Star Wars initiative, the Government has always been mindlessly opposed to it in deference to the left wing which abominates anything from President Reagan. However, it is interesting to note the views of one of the great American prophets of disarmament, Jonathon Schell. His famous New Yorker article 'The Fate of the Earth' helped catalyse the nuclear freeze movement, and his book 'The Abolition' is one of the classics of disarmament. Mr Schell now supports President Reagan's so-called Star Wars initiative, the SDI, on the obvious ground that if there is a shield against nuclear missiles, and the proposal is simply to research into the possibilities, nuclear offensive weapons can be reduced, even unilaterally. Of course, this is the appeal of the strategic defence initiative, and it would be helpful if the Foreign Minister would give us his views on this aspect instead of rigidly rejecting anything simply because it has President Reagan's backing. Unlike the MX decision, most of these policy decisions that I have been referring to, won little international attention, but they clearly show the direction of present Australian foreign policy. The MX case is simply part of the pattern. The Left, strengthened by its past less publicised successes, and no doubt encouraged by the comparative success of the fledgling Nuclear Disarmament Party in the December elections in which it got 7 per cent of the vote after only a few weeks of existence, demanded that the Prime Minister back out of co-operating in the MX test, and he caved in. Of course, the principal domestic result has been a dramatic fall in the Government's popularity. The polls show that if an election had been held in February, Labor would have been defeated because the American alliance has been a basic datum with the Australian public since World War II and the public expects its Government, in the words of the Defence Minister, to behave like an ally. When the United States warships, including the Buchanan, which was refused entry to New Zealand, visited Sydney early in March, specifically Garden Island in my electorate, they and their crews received an extremely warm public welcome. The dial-a-sailor program was overwhelmed with so many invitations for hospitality over the phone, at a rate of one a minute, that the ships could accept only a small percentage of the invitations. The Prime Minister likes to cast himself in the role of his fellow Western Australian, the late John Curtin, the war time Prime Minister and architect of the American alliance. But 40 years ago in 1943 when Mr Curtin confronted the Labor Party policy which prohibited the sending of conscripts overseas he called a special Party conference and forced the Party to reverse its stand. If the Prime Minister can follow that model and remove what he has called the socialist left canker from the Labor Party he will indeed be a Prime Minister worthy of comparison to John Curtin in Australian history. Unfortunately, we just do not see this sort of thing happening at all. All we see is a continuation of foreign policy by factional compromises and compromises leaning ever more heavily to the left. That pattern is obviously going to continue until this Government is defeated at the polls. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(10.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election as a Deputy Speaker of this House. You have discharged the duties of your high office with fearless independence. Less than two years ago the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, was elected by the people of Australia to restore confidence and vigor in all sectors of the Australian economy and to ensure that basic human rights are available to all. Honourable members will recall the desperate years of the Fraser Government. Australia was in deep crisis with the worst economic recession in 50 years. Our national spirit was devastated by seven years of confrontation and division inflicted by a Liberal-National Party government. In less than two years the competent and dynamic Hawke Government has reduced Australia's inflation rate from 11.2 to 5.3 per cent; reduced unemployment from 781,000 to 609,000, created nearly 300,000 jobs; slashed interest rates; begun re-arming our defence forces; re-established Australia's prestige in the community of nations, and been responsible for the lowest level of industrial disputes over the past 16 years. The list of achievements is almost endless. In less than two years the Hawke Government has laid the foundation to build new national unity, national purpose and national progress, and, in the words of Prime Minister Hawke, an Australian government dedicated 'to build in our time a nation foremost among the nations of the world in freedom and fairness for all'. There is a new spirit of confidence in this nation. There is a new confidence, a new spirit of prosperity, in the Herbert electorate as a result of the Hawke Government's interest in north Queensland. It seems now that, after losing votes in north Queensland at the Federal election, the Liberal Party is trying to court votes through the new honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham). This honourable member was elected not knowing whether he was a member of the Liberal Party, the National Party of Australia or both. He was quickly disowned as a National by the Queensland Premier before he decided this dilemma. In his one visit to north Queensland since the election, the honourable member for the Northern Territory has managed to ignore the problems of the sugar industry. He did not mention falling mineral prices. He forgot about the Burdekin Dam development initiated by the Hawke Government. He did not talk of north Queensland defence, or of youth unemployment, which concerns this Government, or of tax reform which we are tackling. He did not concern himself with transport or tourism or any of the many State Government neglects. His first, and so far only, contribution to the future of north Queensland was to suggest that north Queensland be separated as a new State from the clutches or Sir Joh and the rest of Queensland. Is it any wonder that north Queenslanders are bewildered at being told by the Liberal member for the Northern Territory that their final political solution lies in divorcing themselves from the National Party State Government? I need do no more than challenge the member for Northern Territory to come back from the clouds and table in this House an itemised costing and analysis, constitutional and economic, of his illusion. Until he does so, his recent exercise can, and must, amount to no more than a headline grabbing stunt. Development of north Queensland has gained force with the aid and encouragement of the Hawke Government. No longer will the boundless opportunities of north Queensland be consigned to the benign neglect of any government. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised a new $12m Commonwealth Government centre for Townsville to enable Federal Government departments to even more effectively serve the people of north Queensland. This large, elegantly designed and functional building is almost complete. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister undertook to give support to one of the most exciting scientific projects ever developed in northern Australia. The Great Barrier Reef Wonderland, costing some $21m, is about to commence construction in Townsville as a Commonwealth bicentennial commemorative project. The Hawke Government has provided nearly $7m to develop an aquarium which will house a wide variety of coral species and reef fish. One enormous tank will house a microcosm of a functioning coral reef system with a wide variety of coral reef fish. The second huge tank will contain predatory animals of the reef; for example, sharks. Visitors will be able to view coral reefs and fish life from an underwater transparent tunnel through both tanks. More than 400,000 visitors are expected each year at Great Barrier Reef Wonderland. The completed project will be administered by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister assured the people of North Queensland that his Government would fund construction of the Burdekin Dam on a $2 to $1 basis with the State Government. The Hawke Government has exceeded its historic election promise. It is paying the full cost of the Burdekin Dam-surely the greatest national water resources project in Australia since the Snowy Mountains scheme. Prime Minister Hawke has visited the Burdekin Dam site. The Federal Treasurer (Mr Keating) has visited the Burdekin Falls site. Each of these great Australian leaders has fully appreciated the grandeur of the Burdekin Dam scheme. They quickly saw that completion of the Burdekin Dam would firmly establish north Queensland as one of the major agricultural areas of Australia and as a centre with unlimited potential for industrial development. To the Hawke Government the people of north Queensland say 'Thank you'. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister promised the people of Townsville that his Government would build a new domestic air terminal. In last year's Federal Budget, moneys were allocated for this project. The Hawke Government has firmly set the course to enable construction of the domestic air terminal as soon as possible. In November last year the Prime Minister, during a Press conference in Townsville, said that he expected tenders for construction of the new terminal would be called before the middle of 1985. A hearing of the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Public Works has been held. In contrast to the do-nothing attitude of the Liberal-National Party Government, the Hawke Government has acted decisively to provide the necessary facilities to enable rapid expansion of international and domestic air traffic through Townsville. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister promised the people of north Queensland that his Government would begin the urgent up-grading of the Bruce Highway and arterial roads in Townsville. This work has proceeded at an unprecedented pace. Approximately $50m has been allocated by the Hawke Government for replacement of single lane timber bridges with double lane concrete bridges. Many kilometres of the Bruce Highway have been reconstructed and other sections of this national highway are now being reconstructed. It is the greatest road building and maintenance program in north Queensland's history. The unswerving commitment of the Hawke Government to reconstruct the Bruce Highway to a standard that will give the growing cities of north Queensland the genuine highway standard link they need and deserve is applauded by the people of north Queensland. It was in February 1983 that the Prime Minister promised the people of Townsville that his Government would institute a massive program to help give jobs to the long term unemployed, victims of the Fraser Government's fiscal madness. Millions of dollars have been allocated by the Hawke Government to the Herbert electorate under the community employment program. Hundreds of Townsville people have received jobs and training to increase their chances of re-entering the permanent work force. The years of Liberal-National Party government have left deep scars on the economy and the development of northern Queensland. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation suffered merciless cutbacks in funding by the Fraser Government. The CSIRO laboratory in Townsville was established in 1962 to undertake detailed research in the semi-arid tropics. Australia is the only advanced nation in which this environment is represented. The CSIRO laboratory at Townsville is therefore in a special position in northern Australia. Only two of CSIRO's 42 divisions have their headquarters in northern Australia. The divisions of Tropical Crops and Pastures, and Tropical Animal Science receive less than 5 per cent of CSIRO's total budget, yet Queensland regularly produces more than 20 per cent of Australia's total agricultural income. This lack of attention to tropical agriculture is shown by the concentration of CSIRO scientists in the south. More than 70 per cent of CSIRO's agricultural scientists are found south of, and including, the Sydney-Adelaide axis-on 8 per cent of the Australian land mass. This is despite the fact that 50 per cent of Australia's rural exports are produced in Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia. Tropical agriculture again missed out last year when CSIRO moved 20 per cent of its research into high priority areas and protected these from Budget cuts. The Division of Tropical Crops and Pasture had only 7.4 per cent of its research protected from the cuts, yet another agricultural division based in the south had 44 per cent of its work protected. This lack of support for the northern CSIRO divisions is a long term trend and during the past decade the Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures lost 25 per cent of its staff and had its operating funds slashed by 45 per cent. The Division of Tropical Animal Science is still fighting to set up animal nutrition facilities at Townsville, despite staff having been appointed two years ago. The need for animal nutrition research in the tropical north was one of the major factors leading to the establishment of the Division of Tropical Animal Science in 1982. Naturally, a major part of the scientific effort at the Townsville laboratory has been to increase the productivity of the beef industry in the tropics. Declining funding for rural research has resulted from two factors. First, the progressive phase-down of CSIRO rural research during the Fraser Government years. This wind-down continues notwithstanding the fact that approximately one-third of the nation's export earnings had its origins in the agricultural sector. Exports of agricultural products amounted to about 42 per cent of total agricultural production in 1982-83. Last years Federal Budget reduced CSIRO funds by 3.2 per cent but 20 per cent of the research was protected. This means non-protected research suffered a loss of l4.3 per cent of funds. Examples of non-protected research are the introduction and improvement of tropical beef cattle. This was despite the mention of these research areas in the Budget Papers as areas of highly significant research. It is clear that, without the sustained research input which has underpinned the rural industry to date, the competitiveness of the rural sector will ultimately place that sector where manufacturing industry is today. Australia might well take as an example the United States of America which, notwithstanding its developed, technologically-advanced economy, invests heavily in agricultural research. The second factor is the preferential allocation of resources to divisions involved in southern agricultural activities. There are two reasons for this. First, most of these divisions are headquartered in Canberra and proximity to the corridors of power within and outside confers some advantage. The second factor is the 'downgrading' of applied research within CSIRO in favour of other research activities-for example, biotechnology. Yet it is precisely because of the less-established nature of agricultural industries in the tropics that funds for applied research are the first to suffer by the overall rundown of the rural research effort. The irony is that most research effort is needed in the tropics because agriculture in the southern States is both more established and shares much in common with agriculture in other developed countries. The CSIRO has proposed a concerted tropical research initiative based on the Davies Laboratory, Townsville, and involving an attack on a range of problems, including those of the beef and sugar industries and for new industries such as soy beans in the Burdekin Dam area. Another important achievement of the CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures is research into the production of kenaf for the manufacture of paper pulp in Australia. Timber for paper pulp in many tropical countries is in short supply and alternative sources are being investigated. Kenaf, a member of the hibiscus family, has been shown to be the best alternative. Paper production is a major world industry with production exceeding 100 million tonnes per year. A paper pulp mill using kenaf as its sole source of pulp already operates in Thailand. An Australian company is currently investigating the feasibility of a multi-million dollar kenaf-based industry in the Burdekin area. Kenaf is grown as a highly mechanised agro-industrial crop similar to sugar cane. The Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures holds the world collection of kenaf lines and has also investigated other fibre crops that can be used with kenaf to produce paper. The sugar industry has serious problems which must be attacked by the type of research carried out by the CSIRO Division of Tropical Crops and Pastures-for example, northern poor root syndrome, genetic resources maintenance, poor rationing and nitrogen nutrition. The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations has asked CSIRO for help. Here is an excellent opportunity for a tropical initiative associated with the problems of the sugar industry and other agricultural industries in north Queensland. 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. