Friday, 22 March 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Debate resumed from 21 March, 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. upon which Mr Sinclair had moved by way of amendment: That the following words be added to the Address: '', but the House is of the opinion that the Government's program outlined in the Speech fails to address critical problems facing Australia in that: (1) it fails to reassure the Australian people that the country's defence arrangements within the Western Alliance will be preserved and strengthened following- (a) the Prime Minister's capitulation to internal party pressures on the issue of Australia providing logistical assistance to the U.S. for its testing of the MX missile, and (b) increasing uncertainty as to the future of the ANZUS Treaty fuelled by members of the Labor Government, including a Cabinet Minister; (2) it contains no coherent economic strategy at a time when recovery is threatened by- (a) record government taxation and spending; (b) continuing pressure within the Government for new taxes on assets; (c) growing demands for higher wages and other extra cost burdens on industry; (d) the level of public debt repayments; and (e) loss of value of the currency reflecting world concern about Australia's competitiveness and government instability, and (3) it endorses a rigid, centralised wage determining structure which imposes the same cost burdens on commerce and industry regardless of ability to pay''. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(10.02) —I want to say a few words about the general question of tax, which is a very popular subject in the community today. I begin by saying that it is the dream of all taxpayers to pay less money to governments. Income tax is particularly visible as the first and most personal charge which diminishes the spending power of incomes. One statistic highlights the pain of it all: Income tax levied on individuals last financial year yielded 56 per cent of Federal taxation revenue. Government reliance on this form of tax to provide the services of government across our community is therefore self-evident. Until 1983 when deficits ballooned under the pressure of public spending, governments, especially State governments, generally had framed their Budgets on the basis that there was an unending volume of tax money in the community. It seemed the only trick was to get the taxpayer to part with it. Remember 1974 when Whitlam in his Budget increased outlays in one year by 43 per cent. Remember painfully the drought ridden last year of the Fraser Liberal Government when the deficit was $4.5 billion. Now the deficit shock absorber has bottomed and can no longer cushion governments from the shocks of taxpayer resistance. The decade of the extravagant 1970s with unlimited money to bestow patronage on likely looking sectional interests is long gone. We are experiencing the realities of the 1980s when, even at the peak of our nation's best economic performance in years, Federal governments cannot pay their way. The extent of the growth of our domestic and overseas debt is revealed by the following figures: In 1982, the Commonwealth debt stood at $17.9 billion. In 1983, it stood at $22.8 billion, and at June 1984, it was $30 billion, an increase of 32 per cent in the first year of the Hawke Government. Now in March, it is probably about $35 billion, double the debt of 1982. Our high spending priorities have now set the irresistible force of electors as consumers of government services against the immovable force of taxpayer refusal to honour the income tax system. This is illustrated by the fact that top income earners currently provide 6 per cent of the total individual tax revenue compared with 40 per cent in 1954-55. Tax avoidance and minimisation have become so prevalent that the whole bias of taxation has been shifted. Whilst the tax scales have become increasingly more progressive, the tax burden has become more regressive. From 1956-57 to 1981-82, the amount of tax revenue collected from taxpayers with earnings above twice the average earnings has dropped from 53 per cent to 16.5 per cent of personal income tax revenue. This has occurred at a time when lower and middle income earners are being hit by the tax creep. In the last Hawke Budget the proportion of taxpayers facing a marginal tax rate of 47c in the dollar increased from 28 per cent to 34 per cent. At the same time the proportion of taxpayers in the 25 per cent tax bracket fell from 36.4 per cent to 32.6 per cent. Income tax is now generally regarded as a penalty and not a tax, striking hard at relatively modest levels which are still in the necessity zone of income disposal rather than in the lolly shop area of luxury purchases. One of the results is the massive growth of tax avoidance and evasion as taxation squeezes harder and harder. As the burden of tax has grown, those with the financial flexibility and those with the occupational capacity to avoid the burden have done so. As a result of inflation high marginal rates of tax are biting in at lower and lower levels of real earnings. For example, in 1956-57 taxpayers did not face a marginal rate of 60 per cent until their income was eight times average earnings. Today they encounter a marginal tax rate of 60 per cent at less than twice average earnings. There is no way the engine of productivity and growth will sustain Australia unless the individuals who make it work can keep additional reward for additional work. The body politic now has to look at change. Speaking of the body politic, it is rather sobering to reflect that both Liberal and Labor are agreed, it seems, on a broad-based consumer tax. I am sure that it is good to have some sort of consensus, but when both major parties agree, perhaps we had better take a sharper look at what is proposed. There is no escaping the need to maintain a fabric of government services in the future. It will be basically a fabric of government services similar to those that now apply. We have not developed the well-known areas of government over the last year or two. They have grown in an evolution over decades and expanded as our living standards rose and as community life changed from the individual structure of the village to the harsh imperatives of the city. We will therefore have to continue large scale public financing of our federal structure and services to individuals and organisations, even though a number of government activities and interrelationships will be challenged during the discussions on tax which are imminent. Governments will have to continue to adjudicate between competing claims for public money, while at the same time taking measures, sometimes radical by Public Service standards, to inject efficiency into the system. The search and demand for accountability in public performance will have to be single-minded and determined. The difficulty of doing this is illustrated by the work of the razor gang with its well publicised intention to cut $500m expenditure, which turned into something of a damp squib. It is well known that subsequent to that the Fraser Government which set it up went out of office in 1983 with a $4.5 billion deficit, the highest in history until then. Australia is not the only country running a record national deficit. If the United States of America winds down to recession, Mr Reagan's huge Budget indebtedness could well create a trough in world trade which could wound Australia severely because of our own deficit. However, the immediate impact of the deficit lies in relation to the tax equation. It stands as a reproach to government standards and has to be reduced and eliminated. That impact, put simply, means that we cannot look to reduce significantly the aggregate of overall tax collections because we have to get through a period in which Australia is spending dramatically more than it is collecting. Obviously it would be a brave party or individual that went to the tax summit with proposals for reducing government functions by more than, say, $8 billion in real terms. It might be a hope out in the community that the tax summit is about reducing overall taxation; what it is really about is substituting some taxes for others. The question therefore now is: Will we lower income tax and get the money we have forgone by a tax on goods and services? It is recognised that this would hit lower income earners harder because they spend a much greater proportion of their income on necessities and have less discretion about income disposal. It is assumed that they will be compensated in some way by exemptions of categories of goods or through an increase in social service payments. That assumption raises immediate problems. Exemptions erode a tax's effectiveness, and not all low income earners are in receipt of social welfare payments. Therefore, to accomplish the objective of compensating lower income earners, it may be necessary to implement new forms of government cash payments to those now outside the welfare system. Recent statistics which have been published show that a great number of Australians on lower incomes are not in receipt of welfare payments. Giving cash payments would be an unfortunate price to pay for tax reform and would result in a new dependency on government. The question then arises as to how much of an extra load this proposal would put back on the taxpayers and whether the lower income earner would be compensated to the degree that progressivity of the tax system would be the same as before. If it would be the same as it was before, why make the change? I suppose the answer is that even if the wealth point were fully restored, individuals would not think and, in fact, would not know that they were paying the same amount of tax. Then even though taxpayers may be paying the same overall tax as before they would not resent the fact if collections were more indirect. The negative aspect of that proposal would be that governments could increase taxation on goods without the public being fully aware of the extent of the increase at the consumer level. On the other hand, by hiding the impact of taxation there would be many more entrepreneurial incentives to charge up the economy. The possibilities nevertheless do not provide an uplifting threshold for the tax summit. I turn now to the interests and, for some, the survivability of an important sector of the business community which would be affected if we were to swap a reduction of income tax for a 10 per cent turnover tax. What about those involved in the export industries? They are not internal traders competing against each other on similar terms of costs and wages. They live or die under a cost structure erected in Australia and they must be satisfied with incomes set by international valuations made outside Australia. In the short term, they have been helped by the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. When the United States dollar falls, as inevitably it will, that advantage will be lost. If they have to pay increased costs because of a new indirect tax, the statistics show that a large number will go broke. I ask honourable members to remember that many of the inputs into farming may well not be exempted from a wide consumer tax. When we consider that sector alone, we begin to understand some of the ramifications which would flow from making goods and services significantly dearer in the Australian economy. One sector which is dominated by the union movement would scream to heaven for immediate compensation and would probably get it. The export sector, upon which so much of our living standard depends, would be without redress and in real trouble. Let me recapitulate. I want a reduction in government expenditure, a reduction in taxation and, particularly, a reduction in income tax. However, I understand the discipline imposed on those desires by the deficit financing of this Government. I am therefore concerned and, indeed, alarmed that the rush to achieve the political priorities dictated by rampant income tax must not produce further dependence on government by individuals, impoverishment of our export industries and an expanded tax base which could be used by future governments to tax by stealth. No political party will say that it wants to reduce tax on the rich and squeeze the poor. Consequently, politicians are likely to say that by reducing income tax and increasing the cost of goods by imposing a consumer tax, they will compensate the poor. This carries a commitment that lower income earners will be no worse off. Therefore, if the amount of tax to be collected is the same no one will be better off. The only way out of this impasse is to lower government expenditure. The Budget deficit is running at $8 billion. We are spending $8 billion more than we now collect. Therefore, to live up to expectations, we require a Mandrake of finance. We require someone to propose a reduction of government function by considerably more than $8 billion per year and still remain politically viable. I suggest to do that we will need something more suitable to the Australian financial scene than a hypnotist. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(10.15) —Mr Speaker, I begin by offering you my congratulations on your re-election to your high position. I express the hope, indeed the confidence, that throughout this Thirty-fourth Parliament you will enjoy the respect and affection of all members, that respect and affection that you so richly earned in the Thirty-third Parliament. I also congratulate all of those new members who made their maiden speeches during this debate on the Address-in-Reply, particularly my neighbours, the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price) and the honourable member for Fowler (Grace). I enjoyed their contributions. They are both people who bring to this House a wealth of experience in the local government area and I know their contributions will be valuable and their stay in this House will be very long ones. I also congratulate the new member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon), who is almost as good as the old member. I enjoyed the honourable member's remarks and on behalf of those of my constituents who still endure the tyranny of the pump-out system I commend his interest in the sewerage problems of the nation. I know that the honourable member will pursue that concern through the proper channels during his time here. I congratulate my successor to the seat of Macquarie. I enjoyed the remarks of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster). Politically, I must say that I hope his stay here is not an extended one, but on a personal level I wish the honourable member a rewarding and satisfying period as the member for that electorate. Following the 1984 redistribution and the elections for the enlarged Parliament, I was one of those members who enjoyed a rebirth of sorts on 1 December. I was one of, I think, 17 members who served in the Thirty-third Parliament who returned representing a new electorate in this, the Thirty-fourth Parliament. In my case two-thirds of my former electorate was kept intact by the redistribution and named Lindsay in honour of the great Australian artist and writer, Norman Lindsay. Norman was one of a family of 10, all of whom were talented people, five of whom became well-known artists and two of whom, Lionel and Daryl, were knighted for their services to art. Norman, over his 90 years, was prolific in his artistic endeavours. Anyone contemplating the quality, variety and quantity of his creative output-his woodcuts, etchings, drawings, water colours, vibrant oil paintings, books, articles, statues and model ships-could not help sharing Godfrey Blunden's assessment of Lindsay as a 'rare, wonderfully reassuring and luminous event-a genius: Perhaps the only authentic genius Australia has ever had'. I pay tribute to the National Trust of Australia for the part it has played in preserving Norman Lindsay's former home as a memorial to his life and to his work. Along with Penrith's Q Theatre and the Lewers and Regional Art Gallery, the Lindsay Gallery is one of the cultural delights of western Sydney. I now turn to some political delights, the delights of the 1984 election campaign and its aftermath. That election was a good result for my Party, the Australian Labor Party, and therefore a good result for the country. It was an election conducted under a reformed Commonwealth Electoral Act which provided for an improved and simpler system for the Senate, a draw for positions on the House of Representatives ballot papers, the inclusion of party names on ballot papers, the provision of public funding, the disclosure of donations to political parties and much better support to the staff of the Australian Electoral Commission. I applaud these reforms. By and large they worked very well. I place on record my appreciation of the work of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that carried out its work so well under the leadership of the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman). In one sense the Commission did its work too well. There is no doubt in my mind that, in one sense, the very fine advertising in the campaign that the Commission carried out to advise people of the new simplified system for the Senate, whereby the voter only had to mark a single square to vote for a party ticket instead of numbering every square to record a formal vote, was too effective. I believe it carried over into the voting system for the House of Representatives which, of course, had not changed but, nevertheless, a significant number of people had the impression that all they had to do to record a formal vote in the House of Representatives was to mark a single square. Far too many intended Labor votes were lost. In my electorate of Lindsay the informal vote leapt from 2.1 per cent, based on the previous figures, to 7.2. per cent. That is 4,380 votes, most of which, according to the reports from my scrutineers, were intended Labor votes with a figure 1, a tick or a cross next to my name. I have every reason to believe that result is typical, but we will not know until the Commission completes its survey and report. If it is, the delight of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) in his Clayton's victory, claiming a victory from second place on 1 December, will lose some of its gloss. He is not the first Liberal Party of Australia leader to claim victory from second spot. I recall that Billy 'Hot Coals' Snedden did the same thing back in 1974. They never lose, they just run second. I think they would have got the message on the opening day of Parliament when the Governor-General read out our Speech and not theirs. If the Leader of the Opposition enjoys his position, it is a position that we are certainly glad to concede to him as long as he lasts. At best, it confirmed his position on the bridge of the Titanic. At worst, it provided him with a temporary stay of execution. It is no secret that the Leader of the Opposition faces considerable unrest and opposition from within his own ranks, from those former members of his front bench who were sent off to stand in the corner. Mr Robert Brown —Seething with anger. Mr FREE —Yes, seething with anger. I refer, of course, to the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I do not think we have seen the last of the Big Spender from North Sydney. I applaud the Government's program as outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. In particular, I express support for the Government's proposals for initiatives for the young people of this country, for the proposals that are being examined for a new and improved and integrated system of youth support. I believe that the critics are right when they say that the present system can in some cases act as a disincentive to the completion of secondary education and to people going on to further education. I also applaud the Government's initiative in embarking on consultations towards the formation of a permanent Australian youth service following on the recommendation contained in the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs report. These consultations are now taking place and are aimed at providing a permanent service and developing the community youth support scheme into a wider co-ordinating body to act in the interests of young people in this country. I also want to place on record my support for the objectives of the tax summit. There is no doubt that this country needs a simple, efficient and equitable tax system. We have not got it at the moment. We need a system that people can understand and a system that they perceive as being fair. I applaud the Government's initiative on that front. I am a supporter of the assets test, which came into operation yesterday. I am a supporter of the principle of assets testing. I was a supporter of the test in its original form, but I recognised that there was a need to communicate the essential features and the essential fairness of the assets test to pensioners. That was a formidable task, a task made more difficult by the fact that we were faced at that time with an opposition prepared to say anything at any time to frighten people. They did that during the election campaign and, of course, they did it again yesterday. I thought it would have died down following the election, and it did for a while, but unfortunately the Press did not help. The Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) referred to some disgraceful headlines in yesterday's evening newspapers. I do not think that people expect very much from the evening newspapers, but I certainly expect a little more from the Sun-Herald. I refer to its headline of 10 March-'Threat to pensioners over assets test form-10,000 face suspension'. The article under that heading stated: More than 10,000 pensioners could have their pensions suspended within two weeks for failing to return assets test forms. The controversial test comes into operation on March 21-next Thursday week. Social Security Department officials warned yesterday that all pensioners who had failed to return forms by then could have their pensions suspended. Efforts are being made to contact pensioners by telephone to make them aware of the danger. The journalist who wrote that article failed to distinguish between two forms. One form was sent to 85 per cent of the pensioners last year with the instruction that the form should not be returned if the assets were less than the threshold figure. A second form went to 15 per cent of the pensioners and that form did need to be returned. The problem was that in this article the journalist failed to recognise that there were, in fact, two different forms with two different instructions. As a result, my phone started ringing early on the Sunday morning. People were concerned. My electorate office was kept busy during the week reassuring understandably anxious people. I understand that the assets test hotline in the Sydney office of the Department of Social Security was jammed during the week because people began to panic after reading that article. Needless worry was caused by sloppy reporting. I must say that I found that out of character for that journalist. I enjoy Neil O'Reilly's articles. They are one of the first things I turn to in that Sunday morning newspaper. But this time his performance was less than adequate. I must say, in fairness to the Sun-Herald, that it corrected that impression a week later, on 17 March. The confusion was explained and resolved by Philippa Smith