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert) —Not only was the previous Liberal-Country Party Government responsible for a major downturn in the research effort of CSIRO in tropical Australia , but also cutbacks in funding, particularly for the James Cook University of North Queensland, have been responsible for the low level of training offered to overseas students of the animal sciences in Australia. Animal sciences are basic to the development of the Third World and it is important that universities such as James Cook University develop the fullest exploitation of their resources in the training of personnel from developing countries. It has been said: Australia among the developed countries is uniquely placed to provide training in tropical environments, 38 per cent of Australia is tropical. The environments range from the arid through semi-arid to wet tropics as well as high altitude and irrigated environments suited to the agriculture and animal production systems of the tropical world. Training in tropical Australia has been seriously hampered by the failure to provide adequate resources to exploit the opportunities in the northern part of the continent. For more than three triennia, James Cook University has sought additional resources to meet the international demand in making special provision for foreign students. No such assistance has been forthcoming, though some assistance has been directed to institutions in southern Australia. Unquestionably in fields such as tropical animal health, tropical animal production and tropical agriculture, Australia could be a leader if governments, both Federal and State, provided adequate resources. Advances achieved in the animal sciences and agriculture in northern Australia could be disseminated much more widely if adequate training facilities were provided in centres such as Townsville. I therefore call on governments, both Federal and State, to reconsider the contribution to overseas aid that can be made by the development of training facilities in the animal sciences, agriculture, medicine and other disciplines within tropical Australia. Consideration should be given to the establishment of a special centre in tropical animal and agricultural sciences at Townsville supported by James Cook University, CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industry. Such an innovation would be compatible with the recommendations of the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission and the Birch Independent Inquiry into the CSIRO. Existing facilities at the graduate school of tropical veterinary science at James Cook University could be expanded to permit the presentation of a wider range of short courses and graduate programs in tropical Australia to meet the international demand. I believe that support for these developments would not only strengthen the technical and educational components of our aid program in a significant way but also establish such a prestigious resource that Australia would stand out uniquely amongst the advanced nations in its contribution to the training of personnel from the Third World. Debate (on motion by Mr Adermann) adjourned. Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time. Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I have received the following message from the Senate: The Senate, having considered Message No. 6 of the House of Representatives, has agreed to the following resolution in connection therewith, viz: (1) That the Senate concurs in the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by Message No. 6 of the House of Representatives relating to the appointment of a Joint Select Committee on Video Material, subject to the following modifications- (a) paragraph (1), after ''joint select committee'', insert '', to be known as the Joint Select Committee on Video Material,''; (b) paragraph (1), after ''operation of'', insert ''the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations,''; (c) sub-paragraph 1 (a), leave out ''by comparison with previous legislation purporting to govern'', insert ''to adequately control''; (d) sub-paragraph 1 (c), leave out '' 'X' ''; (e) after sub-paragraph 1 (c), insert the following new sub-paragraph: ''(ca) whether 'R' rated videos should be permitted to be displayed for sale or hire in the same area and side by side with 'G', 'PG' and 'M' rated videos and, if not, what restrictions should be imposed on the display of 'R' rated materials;''; (f) after sub-paragraph 1 (d), insert the following new sub-paragraph: ''(da) examine the extent to which videotapes/discs containing pornographic and violent material are available to the community in general;''; (g) after sub-paragraph 1 (f), insert the following new sub-paragraph: ''(fa) whether the sale, hire, distribution or exhibition of films and videotapes/ discs that would, under existing laws, be accorded a classification above 'R' should be made unlawful;''; (h) paragraph (2), leave out the paragraph, insert the following paragraph: ''(2) That the Committee consist of 9 members, 3 Members of the House of Representatives to be nominated by either the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House or the Government Whip, 1 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, 1 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, 2 Senators to be nominated by the Leader of the Government in the Senate, 1 Senator to be nominated by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate and 1 Senator to be nominated by any minority group or groups or any independent Senator or independent Senators.''. (2) That the provisions of the Resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the Standing Orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing Orders. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House of Representatives in the Senate's modifications of the Resolution transmitted to the Senate by the House. Ordered that the message be taken into consideration of the House forthwith. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.23) —I move: That the modifications of the Senate be agreed to. Obviously, a lot of work has gone into this matter in the other place by all the parties concerned-the major parties and all those smaller substances in the Senate. We think it would be in the interests of parliamentary democracy for us to agree. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(10.24) —My understanding is identical to that of the Leader of the House (Mr Young), namely, that this matter has been the subject of some detailed discussion between all the party representatives in the Senate. Although it is difficult, of course, to comprehend the precise detail of the amendments on the basis of those discussions- Mr SPEAKER —I thought I read them very clearly. Mr N. A. BROWN —They were very well read. There is no debate at all about that. They were extremely well read. In fact, it was one of the best read pieces of literature I have heard in this House for some time. I simply say that the Opposition accepts that proposal on the basis that the matter has been thoroughly discussed between the party leaders in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in addition to Mr Speaker, ex officio, Mr Conquest, Mr Cross, Mrs Jakobsen, Mr Maher, Mr Smith and Dr Watson be members of the Library Committee. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay)(10.25) —I draw to the attention of the House this evening a matter that occasions me concern. Further, I think it takes unfair advantage of young, impressionable minds in a way that could be described as somewhat furtive and mischievous. Before going further I say that my remarks are not predicated on my dedication to the retention of our national flag until such time as an overwhelming proportion of our population elects to change it for totally wholesome reasons and not change for change's sake. I make that completely clear. What has come to my attention is an examination paper, a School Certificate reference test for 1984 from the Department of Education in New South Wales. By way of a random test paper a proposition was put to those being examined. As part of the test they in turn had to answer a questionnaire which would convey the impressions of the paper that they retained. The paper, which is presented in a somewhat challenging, mocking and cavalier fashion, expresses no more than a personal point of view. My contention is that this may be the introduction of the matter of a change of flag to young people who would not otherwise have had occasion to consider the matter. The matter was not put to them in an even handed way whereby there could have been an exposition of the respective points of view. That would not have undermined the purpose of the test. The paper puts this proposition: Should we or shouldn't we change the flag we've got? Just about everybody has an opinion. That is fair enough. The paper continues: I have one: I