in an article in which she said: The great bulk of pensioners will find that the fear, or bark, of the assets test is much worse than its bite. However, in the last week a great deal of unnecessary fear and confusion has occurred over reports that thousands of pensioners face suspension. Pensioner organisation and departmental phones have been running hot. One particular issue of confusion is whether all pensioners should have returned information about their assets to the Department of Social Security. The short answer is no. The only difficulty I have with that is that the offending article on 10 March appeared at page 1 of the newspaper and Philippa Smith's article which set the record straight appeared at page 126. The essential features of the assets test and its fairness have been well discussed. They were well discussed yesterday. I trust the scheme will operate fairly and smoothly and that those anomalies that have been mentioned will be resolved using the methods that the Minister outlined yesterday. I support the other aspects of the Government's program as outlined in the Governor-General's Speech. It is a comprehensive program to continue the reforms taken by the first Hawke Government, to address the very serious inequalities in our society, and to continue the great economic gains that the Government made in its first term of office. The Governor-General said in his concluding remarks: The program I have outlined is a program for consolidation of the great gains which have been achieved in the past two years. The Government and people of this nation have, by acting in concert, brought a new approach to solving the problems facing Australia. It is the Government's desire that the momentum which has been thus built is not lost. That is a desire which I share. Mr COWAN(Lyne)(10.30) —First of all, I combine with other members of the chamber in congratulating the new members of the House who have made a contribution to this place. I wish them the very best over the years in which they will serve this Parliament. Our job of representing the people of our electorates is a very responsible one. I am sure that all honourable members on both the Government and the Opposition sides at all times try to contribute by way of stating their own opinion and their party's opinion and policy on various matters and by serving the individual constituents they represent. It is always interesting to sit back and hear the speeches made by new members of the House. They talk about their own constituencies for which I give them credit. It has been rather interesting to hear the philosophies that quite a lot, not all, of the newer members from the Government side of the House are advocating. When we take our places in this chamber of the Parliament of Australia we have to appreciate that we are here to further the development of this land and to make Australia a better country for those who reside in it. We have to ensure that Australia is better recognised throughout the world for what it does. Important as the many issues that are raised here, such as land rights, nuclear arms and social issues, may be, we must lift our sights a little higher than those issues and think of the matters that will be of benefit to Australia generally. I hope that as time progresses all the newer members of the House will develop that theme and be prepared to take responsibility for the issues that really concern Australia. I believe the Government has now travelled through what we in the political field term the honeymoon period following its election to office. It was indicated by the vote of the people of Australia at the last Federal election that the Government's popularity had declined, that it had not lived up to the expectations of consensus and the improvement in the economy that the people of this country felt would be forthcoming from another government. The figures-I do not intend to relate them today; they have been related in this chamber-indicate that that is the case. I give credit to the Government for its policy on banking. I believe it is time there was more competition in the financial field in Australia. I give the Government credit also for the fact that it floated the dollar. That was quite an achievement for the Treasurer (Mr Keating). We will now be able to see from the markets of the world and the financial institutions of the world just how the Australian economy compares with that of other countries. Already we are seeing the results. It disturbs me, as it must disturb every Australian, to know that in the past 30 years Australia has gone from being the third richest country in the world to about the twenty-first richest. It disturbs me to know that Australia is being equated with countries such as Mexico and the Argentine which have a very great national debt. Nobody can dispute the fact that Australia's national debt is rising. It is rising year by year. Perhaps all governments over the years have been responsible for that. It is time we recognised that. The solution to this nation's problem is to go back to work. Whether we like it or not, this nation must return to work. Regardless of what industry, the unions or the farmers out in the field tell us, the fact is that unless Australia's productivity improves our economy will not improve. Wages are rising. Irrespective of the summit and the alliance between the unions, industry and the Government, our wages have risen to 8 per cent, compared with a 5 per cent increase in the CPI over the last financial period. Governments now spend over 10 per cent more than they spent 10 years ago. Today 42 per cent of taxation collections are expended on government. Back in 1975 the figure was 32 per cent. We should sit down and think about the future of this country of ours. We are about to celebrate the bicentenary of Australia and we should think about how we have developed this country over two hundred years from rural, social, industry and productivity points of view. We should think of the opportunity we had to continue to increase production and the standard of living of our people. We should think about why we have declined in the eyes of the world from the third to the twenty-first richest country. We should think of the opportunity we had to be the food bowl of the world and to produce manufactured goods that the world wants from us. I believe that we are falling down on our job and our responsibility. As I said earlier, we have to get back to work, and do so quickly. The Government and the unions must have a different attitude. Average Australians are disturbed to know that the Government in charge of this country at the moment is basically a government of three political groups-the Right, the Centre Left and the Left. This is disturbing to people who look for agreement between members of a government and consensus within a parliamentary team. This is needed if we are to produce the goods about which I am talking. How can this be achieved when we have the present alliance between the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions? I have nothing against unions, which I think work for their members. However, unions are going beyond what they should be doing. They are asking for awards and conditions that are not related to the country's ability to pay and our way of life. The sooner that Australia realises that and we as governments and oppositions are prepared to adopt policies that will overcome the problems that are facing us, the sooner we will be able to get back our previous standards. We talk about unemployment, care for the young and care for the aged. Do we ever stop to think that we cannot give support to the aged, child care or schemes to get young unemployed people back to work if this nation does not produce and if people cannot afford to pay taxes? Much can be said about the taxation system generally within Australia. I am very concerned about what will happen at the forthcoming tax summit. I respect everything the previous speaker, the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free), had to say about taxation. However, I do not know what is going to be done at the summit. I assume that the summit will consider how the taxation system can be improved. It will also consider ways of getting extra tax into the coffers of the Government. Nothing will be achieved at the summit other than perhaps to change the taxation system so that more taxation revenue can be collected. The summit should be looking at ways of reducing expenditure. This Government, State governments and local government, irrespective of the public demand upon them, must be looking at ways in which governments can reduce expenditure. It must look at ways to reduce the 42 per cent of taxation collections that is being spent today on government. Surely this can be done if we can get people back to work again, if people are willing to go out and work in industry and on the roads. If we do this we may be able to reduce this expenditure. Rises in public expenditure may be able to be taken up by extra productivity in all of the fields which I have mentioned. Naturally I am strongly against the introduction of a capital tax. People will be put out of work if the Government imposes a capital gains tax on the people of Australia and that is the last thing that the Government would want to do. The family home could be exempt from such a tax, but what about the person who invests in residential property in his little country town or in a suburb and sells that property? What about the person who sells commercial or industrial premises in which people will be employed? If a capital gains tax is introduced people or companies will not invest money which could be used for the benefit of Australia. Mr Braithwaite —There is no incentive. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Dawson said, there is no incentive. We need to think about the realities of imposing such a tax. The realities are there and they will show up. It is all right in theory to say: 'We are going to reduce personal taxation. We will have a value added tax. We will impose a wealth or capital gains tax'. However, in practice we are talking about additional taxes. A capital gains tax would be an additional tax which would have a great effect on productivity. Like many other members of this place, I hear many things from people as I travel around my electorate. These people are concerned about standards. When one hears the news on radio, reads the newspapers or looks at television one is made aware of the problems relating to crime, murder, drugs and everything else. This is a bad sign in a country. I wonder whether we know the answer to this problem. I know that one of the answers is more supervision by our police forces. But is it not a fact that penalties in this country are too low? Are the penalties not too low for people who are convicted of walking the streets of our cities selling drugs of all kinds which ruin the lives of young people? Many countries have tackled their crime problem and so must we. Why pull our young people down? We are the ones-everybody in this chamber-who must accept the responsibility of making laws that contain penalties which are sufficient to control crime against society. I hope that we will tackle this problem. I am afraid that standards in this country will continue to slip. All of us are sad for young people who are leaving school and trying to find work within the community. Their attitude to life must be different from ours because we have work. I would not like to be a young person today leaving school and finding that there is no opportunity to go into industry or into the field of employment that they want to enter. The only way to get these people into employment is to give private enterprise a go. We need to give the small businessmen in our towns and the farmer out in the field encouragement to produce. These people need to be assured of a reasonable return so that they will have the confidence to employ people. This country is losing confidence. We need confidence if individuals are to employ people and use their own initiative to start businesses. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) claimed credit for so many hundreds of thousands of new businesses in this country. I give him credit for that; I wish it were more. We should unite to give greater encouragement to industry and commerce throughout Australia to do these things. I was encouraged the other day by a young chap who came into my electorate office and told me of an enterprise he is starting with another young man. These are the types of chaps we have to help and encourage. I have mentioned the liaison between the Government and the unions. I wonder when the Government is going to be prepared to bite the bullet and really do something rather than, as the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) did yesterday in answer to a question, criticise the Queensland Government for what it has done. It is time that all of us stood up to be counted, as the Premier of Queenland has done, and said: 'We are going to bite the bullet and tackle unions'. Is it not time that every government and every individual in this country was prepared to do that? If I am not prepared to work I do not deserve to keep my job. This is the important principle involved in this matter. I believe that the power workers in Queensland are highly paid. They are contributing to a superannuation scheme but they will gain superannuation after they complete their work. One can look at the people who were affected by the power dispute. I look across the chamber at an honourable member who actually represents a coal mining area. He knows the effect a strike by the railways had in New South Wales recently. Our people were unemployed. They came to our electoral offices and said: 'Can you ring up the child and social welfare offices to try to get us some support? We do not have any money'. We can look at those power workers in Queensland who were affected. We should take our hat off to a government that is prepared to introduce legislation that makes it most difficult indeed for people to go on strike and to hamper the welfare of so many others. I will give full support-- Mr McVeigh —Three cheers for the Premier of Queensland. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Groom just said, we should give three cheers to the Premier of Queensland because at least he has the guts to introduce legislation which is a challenge to the present Commonwealth Government. I do not believe that the Commonwealth Government will actually be keen or desire to interfere with the affairs of Queensland. The unions come to the Government today and say that they should all be Commonwealth and not State unions. I do not think the Commonwealth will want them. But I hope that the Government has learnt a lesson and that it will attack the problem it has today with the unions. So much can be done. There are good sensible people within the unions. In many respects they are leading the unions and they do not want to see their members stood over or go on strike. They want to create more employment throughout Australia. But their aims are being hampered by others who want to do different things. I represent an electorate which contains varied enterprises. It has retired people, tourism, manufacturing industry, fishing, oyster farming and, particularly, primary industry. This country, as has been emphasised many times before in this House, is very dependent upon the prosperity of the person on the land. We are told by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics that the return to the farmer this year will be 30 per cent less than it was in the previous year. This is of grave concern to us. My mind goes back to the election when the Australian Labor Party Government took over. I can recall the present Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) saying that we should leave primary industry alone to stand on its own feet. We would all agree with that if we could leave it alone. But, irrespective of what the National Farmers Federation or any other organisation says, there comes a time over the years when, due to the elements and the weather, causing drought, flood and fire and due to the domestic and international markets-- Mr Braithwaite —The European Economic Community. Mr COWAN —As the honourable member for Dawson says, the EEC and sugar prices are destabilising those involved in industry in Australia. There comes a time when industries must receive assistance from the Government. They must be backed up. In the same way as the Government has helped Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, which it was keen to help, so too must governments of all kinds, both Commonwealth and State, be prepared to recognise the challenge that primary industries have had and to say that in some form or other it is willing to talk to the industries and to prop them up. Our national herd, whether it be cattle or sheep, the quality of our grain, our fruit and so forth, must be maintained if we are to live in competition with other primary producing countries. The quality of our stock and fruit must be maintained at all times. I know that today in Canberra the Minister for Primary Industry will have an Agricultural Council meeting at which the future of the dairy industry in Australia will be discussed. When we talk about the dairy industry in Australia we talk about a State industry. We should keep that in mind. Any interference in the dairy industry by the Commonwealth Government today or at any time in the future will take from the rights of the States and place the industry in the hands of the Commonwealth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(10.50) —Madam Deputy Speaker, through you, I firstly extend my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election to the position of Speaker of the House of Representatives. I also take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker and to endorse the comments which have been made by other speakers during the Address-in-Reply debate and particularly by the women members of this House. They referred to the fact that your elevation to the position of Deputy Speaker was the first time, as you, we and the Australian community all know, that a woman has occupied that position. That represents an extremely important step in the equalisation of the opportunities which exist for men and women in our community. For that reason the women of Australia are extremely proud of you, as are we all. I also extend my congratulations to all of those honourable members who have made their maiden speeches as a result of their election at the end of last year. I include in those congratulations honourable members of the Opposition. I have some concerns about the basic sentiments which were involved in some of the contributions and perhaps about their philosophic basis. Members of the Opposition, like members of the Government, have a responsibility, while they occupy positions in this place, not only to express and present their opinions as they see them but also to push those opinions in this place. They have a responsibility to express their convictions, their aspirations and the aspirations of the Australian people as they see them. All of the new members have been doing precisely that. I particularly congratulate, as I have said, all the new members on the Government side who, as a result of the great perception and political judgment which the Australian electors displayed on 1 December last year, have made their maiden speeches. The election was held the day before my birthday. What a great birthday present I was given last year by the Australian people with the re-election of the Hawke Australian Labor Party Government. The new members on the Government side have indicated, perhaps better than any other factor, the reason why the Australian people re-endorsed this Government. By their maiden speeches so far they have shown the type of dedication, commitment and competence which they have brought into this place. They will represent their electorates with great competence. The new members have taken the opportunity of their maiden speeches to express what the Labor Party is all about. If members take the opportunity to examine those speeches-I hope those who have not heard all or most of them will-they will find, for example, references to a great number of the issues to which I have been referring. They will find numerous references to questions of equity, justice, the pursuit of full employment, the elimination of discrimination, the promotion of economic growth, intelligent and effective economic management, the preservation of peace, international co-operation, human rights, the elevation of personal and national dignity. They will find all of those higher aspirations of the Australian people and of the enlightened human spirit. I think we should examine the maiden speeches which have been made by members on the Government side-members of the Australian Labor Party, members of the Australian Labor Party movement and members of the Australian community. We could take from those maiden speeches and write a manifesto which would stand for all time as a blueprint of social organisation and as an inspiration to those people who would seek to pursue the most civilised of human aspirations and the most civilised of social organisations. Those maiden speeches made by members on the Government side reflect all of those things, and I congratulate all of the honourable members. They expressed their concerns, their perceptions and their aspirations admirably. They did so not only for themselves but also for this Government, for our Party and for the Australian people. I also make a very special reference, and extend very special congratulations and a welcome, to two of my very good and close friends and my electoral neighbours, Eric Fitzgibbon from Hunter and Michael Lee from Dobell. Both of them are new members to this place. Eric Fitzgibbon, the new member for Hunter, who inherited the name of the electorate which I formerly represented, is a former teacher of English and history within the New South Wales State school system and a former alderman and mayor of greater Cessnock. It was my privilege to be associated with him in local government for 12 years. He was my Deputy Mayor for four years. During all that time he was a remarkable community activist who gave much of his time, his talents and his many skills to a great range of community endeavours. He is also a committed Christian. He is now, and will become increasingly more so, an effective member of this place. Eric Fitzgibbon, as the member for Hunter, has inherited a very proud tradition. That electorate was first represented by the first Prime Minister of Australia, Edmund Barton. From 1903, after Edmund Barton left the Parliament-it met in Melbourne at the time-it was then represented by Frank Liddell, who was identified first as a free trader and then as an anti-socialist. But what happened in 1910? This anti-socialist, Frank Liddell, fortunately was defeated by a socialist member of the Australian Labor Party, the great Matthew Charlton, after whom my present electorate has been named. Since 1910 the electors of Hunter have repeatedly returned members of the Australian Labor Party. They have maintained that proud tradition on this occasion and will maintain it on future occasions. They will not abandon the ALP, they will continue to vote with that same great perception and that great political judgment which they have