think we should change it-and do so for the 1988 Bicentennial celebrations because that would be a neat and tidy time and way to do it. That is logical and appealing. It continues: My main reason for change is one put forward in many letters to the editor: the flag we've got simply isn't recognisable and, therefore, fails the basic test of a flag's effectiveness. If we're going to run up a bit of cloth and have the world wondering if it's New Zealand's or another Pacific nation's or a Royal Navy's ensign splattered on by seagulls, then it's not doing its job. The Union Jack has to go for the very reason that we have to change our flag: The Union Jack is simply too good a flag. That is rather clever. The Union Jack component of our flag is not being denigrated. It just states: The Union Jack is simply too good a flag. It is too striking, too recognisable to be included as a part of any other flag because it dominates. And that, of course, is the sort of flag we want-one that is immediately recognisable as the Australian flag as soon as it's sighted. I have no argument with the expression of that view. We are familiar with such views just as we are familiar with views that are in complete conflict with that expressed in that paper. But the point I am putting is that within the confines of an examination environment where there is understandably a hypersensitivity in the young children to register that contained within that exposition so that they might more adequately deal with the questionnaire, we have-I go back to my introductory remarks-mischievously and unfairly taken advantage of young people who have been exposed to a proposition condemnatory of our traditional flag. They have not been given the benefit or the advantage of a balancing presentation. I think that in that examination environment such a situation can be described only as utterly deplorable. Those who have a responsibility to our young, regardless of their personal views on the flag or any other matter, should ensure that when young people are subject to extreme influence by the circumstances prevailing, have an obligation to put both points of view. I lament the circumstance that has resulted in that situation. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(10.30) —For the past 60 years the Commonwealth pathology laboratory in the lead smelting town of Port Pirie has been taken for granted as a very necessary public health installation. It is manned by a dedicated staff who maintain an on-call 24-hour service to hospitals and doctors throughout the region. They do this in spite of the handicaps of working in premises built in 1924 for the very limited commitments of that time. But now the stage has been reached where the people of Port Pirie are alarmed at the prospect of the viability and ultimately perhaps the very existence of their laboratory being threatened because it is not permitted to develop and extend to keep pace with growing demand for the services it is capable of supplying. The constraint is purely financial, and it is being applied because of continuing uncertainty about the future of Commonwealth laboratories in general. This uncertainty cannot be resolved until the recommendations of the Ross report of the Committee of Inquiry into Commonwealth Laboratory Services and Facilities have been put before Cabinet and a decision made on them. I bring forward the plight of this Port Pirie laboratory today because I believe the interdepartmental committee's report is ready and I want to stress the urgency of reaching a decision and the implications of further delays. The need for a new and larger building for this laboratory first came under consideration 10 years ago. I have taken every opportunity to point it out during my two years in this House. The need is no longer in any doubt. The Minister for Health, Dr Blewett, has gone on record describing it as an urgent and worthwhile project. The $1.3m that the project would require cannot even be put up for budgetary consideration until the issue raised by the Ross report, the handing over of Commonwealth laboratories to the States, has been finally laid to rest. This proposal, which I understand grew out of the Fraser Government's razor gang experiments in 1981, has been obstructing progress ever since by holding up a number of pressing capital works at Commonwealth laboratories. The new building proposal at Port Pirie was included in the Department of Health design list for consideration in the 1984-85 Budget but was not considered because of this doubt about future policy. There is now an even more pressing reason why this pattern of delay should not be repeated this year. This is the fact that Port Pirie hospital has its own plans well advanced for a $4.2m expansion program. The extensions will include a greatly increased capacity in terms of operating theatre and casualty department work, which must inevitably lead to a heavier and more consistent demand for pathology services. That may not have some connection with the fact that an Adelaide based private enterprise laboratory recently began a courier service aimed at serving hospitals and doctors in the Port Pirie region. I hope I will not be accused of beating the drum for socialised medicine if I point out that there are nine skilled people now employed at the Port Pirie laboratory and that further opportunities for offering jobs to local school leavers would undoubtedly ensue if the laboratory were expanded to meet its logical potential role as the base installation for the entire district. In the areas of fast turnaround and economy of operation it has a head start because of its location. But even with these natural advantages the laboratory cannot be expected to withstand indefinitely challenges from strong competition if it is condemned to continue the race hobbled by a moratorium on funding. To allow this uncertainty as it has for several years now-given that the rebuilding proposal first came up for consideration in 1975-would, in the eyes of the people of Port Pirie, suggest an out of sight, out of mind attitude to problems of urban areas away from capital cities. I most strongly urge that these IDC findings be brought before Cabinet at the very first opportunity so that the way can be cleared for funding of this very necessary resource. I am fully conscious of the fact that the Government is now engaged in an all-out effort to reduce the deficit and that its commitments leave no room for soft options. But I must stress the long term view of this project that it would not only be a community asset but also have a very sound financial basis as both an earner and a money saver in a field where private entrepreneurs are only too happy to move in and to help government to move out. I strongly urge that in the very near future this very necessary project of a new health laboratory in Port Pirie is established. It has my full support and commitment. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.35) —Honourable members will be aware that the assets test is creating a great deal of poverty in rural areas around Australia. To demonstrate that point I would like tonight to give an example of how that assets test is affecting a couple living in my electorate, in the town of Milang. As a result of the introduction of the assets test that couple is now living on $1,575 a year, or $30.30 a week. Honourable members will be aware that that is less than 20 per cent of the unemployment benefit for a married couple. To reduce a couple to that sort of income can be described not as inconsiderate but as callous. I point out to the House that the husband has already suffered a series of strokes and is now suffering from advanced emphysema. In addition to the $30.30 a week which the couple has as a result of the reduction in their pension they do have some assets. They now have $600 in the bank and they own a 1968 Holden car valued at just $500. In addition-this is the reason they have been hit by the assets test-this couple has a farm which is valued at $161,000. That farm is run by their son, who last year derived an income of $9,222 from it. This financial year he is expecting to gain an income in the region of $6,000. This is a dairy farm, and honourable members will be aware that the dairy industry is in a state of very serious decline in Australia. That decline has hit this family very hard. The son, who is now running this farm, has a wife and a son and with his $6,000 this financial year he will be expected to support not just his wife and son but also, apparently, as a result of the assets test, his parents. Honourable members may wonder what that couple has done as a result of being reduced to an income of $30.30 a week. They may argue: Why do they not apply for relief under the hardship provisions