shown in the past. Matt Charlton represented the electorate from 1910 to 1928. He was then followed by Rowland James from 1928 to 1958, and then by Dr Herbert Vere Evatt, from 1958 until 1960, a great Australian, a great son of the Labor movement. He was followed in turn by Bert James from 1960 to 1980. I had the great privilege of representing the electorate of Hunter from 1980 to 1984. From Federation to the election of Eric Fitzgibbon the Hunter electorate had had seven members and they included one Prime Minister and two Leaders of the Opposition. I am sorry that I was not able to add to that record. I did not have the opportunity to do so, but I am looking forward to seeing the present honourable member for Hunter do exactly what I was not able to do. I also make mention of my very good friend, the new member for Dobell, Michael Lee. I take this opportunity of extending to him in advance greetings for his birthday on Sunday. This young man, at the age of 27, was called by the Labor Party and the electors of the central coast of New South Wales to serve the nation. Michael Lee will serve admirably the nation, his electorate, our Party and our movement, and this institution. Incidentally both of the honourable members I have just mentioned were very kind to me in their maiden speeches. I do appreciate that, and I am delighted to see they have extended to me the courtesy of coming into the chamber while I make my contribution to the Address-in-Reply debate. Michael Lee is a Bachelor of Engineering and a Bachelor of Science from the University of New South Wales, a first class honours graduate and a first class gentleman. Before he came to this place he was employed by the Electricity Commission of New South Wales as a maintenance engineer at Vales Point power station in my electorate. In the first election that he contested on 1 December last year his result in the new electorate of Dobell was better than the national average of the Labor Party. There is no doubt why that should be so. He has presented himself to those people on the central coast as an admirable representative. They have responded by giving him that outstanding support and they will continue to extend it to him. He is a man of great and obvious qualities. As I have indicated, Michael Lee represents the new electorate of Dobell. Dobell himself was a great Australian and a constituent of mine. I knew Bill Dobell and I know that if he were alive today he would be very proud to know that one of our new electorates was named after him, and he would be very pleased and proud to know that Michael Lee became the first member of that electorate. I congratulate both gentlemen and welcome them to this place. I know they will make a great, continuing and outstanding contribution. I left the last Parliament as the seventh member for Hunter and returned as the first member for Charlton. My electorate has not, as some people believe, been called after Eddie Charlton of Pot Black fame, but I would be proud to represent an electorate that was called after him. He is a great sportsman and a great gentleman and he was also born in my territory at Swansea. He started playing snooker and billiards at the age of nine at the billiard room in Swansea that was run by his grandfather. He has made a name for himself and represented Australia overseas as a great ambassador for snooker and for Australia. But my electorate was not called after Eddie Charlton. I have indicated the person after whom it was called, the late Matthew Charlton, who represented the Hunter electorate from 1910 to 1928 and who was Leader of the Federal parliamentary Labor Party from 1922 to 1928. Matt Charlton was born at Linton near Ballarat in 1866. Shortly after that his family moved to the Newcastle coalfields. His father was a miner. Undoubtedly at Ballarat he was involved in the mining of gold. He moved with his family to the Lambton-Waratah area in Newcastle in 1871 and, of course, the family took young Matt with them. When Matt Charlton left school as a young man he did what most of the sons of most of the coalminers did, he went into the coal mines as a trapper. All the young fellows, when they left school at about 15 years of age, went into the underground mines as trappers and went through the stages, as the young Matt Charlton did, until finally they reached the coal face as contract miners. He was an active unionist and after an abortive strike to resist wage reductions in 1896 he and many other coalminers went to the goldfields of Kalgoorlie, but he stayed there for only two years. It was the great qualities of the coalfields communities that lured him back to the Newcastle area. In 1903 he was elected to the New South Wales Legislative Assembly as the member for Waratah. He then transferred to the electorate of Northumberland, again within the New South Wales Parliament. After the strike of 1909-10, in which he played a leading and very effective role, he was elected the Federal member for Hunter. Matt Charlton was always a fairly moderate member of the Labor Party, but he played an important and constructive role in its development. He was not reluctant to adopt a more radical position on questions of principle. He was a great member of the Labor Party who has left a very long standing proud record within that Party. In the relatively short time available to me I want to make brief reference to one of the remarks made by the Governor-General in opening the Parliament on behalf of the Government. I refer particularly to this part of the Governor-General's Speech: The Community Employment Program was launched in August 1983 and by December 1984 nearly 57,000 jobs had been created under the program. During the current financial year up to 65,000 people will be assisted under the Community Employment Program. The possible extension of the program in the private sector will also be explored. I know that concerns have been expressed about the operation of the community employment program, just as concerns were expressed about the regional employment development scheme which was introduced with similar types of objectives by the former Labor Government in the early 1970s. There has been a lot of criticism about whether the money spent on those schemes has been correctly directed and whether the expenditure has been properly made. I want to emphasise, if I do not emphasise anything else, that the community employment program is not a scheme to construct community halls; it is not a scheme to carry out drainage improvements; it is not a scheme to build swimming pools; it is not a scheme which was implemented to do any of those specific things that it is incidentally doing. It is a community employment program. It is a scheme which is designed to provide employment opportunities and, incidentally, to give communities those other assets which they are gaining as a result of the operation of that scheme. It is an employment scheme and it is achieving those objectives. It is achieving those objectives, as I have indicated, for tens of thousands of Australian people who make up the long term unemployed; the most disadvantaged unemployed, those people who have other disabilities of various kinds which may make it difficult for them to be picked up in the employment growth in the normal upsurge of economic development which is being encouraged by the constructive and forward-thinking policies of this Government. It is an employment scheme. Let us judge it on that basis. I refer as well, in connection with this question, to the fact that some time ago in the Queensland Parliament one of my ancestors, the late Henry Turner-as a matter of fact he was my great-great-grandfather-who represented the electorate of Rockhampton North in the early part of this century-- Mr Simmons —As a Labor man. Mr ROBERT BROWN —As an outstanding member of the Australian Labor Party, a man of great principle, great dedication and great commitment. I have read some of the speeches he made in the Queensland Parliament. On one occasion he referred to the fact that a Premier of South Australia at the time-and I am disappointed to note that the Premier was a member of the Labor Party-expressed the belief that if the expenditure of public funds on a particular type of public works building was necessary for the purpose of providing the building, he could support the allocation of funds to it. But the Premier of South Australia at that time said that if the expenditure of that money was mainly designed to create jobs, he could not support it. I am disappointed that that sort of attitude was expressed so long ago by a member of the Labor Party. I am delighted that my great-great-grandfather, the late Henry Turner, the State member for the electorate of Rockhampton North in Queensland at the turn of the century, countered that argument and said that was not the sort of sentiment that he would express. He had sufficient concern for people who were unemployed to accept the fact that governments must fulfil the sorts of responsibilities that they have to the underprivileged sections of community. After all, surely they are the people who should be able to make the first call on this Government. The honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan), who is the member for a neighbouring electorate, referred earlier to the question of the rural sector being able to ask any government for assistance. He used the expression that they should be able to ask for assistance to prop them up. I have no objection to that. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this Government has provided great support for the rural sector and will continue to do so. All the claims made by members of the Opposition that we neglect, ignore or attempt to deny the rural sector are gross and serious misrepresentations of our position, and members of the rural sector know it. Of course, we are prepared to provide them with assistance. But let all honourable members and all Australians recognise that this national Parliament has a responsibility, as my great-great-grandfather, Henry Turner, indicated at the turn of the century, to provide its financial resources to ensure that those people who through no fault of their own are unemployed are given opportunities. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(11.10) —Madam Deputy Speaker, as I rise to address the Parliament in this Address-in-Reply to the Governor-General's Speech on the opening of the Thirty-fourth Parliament, I add my congratulations to the many that have been forwarded to you on your election to office and trust that you will convey my congratulations to the Speaker on his election to office. These congratulations are not added simply because it is the customary thing to do, but because, as I hope you know, there is a real warmth from members on this side of the House for the evenhanded way in which you go about your duties as Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of the Address-in-Reply and in the spirit already expressed by the honourable member for Lindsay (Mr Free) and the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I acknowledge the maiden speeches that have been given in the Parliament and congratulate the new members of the Parliament. It is particularly significant that within this chamber people are able to put a point of view freely, without recrimination. That is a precious freedom which members on both sides of the House will agree is enjoyed by too few people across the globe. It is a precious freedom that I trust the Thirty-fourth Parliament will pledge to defend. I stand here as the member for Wakefield. There is a certain irony in that in this expanded Thirty-fourth Parliament I represent a seat that is geographically twice as large as it used to be. I think there is a certain absurdity in a redistribution which supposedly was carried out to make me more accessible to the people of Wakefield but which in reality makes it even harder for them to visit my office than was previously the case. You would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that members on this side of the House opposed the expansion of the Parliament, not only because of the sorts of absurdities that inevitably arise out of redistributions, but also because the expansion tended to give a certain emphasis to Canberra that we felt was quite inappropriate. Mr Hawker —What about the lack of room in this place? Mr ANDREW —We need to remember, as the honourable member for Wannon has pointed out, that the expansion further exacerbated the lack of room available in this House when the expansion could have been designed to coincide with our move to the new and permanent Parliament House. But most of all, the expansion has been inappropriate because we need to remember that all too true adage that political freedom is power divided into small fragments. The centralisation that is currently occurring in Canberra is a matter of major concern to all Australians. Both the honourable member for Lindsay and the honourable member for Charlton made reference to the Thirty-fourth Parliament being the Australian electorate's endorsement, they claim, of their Government's policy. In fact, the honourable member for Lindsay was rather critical of the fact that the Opposition parties regard themselves, in his words, as having won from second place. He may wax eloquent about the Thirty-fourth Parliament and the supposed victory of the Hawke Government. But the reality, as every honourable member who sits in this House and every member of the Thirty-third Parliament must know, is that this is a very different House from the House that was dissolved in October 1984. While derision and scorn are still being directed from the Government benches at policies offered by the Opposition, there is no denying that what we now face is a much more demoralised team in government, because the result they expected on 1 December was not the result that they achieved. It is no wonder that Government members were demoralised by the result of the polls on 1 December. Look at the way in which the Australian electorate had been treated by this Government. The only two certainties that the Australian electorate has had from the Hawke Government have been, firstly, the certainty of persistent and higher taxation and, secondly, the certainty of uncertainty. The electorate expressed its revulsion at the attack by this Government on the aged, on health, on education and on the uncertainty about foreign affairs and our defence commitments. Sadly, the expectations of the electorate were deflated by the reality of the legislation introduced by this Government. The uncertainty that my constituents have rebelled against is the uncertainty as to the direction our taxation system is likely to take. The honourable member for Lindsay waxed eloquent about the assets test and, in fact, accused honourable members on this side of the House of scaremongering on the assets test. The reality is that all that honourable members on this side of the House have done is defend the most vulnerable people in our community. We are defending those who, as a result of the assets test, will be left poor. We are defending those rural Australians whose return on their capital is currently running at little better than two per cent. If a couple have in excess of the amount of $175,000 allowed under the assets test and they invest it at two per cent, what is left for them to live on? That is the reality of the situation. In rural electorates of Australia there are aged couples living on farms worth, let us say, $200,000, which in rural terms would barely be viable. If they sell up and invest that money, they will have little enough. But they will be forced to sell. If they stay where they are, aged as they are and too old to work the farm, the cruel reality is that that farm will not generate enough income for them to pay someone else to work it. What do they do? They are caught by this iniquitous assets test. In fact, it was this test, along with uncertainty about education, health, foreign affairs and defence, that left the Government reeling in the 1 December poll. The Governor-General in his Address made reference to rural Australia and to what this Government intended to do about rural Australia. Particular reference was made to the revival in export earnings that had come from the electorates represented on this side of the House. That revival in export earnings has been purely circumstantial. No action by this Government has done anything to encourage that revival. The revival occurred simply because it rained-an act totally beyond the control of the Government. The people responsible for the turnaround in the economic fortunes of Australia are currently facing a 17 per cent cut in their own incomes. These people are the only people in Australia, apart from small businessmen, whose salaries are indexed by Australia's competitiveness. As the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) pointed out, Australia has gone from the position of third highest standard of living in the world to the position of twenty-first simply because as a nation we have chosen to live beyond our means. Mr Burr —And we are going further backwards. Mr ANDREW —As was pointed out on my left, we are continuing to decline. While we may care to deny it, the reality is that this decline is directly related to one factor; that is, inflation. I know that the Government has been very bold about its performance in bringing down short term inflationary figures. It has been very bold indeed. Mr Hand —We have been very successful. Mr ANDREW —I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that the real inflation still smiting Australia began during the Whitlam period of government with the implementation of Whitlam-like policies. Incredible as it might seem, those policies are still encouraged by people in government. During the Address-in-Reply debate I have heard maiden speeches delivered by members of the Government encouraging the Government to pursue further Whitlam-like directions. That can be nothing but disastrous for Australia and, in particular, for rural Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know and as everyone in Australia knows, real inflation follows excessive government expenditure. What has characterised this Government and what has left it reeling as a result of the 1 December poll is excessive government expenditure. This government expenditure is running counter to the actions taken by the Fraser Government between 1975 and 1980 when government expenditure clearly was curbed. Sadly, in the last financial year our foreign debt has gone from $40 billion to $60 billion or $10,000 for each Australian family. The tragedy is that this blow-out in foreign debt occurred not at a time when the nation was in economic difficulty but during what were prosperous years. If this is the way a government performs during prosperous years, during years when it has the best opportunity to trim excessive debt, what will we do when the inevitable drought years follow? Where will rural Australia then be left? We are living in a fool's paradise if we believe we can continue to afford the policies of the honourable members who sit opposite. The plea from those of us on this side of the House is a plea for the reintroduction of policies that encourage people to be prudent. Mr Hawker —To help themselves. Mr ANDREW —Is there any encouragement to be prudent or, as the honourable member for Wannon comments, to help oneself? Is there any encouragement in the assets test or in existing health policies to be prudent? Is there any encouragement in the present attitude to health insurance? Is there any encouragement in what is happening to our education policies? What is offered to rural Australia in the Governor-General's Speech? It offers rural Australia a major report. I would have thought that a major report to take rural Australia to the year 2000 already had been handed down with the excellent Balderstone report on the Working Group to Provide a Policy Discussion Paper on Agriculture instituted by the former Government. There could be no justification at all for this further increase in government expenditure. I put it to the House that it is criminal for the Parliament to continue to interfere in the lives of individual Australians to the extent that it cripples the confidence and self-respect that every individual Australian is entitled to feel. I return to the substance of my speech, which is that the people I represent have had their salaries indexed downwards. Who of those groups supported by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the Australian Labor Party currently faces that sort of dilemma? The salaries of the people in my electorate have been indexed downwards simply because Australia ceases to be the sort of trading nation it once used to be. We have ceased to be that sort of trading nation because, as I said, we have lived beyond our means and our trade advantages have been curbed. The first attack on rural Australians has come as a result of the economic management of the Hawke Government. Would honourable members believe that in the last 24 hours there has been a second blatant attack on rural Australians with an attack on rural Australians in Queensland who, in fact, are to be singled out by the partners of the Government opposite, the ACTU, for special treatment? This is because of the way that Queenslanders voted. That is unprecedented; in fact, it is unforgivable. Honourable members could say that I need not necessarily be offended that the Government is to single out members of the National Party of Australia, but I am offended because it does not concern me which way any person in my electorate voted. I am here to represent them. I have heard honourable members in their maiden speeches make the same statement. Mr Dolan, the partner of the Australian Labor Party, has now chosen to single out those people who supported the Bjelke-Petersen Government for particularly rigorous treatment. In a democracy such as Australia that course of action should be condemned. If the electorate is entitled to anything from the Government it is entitled to integrity. It is entitled to know the direction the Government is going to take. It is entitled to expect a government prior to an election to indicate clearly what it intends to do. The electorate is entitled to pass judgment on a government's performance, not merely its promises. The electorate is entitled to a measure of security. From this Government the electorate has seen all too little performance and seen the security of the nation seriously eroded. The early days of the Thirty-fourth Parliament have been characterised by uncertainty that has been born of the factionalism in the Hawke Labor Government. It is not good enough for the people of Australia to have to tolerate a government that is torn apart by vocal minority groups. My plea in this Address-in-Reply debate is for the certainty of democracy. Mr Simmons —Do you support Howard or Peacock? Mr ANDREW —I am one of 99 factions in my Party on this side of the House and in the other chamber-one faction for each member. I have no difficulty at all in standing for what I believe in. The difficulty that faces the Government is the simple difficulty that government by faction means that no one in Australia knows quite where Government members stand on any issue at all. Mr Hawker —Or the lowest common denominator. Mr ANDREW —Or the lowest common denominator. Furthermore, the great difficulty the people of Australia face with