of the assets test? Indeed, they have applied for relief under the hardship provisions of the assets test. I point out to the House that they have had that application rejected-apparently on the basis that their main asset, which is the farm from which the son hopes to derive just $6,000 this year, should be sold. If the asset were sold naturally the son would become unemployed and the Commonwealth would have to provide unemployment benefits not just to the son but also to his wife, including support for their child. The Department of Social Security has also argued that that asset could be borrowed against. That is a serious argument that the Department has put forward. Honourable members would be aware that it would be impossible on just $30 a week, to service the sort of loan that that couple would need to survive. It would be completely impossible, particularly at a time when interest rates are as high as they are today. As honourable members are aware, they are continuing to rise as a result of the Government's economic policies. If the first two options are not appropriate the Department of Social Security has also suggested that that asset could produce additional income, that the couple should somehow turn the farm into something completely different. That is a completely unrealistic and totally unsatisfactory solution. Indeed it only draws to the attention of the House the callousness of this assets test and the appalling effect it is having on rural people throughout Australia. This is one example out of many thousands around Australia. This couple has failed to meet the hardship provisions, failed to get relief from the Government and the Department of Social Security. The Government and its policies stand condemned for reducing this couple's income to just $30.30 a week. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(10.40) —The speech made by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) would have had some conviction if the Liberal Party had some concern for the poor in this country. As I shall demonstrate in my short speech tonight, it has absolutely no concern whatsoever for them. In this country the political spectrum has moved so far to the right-and the Liberal Party in particular has moved so far to the right-that the Liberal Party is openly suggesting at this time, when we have problems of poverty in this country, that we ought to restructure the tax system and the whole social security system in order to give more money to the rich or wealthy. Mr Hodgman —Rubbish! Dr THEOPHANOUS —The honourable member for Denison says 'Rubbish'. He obviously has not read the comments of the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) who was a Minister in the Fraser Government and who is the shadow Attorney-General. He recently made some comments which were reported extensively in both the Australian and the Age. He stated that the Liberal Party under the Fraser Government had been too moderate and had been too subject to left wing ideas-this was in regard to the Fraser Government-and that the problem was that the tax system had to be changed so that middle and high income earners would be rewarded for improving their material wellbeing. Can honourable members imagine the situation? A major political party in this country is now saying: 'Forget about equity; forget about poverty; forget about any principle of fairness'. Instead, it is saying that we should reward the rich even further. The rich are not rewarded enough, according to the honourable member for Menzies, the shadow Attorney-General. He believes that we ought to reward them even more. This is the solution to the economic problems of this country which the Liberals are putting forward. What did the honourable member say about the Fraser Government? He stated: In government between 1975 and 1983 we never seemed to be short of time to devote to sand mining on Fraser Island, the preservation of Abbott's Booby Bird or Aboriginal land rights. But we never seemed to have time to talk about where Australia was going- that is the admission of the honourable member for Menzies- . . . about the falling standard of living- he admitted that under the regime of the previous Government the standard of living fell- . . . about how we could give them a good a secure future; about how we could encourage new industries in Australia . . . It was certainly a very disgraceful performance by the previous Government. It did not establish any new industry of any note during its eight years in government. He continued: . . . and how we could get rid of the dead hand of government, our government, that was stifling initiative and taxing us into oblivion. But did the previous Government even think about reforming the taxation system in any way to help ordinary workers or even middle or upper-middle income workers? Of course it did not. All that it did during that period was to support the rich. One would imagine from reading those comments that it did not do enough to support the rich during that period. I remind honourable members of what it did do. It ignored completely all the various schemes which involved avoidance and evasion of taxation by the very wealthy sections of the community. It allowed the rich to get away with not paying their due share of taxation or sharing the burden of the taxation system. In fact, the approach suggested by the honourable member for Menzies would make the situation even worse than it was under the Fraser regime. The Opposition's solution to the complex problems of the economy, industry development and so forth is to suggest in this House and in the media that even more extreme policies than the policies which destroyed this country under the Fraser Government ought to be tried. That is the proposal which the Opposition is bringing forward. How dare members of the Opposition suggest that in this country we ought to redistribute wealth in favour of the rich and that we ought to increase inequality in 1985. That is the sort of proposal which would have been dangerous 150 years ago. They suggest that we ought to redistribute wealth in this way and so widen the gap between the rich and the poor. They ought to be ashamed of themselves. If they looked at the facts in regard to poverty in this country, they would recognise that the problems of poverty involve the opposite kind of redistributive programs, and they are the programs which we will put in place after the taxation summit. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.45) —I am sure that tonight in the Soviet Embassy there will have been much celebration because Comrade Samoteikin and his colleagues would have listened with great interest to the debate in the House this afternoon. It is a very sad day when any member of this Parliament can say and prove that under the Hawke socialist Government Australia has now veered so far to the left that the Soviet Union seriously considers us to be a potential ally. That is the situation which we find today. Ms Jakobsen —Rubbish! Mr HODGMAN —I say to honourable comrades opposite that it is not rubbish because none other than the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Professor Mikhail Kapitsa, has been in Australia for high level talks. On Saturday we saw in the Weekend Australian an article by that most eminent defence and foreign affairs correspondent, Peter Young. Under the headline 'Soviets offer pact if US bases close' it reads: A senior Soviet official yesterday proposed a non-aggression pact between Australia and the Soviet Union, if Australia would ban nuclear weaponry and close the United States bases. The . . . proposal was made yesterday by the Soviet Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs, Professor Mikhail Kapitsa, during an interview with the Australian. Mr Kapitsa, an expert on Asian affairs, was in Sydney for discussions with the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Hayden. . . . Professor Kapitsa said relations between the Soviet Union and Australia had been 'as cold as an iceblock' during the past few years but were steadily improving and Moscow wanted a greater level of understanding between the two countries. Under the Hawke socialist Government we have now reached the tragic situation where our policy on Kampuchea is approved with very great enthusiasm by the Soviet Union. An article in the Canberra Times again referred to Professor Kaptsia, who is no lightweight. He is a senior Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs in the USSR. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and Professor Kapitsa had talks for two hours behind closed doors. As the Foreign Minister said earlier today, he will not tell us what went on. But Professor Kapitsa said that he agreed with about 70 per cent of what Mr Hayden had suggested as a solution for the Kampuchean problem. Under the Hawke socialist Government Australia has now clearly became the tool of Vietnam in its expansionist and militaristic policies. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has claimed that he did not know on 5 March this year that Vietnamese forces had crossed into Thailand. Despite the fact that that was published in a United States briefing and despite the fact that the United States sent urgent supplies to Thailand, the Minister said that he did not hear about it in Vietnam. I draw to his attention the fact that, if he did not hear about it, the Soviet Union certainly did. From the Novosti Press Agency, known as APN or, if honourable members want its full title, Agentstvo Pechati Novosti, which we can obtain from the Parliamentary Library-the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) and I read it every day-we have an article from Pravda of 5 March which reads: . . . counter revolutionary bases set up in the Kampuchea-Thailand border region were wiped out. Some areas are now fully cleansed of Khmer reaction . . . About 6,000 bandits were put out of action. Clearly it was not a lightweight operation. The article states that this was done in retaliation for Thailand engaging in what the Soviet Union, using lies, claimed were dozens of massive shellings of the border provinces of Battambang, Preahvihiye and Kohkong. But our Foreign Minister said that he did not hear about it. In the seconds remaining to me-here comes the crunch-I ask the Hawke socialist Government to state unequivocally that it will not in any way block the suggestion that the United States air base presently based in Christchurch New Zealand be moved to Hobart International Airport as a permanent base and that it will not in any way block moves by Tasmania to offer permanent naval facilities to the United States. We in Tasmania feel that our country's defence is being betrayed by the Hawke socialist Government. The question is whether the Government will block the move if Tasmania makes the offer to permanently base both air and naval facilities. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.50) —I am one who feels that the Westminster system of government, despite all its faults, is the best in the world. However, I do not think the system of government stands alone. Also embodied in our traditions is the system of law evolved over many centuries. I am appalled by the readiness of members of the Liberal Party of Australia and other conservative organisations to put at jeopardy public confidence in our laws for the most tawdry, short-term political gains. I want to relate to honourable members an incident which occurred in Western Australia. A truck company operator, in an endeavour to enhance his business, I suppose, or to make an additional profit, induced a worker to work on contract terms which were in fact below the award. It is simply not possible to contract below the award. The fellow involved quite clearly was not a contractor in the sense of the word, and he sought redress through the unions. The case went to the Industrial Court and was dismissed on the very narrow technical ground that the union had failed to produce evidence that the man was a member of the union or was in a position to be covered by the union. Quite clearly, as a truck driver, he was entitled to be a member of the union or to be covered by it. In fact he was both. The case was thrown out of court on that very narrow technical ground. The secretary of the union then said to the operator: 'You have exploited this man. Unless you pay him the wages due we will effectively black ban you.' I have no doubt that that was an industrial threat and that it was the only recourse that that worker had for any form of justice. I add that, when I was involved in the trade union movement in the goldfields, there were many occasions on which I did exactly the same thing, and I would do exactly the same thing if the same situation presented itself again. At stake was a matter of $9,000. Since some of this money was earned by contracting outside the award, in other words, driving far longer hours than the award allowed, the union cut down the amount it was claiming. The Confederation of Western Australian Industry became involved in this matter on behalf of the owner of the trucking company, decided that it was a reasonable deal and met the payment of $3,000-every cent of which went to the driver of that truck in recompense for the treatment he had received. After this had occurred, however, the trucking company principal was induced to make a complaint of extortion. The police acted on this and charged the secretary of the Transport Workers Union. The matter went through the process of the law and in the end the Attorney-General decided that, although there was a prima facie case, he would quash the proceedings. He did this on the advice of the Solicitor-General. I quote from the Solicitor-General's advice: Despite the existence of a prima facie case, the use of the criminal law in the totality of these circumstances was unnecessary and inappropriate. He also said: It is also relevant that this case has arisen in the area of employer-employee relations. This is one of many areas of activity of considerable importance to the community where the too ready, or too rigid, application of the criminal law can be counterproductive and contrary to the ultimate interests of the community. Since 1950 when the O'Shea case rang the death knell for the application of criminal sanction in industrial law there has never been in Western Australia a case when this law was instituted for industrial proceedings. The reason was that it was quite clearly inappropriate. However, the Liberal Opposition of Western Australia sought to make enormous political capital out of this, to mislead the public, to undermine confidence in the law and to cast aspersions on Western Australian Attorney-General Berinson, one of the most honourable men it has been my pleasure to know. He too thinks it is deplorable that we are faced so often with people so hungry for power and so determined to seek their own ends that they are prepared to put at risk the institutions which we as a democratic people hold dear. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.55) —We have just heard the greatest effort at half-truth ever perpetuated in this Parliament. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie (Mr Campbell) has raised what is known as the O'Connor issue in Western Australia. It is about a man whom the State Government let off on an extortion charge although it had previously been found in a minor court that there was a case to answer. There is no talk of industrial law in relation to this matter; it concerns the case of a man charged with extortion and a government, under instructions from unions, letting him off. That is the reality of what the honourable member has raised. It is an issue of great concern. The honourable member has said that there is one law for unions and another law for the rest of the community. If that is the way this Parliament is to deal with things, then God help us. It is the most disgraceful issue raised for some time in Australian legal history. After a preliminary court hearing found that there was a case to answer, a government chose to withdraw the charges. At the committal hearing it was found in the proper process of law that there was a case to answer. Let us look at the reality. Mr Campbell —There was no case. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, there was. The original case, which went before the Industrial Court, was lost due to the incompetence of one John O'Connor. We all know the way the law works in Australia. We are not stuck with just one court. There are other courts to which Mr O'Connor could have taken his case. Not him! What did he do? He went to the company owner and said: 'Pay the money or I will black ban you.' The individual, who is a constituent of mine, went to three State Government Ministers to get justice. He was told by each and every one of the Ministers-one of whom was also his State member of parliament-'You pay the money which it has just been proved in court you do not have to pay, and you will be right, mate'. That is lovely, is it not? This represented breaches of sections 45D and 45E of the Trade Practices Act. There were secondary boycotts. Nobody has done anything about that. The Trade Practices Commissioner had not bothered to prosecute that matter as he would in respect of any decent, small businessman who breached the regulation, even accidentally. The reality of the matter is that, having gone to a court and lost, the union did not take the legal option available to it and go to another court. It applied union muscle to one little truck company owner. The reality was that that truck owner could not get justice from three State Labor Ministers in Western Australia, because they knew where they got their instructions from. What then happened? Eventually a charge was laid because, I believe, one State Minister said eventually that it was a matter for the police. The police investigated the evidence put to them and decided that there were grounds for a charge of extortion. The police prosecuted in a minor court in a committal hearing. In that committal hearing the magistrate decided that there was a case to answer. Of course, the gentleman, Mr John O'Connor, then had to confront a jury of his peers. Is there any greater system of justice in Australia than that provided by a jury? The members of the jury could all have been members of trade unions, for that matter. They would have judged him fairly. It is my opinion that the union movement was too frightened to let him go to that other court because it has a good idea what would happen. So they stood over the so-called honourable man Berinson. He might have been honourable before he took that disgraceful decision to put himself and John O'Connor above the law. Where did John O'Connor go as soon as he got off this extortion charge? He has gone to the Argyle diamond mine to try to stop that project that will create a few jobs for Australians. Why did he do this? He did it because the Australian Workers Union has coverage there, and he wants coverage. There is evidence to show that the union is paying unemployed people to go on the picket lines. The union has to bring these people from Adelaide to destroy an industry in the electorate of the honourable member for Kalgoorlie. That is all the honourable member cares about. All he says is that he is honourable and honest. He is the same as the people who represent the honourable member's Party in Western Australia. It is a downright disgrace. It is an attack on all that justice stands for in Australia. Does the honourable member know where it will end up? It will end with the denigration of the reputation of the law. The fact is that the integrity of the law in New South Wales has been destroyed. No one in New South Wales trusts the law any more. Bombs are put at doors. Now the situation in Western Australia is that the same sort of thing is happening. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Cohen —I require the debate to be extended. Mr SPEAKER —The Minister requires the debate to be extended. The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial)(11.00) —I wish to make brief comment on the matters raised by the honourable member for Wide Bay (Mr Millar). I do so in a spirit of co-operation because I do not believe his remarks were offensive. He raised a topic for which I am in part responsible, or perceived to be responsible, as Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and also the Minister originally responsible for the Bicentennial and now the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial. In fact, the Minister responsible for flags is the Special Minister of State, Mr Young. Nevertheless, I do hear a lot on this topic. I have been concerned in the time I have been Minister at the tempo of the argument about whether Australia should or should not have a new flag. I am concerned that we may now get into a debate similar to the bitter debate about the Australian anthem. There are those who believe that Australians should have the opportunity to choose a new flag if they want one. An attempt has been made by sections of the community to stifle debate. Charges have been made-some by Returned Services League types and others-that even to suggest that there be discussion of such a topic is tantamount to treason. I make clear that I do not suggest for one moment that the honourable member for Wide Bay was hinting at anything remotely along those lines. He raised the subject courteously, as he always does, and I understand his objection. I return briefly to the way in which the debate occurred in the period from 1972 to 1975 over the proposed anthem. The then Prime Minister, Mr Whitlam, said that when the Labor Party came to office we would have our own national anthem. Again, it was suggested by our opponents and some people in the community that anyone who opposed God Save The Queen as the national anthem was anti-British, traitorous, treasonable and so on. Accusations of that sort were made and, of course, were nonsense. The polls clearly indicated that Australians wanted an anthem of their own. At the time there was no objection to God Save The Queen, except that it happened to be the anthem of another country; it was not an Australian anthem. A poll conducted at the time by the Australian Bureau of Statistics-a poll of 60,000 people, the largest ever conducted in this country-showed that some 51 per cent of the people wanted Advance Australia Fair and different proportions wanted Song of Australia and Waltzing Matilda. God Save The Queen was low down on the list. People went to Liberal Party meetings and sang God Save The Queen with great gusto to prove their patriotism. Labor Party members sang Advance Australia Fair with equal gusto. The irony was that Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser both wanted Waltzing Matilda. It seems to me that if as an adult nation we are to discuss these matters, they should be dealt with in a rational, sensible way. This Government does not have a policy about a new flag. I wish people would stop saying that it is our intention to change the flag. What we are saying is that we do not wish to stifle debate about the flag. It is appropriate at this time, coming up to 1988, that Australians as members of an adult nation should ask themselves whether they want a new flag. I have no objection to the present flag, which I think is attractive. If there is something that worries me about the present flag it is that it looks too much like the New Zealand flag. Maybe we could stick to our flag and get New Zealand to change its. I do not know whether that is the answer, but it does cause a certain amount of confusion. One of the arguments put for a new flag is that very few people in the world recognise the Australian flag. With all due respect, if I ran up 50 flags here I bet that 90 per cent of members could not name more than one dozen. They would recognise the United States flag, the Union Jack, the Swedish flag- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. If no other Minister rises, he may continue. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial)(11.05) —I am winding up now, Mr Speaker. Most people would recognise those flags, the Israeli flag, the Canadian flag and a few others. So that is not an argument. All I say to the Opposition, all parties and the community is that it is appropriate that we have a sensible debate about a new flag. There is a very strong chance that the majority of Australians would vote for the existing flag. Let us not hurl around accusations of being traitorous, treasonable or whatever, or get into the sort of argument we got into in 1972 and 1975 over the anthem. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The debate having concluded, the House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11.06 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Extradition (Foreign States) Act 1966. Mr Hayden to present a Bill for an Act relating to the making by Australia of a special contribution to the International Development Association. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to establish an Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to make certain amendments and enact certain transitional provisions in consequence of the enactment of the Australian Meat and Live-stock Research and Development Corporation Act 1985, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to grant financial assistance in connection with projects relating to soil conservation and to establish a National Soil Conservation Program Fund, and for related purposes. Mr Barry Jones to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bounty (Injection-moulding Equipment) Act 1979, and for related purposes. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of a submarine escape training facility, HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia. Mr Ronald Edwards to move- That this House- (1) expresses its concern that pensioners are currently experiencing serious personal and economic difficulties given the existing level of pensions; (2) acknowledges that 2722 pensioners in the Electoral Division of Stirling have petitioned the Parliament for an increase in the level of pensions, and (3) urges the Government to give urgent consideration to increasing the standard rate of pensions to 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 19 March 1985: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic reports-Australian Heritage Commission, report for year 1983-84. Canberra Theatre Trust, report for year 1983-84. Airports (Business Concessions) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 22. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 15. Conciliation and Arbitration Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 19. Defence Act-Determinations-1985- No. 8-Special Overseas Living Allowance and other allowances. No. 9-Resident Medical Officers-Additional Salary, Travelling Allowance and Insurance on Removal Overseas. No. 10-Overseas Outfit Allowance and other allowances. Federal Court of Australia Act-Rules of Court-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 16. Income Tax Assessment Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 21. International Organisations (Privileges and Immunities) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 20. Live-stock Export Charge Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 24. Live-stock Slaughter Levy Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 25. Public Service Act- Appointments-Department- Aboriginal Affairs-Elliott, D. C. Veterans' Affairs-Gould, D. A. Determination-1985-No. 12. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1985/1-Official Secretary to the Governor-General and holders of public offices on other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act- Ordinances-1985- No. 4-Co-operative Societies (Amendment). No. 5-Credit. No. 6-Agents (Amendment). No. 7-Film Classification (Amendment). No. 8-Public Trustee. No. 9-Public Trustee (Miscellaneous Amendments). No. 10-Supervision of Offenders(Community Service Orders). No. 11-Crimes (Amendment). Regulations-1985- No. 4-(Pharmacy Ordinance). No. 5-(Credit Ordinance). No. 6-(Agents Ordinance). Telecommunications Act- Australian Telecommunications Com- mission-By-laws-1985- Telecommunications (Charging Zones and Charging Districts)-Amendment No. 53. Telecommunications (Digital Data Charg- ing)-Amendment No. 3. Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 23. States Grants (Tertiary Education Assistance) Act 1984-Guidelines determined for the purposes of sub-sections 9 (3) and 9 (4). Trade Commissioners Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 17. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 14) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) How many people sought to enter Australia without visas or appropriate documentation through the ports of (a) Brisbane (b) Townsville and (c) Cairns in (i) 1982, (ii) 1983 and (iii) 1984 and from which countries did they come. (2) How many of these people (a) were granted entry rights or (b) sought and were granted refugee status on arrival. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1)- 1982 1983 1984 Brisbane 180 203 142 Townsville 15 7 8 Cairns 19 35 38 Statistics about the countries from which these people embarked are not kept. (2) (a)- 1982 1983 1984 Brisbane 176 201 141 Townsville 15 7 7 Cairns 19 33 38 (b) Nil. (Question No. 76) Mr Duncan asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to United States and other overseas Press reports in November of 1984 suggesting that the United States of America was exporting implements of torture to various overseas governments, including North Atlantic Treaty Organisation members, Japan, New Zealand and Australia, and were apparently for use by police departments. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to a report in the Asahi Evening News citing a Newsweek byline that the exported items were specifically referred to as 'specially designed implements of torture' and stating that a United States Commerce Department spokesperson had said the items included thumbscrews and cattle prods, as routine items for the police. (3) Can he ascertain (a) who imported the items, (b) for what use they were intended and (c) if they contravened any import regulations on offensive weapons or prohibited imports. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) (a), (b) and (c) The Australian Federal Police have no knowledge whatsoever of any alleged order for, or shipment of, such goods. The media reports derived from a misunderstanding of relevant United States controls. I am informed that US authorities had realised that certain items such as cattle prods, which could be used against people, were not subject to export controls. They have thus been placed on the list of controlled items to restrict-not to authorise-their export. Australia is exempt from US licensing requirements for legitimate crime control equipment because the US authorities recognise that this country does not engage in an organised pattern of human rights violations. Australia also has its own system of controls-the Second Schedule of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations. Under these regulations the import of 'electric stock batons' has been prohibited since January 1980. (Question No. 78) Mr Duncan asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) What is his Department's policy in relation to the supply of wigs and hairpieces to veterans. (2) Are wigs and hairpieces supplied to veterans on the basis of cost of quality. (3) Has his Department given consideration to obtaining quotations from manufacturers of wigs and hairpieces in the various capital cities to try and contain the cost of and supply of these items. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Wigs and hairpieces are supplied to eligible Veterans' Affairs beneficiaries at the request of a local medical officer or a medical specialist. (2) Wigs and hairpieces are supplied in consultation with the beneficiary based on the reasonableness of cost and the quality of the product. (3) There is no contracted supplier in any State. The Department asks beneficiaries to obtain quotes because of individual preferences. Relatively few wigs and hairpieces are issued to Departmental beneficiaries each year; the involvement of beneficiaries in obtaining quotes and in the selection process results in client satisfaction. (Question No. 84) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: Has he issued any directives to (a) the Chief of the Defence Staff, (b) the Chief of the General Staff, (c) the Chief of Air Staff, (d) the Chief of Naval Staff, (e) the Secretary, Department of Defence, (f) the Chief Defence Scientist, (g) any officer of his Department at or above Deputy Secretary level, or (h) any officer of the Defence Force at or above Major-General or equivalent level; if so, will he table the text of each of these Directives. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I have not issued any directives to the officers mentioned. The directives issued to or in respect of certain of those officers by previous Ministers remain in force. The honourable member was advised in response to an earlier question that the directives were under review (see Hansard, 28 February 1984, page 107). That review is nearing completion, and I expect that I will shortly be in a position to issue revised directives. (Question No. 106) Mr Ruddock asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: What is the backlog of applications, at 15 February 1985, under the family reunion program as a result of industrial action in each regional and area office of his Department. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Only sub-category 'C' cases (that is, sponsorships for non-dependent children and brothers/sisters) have been affected by recent industrial action. The table below gives the size of the backlog directly attributable to industrial action at each Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs office throughout Australia at 15 February 1985. Office No. of cases Sydney 30 Parramatta 198 Wollongong nil Newcastle nil Melbourne 812 Geelong nil Brisbane nil Townsville nil Cairns nil Rockhampton nil Thursday Island nil Adelaide nil Perth nil Hobart nil Launceston nil Darwin nil A.C.T. nil Albury-Wodonga nil (Question No. 110) Dr Klugman asked the Special Minister of State, upon notice, on 26 February 1985: (1) What was the amount paid by the Commonwealth and Victorian State Governments to- (a) Mr Costigan QC; and (b) Mr Meagher QC for their work on the Royal Commission into the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. (2) What amount was for- (a) direct remuneration; and (b) allowances. Mr Young —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $2,546,835.48 (This amount was paid entirely by the Commonwealth Government.) (2) (a) Mr. F. X. Costigan QC direct remuneration-$1,451,250.00 allowances-$17,633.38 (b) Mr D. R. Meagher QC direct remuneration-$1,087,350.00 allowances-$8,602.10