this Parliament is that Labor members in this place are bound to stay where they sit. Regardless of what their electorates like or what their conscience tells them, they will not break. Those who elected members on my side of the House know that we are prepared and able to vote where our electorates and conscience would have us stand. It is the Labor sort of party discipline that is currently ruining democracy in Australia and one worries about freedom of speech in this nation. It is that sort of party discipline that left the Hawke Government without the numbers it expected following the poll on 1 December. Mr SIMMONS(Calare)(11.27) —I also join with previous speakers in congratulating those honourable members of the House who have broken the parliamentary ice with their maiden speeches. It is an important phase in their new careers in the national Parliament. I suggest that the quality of those speeches indicates that there will be a high standard of debate in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I also take the opportunity, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of congratulating Mr Speaker on his re-election, and I also congratulate Madam Deputy Speaker. The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), in his introductory comments, expressed concern about the effects of the 1984 redistribution which, he claimed, has doubled the size of his electorate. He said that there was a certain irony in this action because it made it difficult for him to represent his new electorate, double the size of the old one. I regarded it as ironical that when I checked the list of members dated 21 February 1985 I saw that the honourable member was so concerned about his rural constituency that he gave as his electoral office address, Commonwealth Parliament Offices, 100 King William Street, Adelaide. The honourable member for Wakefield also made a number of comments about the assets test and its effects in the rural areas of Australia. Honourable members will be aware that there is a body known as the Caucus primary industry and rural and provincial affairs committee that was established soon after the election on 1 December in the restructuring of Government back bench committees. That committee is chaired by my good friend and colleague the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), and I am fortunate to serve as his deputy chairman. Some of the points raised by a number of speakers on the application of the assets test have already been dealt with by that committee. Although we as a committee believe that the Federal Government has successfully developed and implemented the assets test, it is evident that there is a need to fine tune some of the administrative arrangements, particularly in the application of the test to people who live on rural properties and those who live on marginal family farms. There are some problems, as we recognise, and any government that is worth its salt must recognise at times that some of the administrative arrangements need to be fine tuned. Already our committee has had discussions with the Minister and will continue them in the next few days. We are confident that some of those administrative arrangements that require fine tuning will be implemented. The Governor-General's Speech established the broad parameters of the second Hawke Labor Government-a government in which I am proud to serve once again as the member for the Federal Division of Calare. What must be acknowledged about the past two years of the present Government is the dramatic improvement in the Australian economy, which I suggest is primarily due to the Government's prices and incomes accord. It is clear that there has been a sharp decrease in the level of industrial disputation in Australia, a significant expansion of the labour market, a comforting drop in the number of unemployed-we still have a long way to go-and a dramatic fall in the inflation rate. That is quite distinct from the pattern of government that we inherited just over two years ago. The accord's achievements included the generation of 300,000 new jobs. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) indicated in the House a few days ago, we are well on target to achieve the commitment he made prior to the 1983 election. I might add that 90 per cent of those jobs are full time. There has been a fall in the unemployment rate of 10.4 per cent at its peak in September 1983 to 8.3 per cent at present. The other encouraging area about which Opposition members will be pleased, is that the profit share in the community rose from 12.7 per cent of gross domestic product in 1982-83 to 15.1 per cent in the 1983-84 financial year. Obviously there is conclusive evidence that without the accord Australia could not have achieved such strong economic recovery. The effects of those achievements primarily associated with the prices and incomes accord are strongly evident in rural and provincial Australia. The character of many electorates was changed with the 1984 redistribution, and certainly I was affected. I retained a number of centres under the old electorate-Bathurst, Orange, Lithgow and Blayney. My electorate moved northwards into central western New South Wales to pick up a number of new and significant centres, in particular the Kandos-Rylstone area, Mudgee, Gulgong-the town on the $10 note with which we are all familiar-and, in the northern extremity, the centre of Dunedoo. Mr Robert Brown —A good area. Mr SIMMONS —It is a fine area. It is a resource rich area. It contains extensive coal deposits in the western coal fields of New South Wales, particularly around Lithgow, and also in the Mudgee district. The City of Orange boasts the largest apple-growing district, strangely enough, in Australia. There is a strong presence of secondary industry in the area, and a lot of decentralised industry that operates through some of the principal urban centres within the electorate. Mudgee is a fine wine growing district and it also is included in my electorate. Importantly, education facilities feature prominently in the area. I refer in particular to two important post-secondary institutions, Mitchell College of Advanced Education at Bathurst, and the Orange Agricultural College. This year also marks the centenary of the City of Bathurst, which is virtually the geographic centre of my electorate. It has come a long way since 1815 when it was the first inland settlement in Australia. The land proved to be prime agricultural land and the town of Bathurst soon became the centre of government administration and transport. The town quickly grew and in 1885 it was proclaimed a city. Bathurst is also famous for a number of public figures, not least Bathurst's most famous son, Ben Chifley, who served as Prime Minister of Australia from 1945 to 1949. I add that 1985 also marks the centenary of the birth of one of Australia's greatest Prime Ministers, Labor Prime Minister Ben Chifley. I can see the City of Bathurst and the central west of New South Wales, the area I am privileged to represent, continuing to grow and prosper in the next few years. The organisers of the civic centenary celebrations in Bathurst have done a wonderful job so far. I extend to them my best wishes for the forthcoming year, and thank them for their efforts to make 1985 a fitting tribute to the Bathurst community. My main reason for speaking in the Address-in-Reply debate relates to an incident that occurred in November during the election campaign. I refer to the publication of a totally unfounded story in the regional Golden West Shopping News, a publication which I understand is run by a certain Jim Bruncker. The article, published prior to the election, alleged the Government plan to resettle thousands of Vietnamese in the Central West. I believe this article provides a case for the introduction of recommendations made by the Human Rights Commission in 1983 that the Racial Discrimination Act should outlaw racial defamation. In the Golden West Shopping News article the author alleged he had received secret information purporting that there was a plan to resettle thousands of Vietnamese from Sydney in the central west. However, he failed to substantiate his claims. Following from this claim the rest of the story continued in a similar vein, making numerous scurrilous and totally unfounded claims. He stated that a proposed land acquisition in the central west for an Army base was but a cover for a land acquisition to resettle the Vietnamese. Throughout the story the author continued making defamatory statements about the Vietnamese community, blaming them for crime and prostitution, and even linking them to the present acquired immune deficiency syndrome scare. Throughout his story the author failed to provide any proof of his claims, but relied totally on innuendo and falsehoods. As it stands, the Racial Discrimination Act does not make the publication of such material unlawful and therefore no action can be taken under the Act. The publication of this kind of totally baseless, mischievous and defamatory material, designed to promote disharmony between groups in the Australian community, is an abuse of the principle of freedom of the Press. It is the sort of publication which justifies the recommendation made by the Human Rights Commission in 1983 that the Racial Discrimination Act should be amended to outlaw racial defamation. One argument often used against the implementation of such a law is that it contradicts one of the fundamental principles of democracy, namely the preservation and promotion of the right of free speech. It involves the choice between attributing an overwhelming weight to the individual value of free speech and the recognition of the dignity and worth of each person to live without discrimination and that person's right to make his own life and to feel part of the community without being slandered and hindered. Therefore, a position has to be sought where the principle of freedom of speech is not used to attack, and defame minority racial, or religious groups. Thus the question arises whether a society can defend to the ultimate the principle of unfettered freedom of speech at the expense of another racial group. Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights makes it necessary to protect the rights of others and states: . . . any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. In drawing up its proposal for amendments to the Racial Discrimination Act to cover incitement to racial hatred and racial defamation the Human Rights Commission studied complaints concerning racist statements and materials received by itself and the Commissioner for Community Relations. From an examination of these complaints it was obvious there is a very wide range of behaviour which complainants believe should be outlawed. Items which appeared regularly are: ethnic jokes, offensive words, stereotyping, reporting designed to aggravate tension and reports of racist statements by politicians and prominent public figures. I suggest that we saw evidence of this in some of the statements that, unfortunately, were made in Parliament last year. The Human Rights Commission also studied items claiming that some races are more animal than human. The justification for racial defamation legislation is that it is necessary to ensure respect for the rights or reputations of others, and for the protection of public morals in the broadest sense of the term. The Human Rights Commission studied anti-racial discrimination legislation in a number of other countries before setting on its proposed amendments. It is suggested that new provisions should be included in the law to outlaw certain kinds of racist statements, and that these should take the form of two additional provisions and one definition which ought to be incorporated into the Racial Discrimination Act. These are, firstly, a provision to make it unlawful for a person publicly to utter or publish words or engage in conduct which, having regard to all the circumstances, is likely to result in hatred, contempt or violence against a person or persons, or any group of persons, distinguished by race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. The Commission recommends that this provision should be drafted so as to ensure that certain valid activities such as the publication of or performance of bona fide works of art, genuine academic discussion and the serious and non-inflammatory discussion of issues of public policy are not brought within its scope. Secondly, it is suggested that a provision be incorporated in the Act to make it unlawful publicly to threaten, insult or abuse an individual or group, or hold that individual or group up to contempt or slander, by reason of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin. Thirdly, it is proposed that a definition be inserted to make it clear that the word 'publication' is to be taken in a very broad way to cover the print and electronic media, sign boards, abusive telephone calls, et cetera, and that both the individual making the statement and, where publication implies endorsement, the publisher would be covered by the two provisions outlined previously. These proposals have been forwarded to the Government and it is possible that the Government will consider amending the Racial Discrimination Act at some time in the course of this Parliament. In light of the content and the purpose of the Golden West Shopping News article that I mentioned in my introductory remarks in the context of my support for changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, I suggest that there would be a great deal of support throughout Australia for the adoption of those amendments. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Keogh) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr ANDREW —I do, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr ANDREW —The honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) in his remarks implied in an uncharacteristically uncharitable fashion that because my office was located in Adelaide I was somehow unable to represent a rural seat. I suspect he was only politicking because, had he chosen to look at the geography of the area as well as my mailing address, he would have discovered that my electorate stretches north, south, east and west of the city of Adelaide. To be identified with my electorate whose boundaries were changed under the redistribution, I moved house. I moved from my property at Waikerie to the town of Gawler, in order to reside with my family in the electorate of Wakefield. I therefore ask the honourable member to be a little more charitable in future before he makes the sort of insinuation in which he has just indulged. Mr BURR(Lyons)(11.43) —It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise for the first time in what is now my fifth parliament. I wish firstly to pass on publicly my thanks to the electorate that has re-elected me to this place. I will comment on my electorate of Lyons, as it is now called. Formerly, I held the seat of Wilmot which had been a seat in this Parliament since 1901. The electorate of Lyons is appropriately named after two very great Tasmanians who served long and distinguished careers in this place. I refer to Joseph Lyons, who was Prime Minister of Australia from 1933 to 1939, and to his wife, Dame Enid Lyons, who represented the Tasmanian seat of Darwin, now called Braddon, after her husband's death and after she had raised ten children. Dame Enid went on to become a well-respected Minister in the Menzies Government. As a husband and wife team Joseph and Dame Enid Lyons achieved unique significance, prominence and distinction in the Australian political community. I believe that the electorate of Lyons is justifiably named after those two very distinguished Australians. I wish also to thank publicly and to congratulate my wife Roslyn for her performance during the election campaign. She was not only a wife and mother but also my campaign director. During the campaign her effort was outstanding. I am very grateful for the support she has given me throughout my political career. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would be grateful if you would pass on my congratulations to the honourable member for Scullin (Dr Jenkins) on his re-election as Speaker and to the honourable member for Henty (Mrs Child) on her re-election as the Chairman of Committees. They have both been very good friends of mine during my parliamentary career. I am again delighted that we will have the pleasure of seeing them occupy the chair. I give them both my assurance that I will respect the rulings they give from the prominent position. During the recent election campaign I was delighted to see two outstanding and very promising young members elected to represent seats in Tasmania. The honourable member for Bass (Mr Smith) and the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) are very promising young men who I believe will go on to forge for themselves very distinguished careers in Australian politics. They have replaced Mr Ray Groom and Mr Kevin Newman, who also made valuable contributions to Australian politics and to the development of Australia as Ministers and as members of this place. I am confident that in the future we will see equally distinguished careers from Mr Smith and Mr Miles. I believe that the Address-in-Reply gives us an opportunity to look at the future of Australia without the unfortunate divergences we often have in this place of party politics blurring our vision and our considerations. It is in that context of looking at the future of Australia without partisan political involvement that I address my remarks. It is well recognised that there is a rapid shift in world markets. The Pacific basin is now seen as the area with the greatest growth pattern for the rest of this century. It is in this context that Australia must seriously rethink its trading policies if it is to survive as a major power in the area and not sink to the level of the poor white trash that has been prophesied by some leading industrialists in this country. The primary industries of Australia have always borne the brunt of our economic survival and prosperity, to the extent that 80 per cent of our export income has originated from either our rural industries or our mining industries. Unfortunately, many people rather naively and blithely believe that this pattern is permanent and that we can ride on the backs of the farmers forever. A study of the world's food production trends will dispel this dream. We now see that we are rapidly approaching the situation where our traditional markets are being eroded by competition from unexpected quarters and, in addition, by our own ineptitude. The world's developing nations are becoming major producers of wheat, sugar, beef and other rural products. International aid has made a significant contribution to improved expertise and production techniques in those developing countries. They are certainly to be commended for that improvement. Their newly won independence has given them a driving force which seems to be lacking with in our own economy. India, Pakistan and Argentina have joined the 10 major wheat producers of the world. Many European countries have passed the point of self-sufficiency and are now competing strongly for world trade. As well, many Third World countries are less reliant than they were on imports for their staple food products. While Australia has increased her wheat exports by 34 per cent in the five-year period from 1978-79 to 1982-83 Argentina has increased her wheat exports by 142 per cent. The European Economic Community countries, which enjoy major government subsidies, have increased their wheat exports by 59 per cent in the same period. The message is clear. We cannot rely on our traditional exports to maintain the Australian economy. There has to be a serious study of the viability of growing more sugar in Australia. It is a troubled market ruled by international quotas and trade restrictions. In the period from 1973-74 to 1982-83 there has been a large growth in sugar production in the world. India has increased production by 93 per cent to become one of the world's top 10 producers. China has increased her output by 90 per cent and Brazil is entering the market with a 34 per cent increase. There are plans in the pipeline of many Asian countries to establish large sugar mills in the next ten years. Japan has helped to establish many of these mills, so it seems logical to assume that Japan will buy from those countries rather than from countries in which she has no investment. At the moment Australia is a major supplier of sugar to Japan. The overall picture in the world is that there will be a 46.2 per cent increase in sugar production by nations that are not part of the Western marketing structure. The red meat market is also a very troubled world market. In the period from 1976 to 1982 there has been a 9.5 per cent drop in slaughtering figures for beef and veal in the developed market countries. During the same period the developing countries have increased their production by 14.9 per cent, with the communist bloc recording an increase of 8.4 per cent. During the same period Australia lost 11.5 per cent of the export market, while Canada, Brazil and Uruguay made large inroads into our export markets. The subsidised meat producers of the EEC also captured a large share of the export market by increasing their export market margin by 81.7 per cent on the 1976 figures. In these three markets alone we face stiff competition. I have used only three rural products as an example but a study of other rural and mining products shows just as much disruption in the market place as other countries continue to erode Australia's traditional markets. No longer will the farmers and miners of Australia guarantee us a high level of export income and therefore a high level of living. There is a need for an immediate reassessment of our position in the Pacific basin. There is also an urgent need to reassess the performance of many of our manufacturing and tertiary industries. Instead of freeloading on the backs of farmers and miners, it is high time that the manufacturing sector and all those who work in it started to pull their weight in this country, to improve their efficiency and their economic performance so that they can compete for world trade and contribute far more heavily to our export income. The success story of the developing nations is not entirely without skeletons in the cupboard. They have only captured our markets at the expense of their own ecology. To increase their crop areas and grazing lands they have been forced to reduce their forest areas. In the period from 1976 to 1981 the world's forest areas have decreased by 2 per cent to enable the necessary increase in arable and pasture lands to take place. While I admit that 2 per cent does not sound very great on a macro cosmic basis, a country by country study shows that most developing countries have reduced their forest resources in order to increase their crop lands. They have also logged out major areas for quick income or a quick return on venture capital without proper planning and proper regeneration. The end result is that Africa and the Philippines have almost run out of exportable milling timber. The countries now filling the gap for hardwood logs and sawn timber are Malaysia and Indonesia. At the moment Indonesia has only decreased her forest cover by about point three of one per cent during the 1976 to 1981 period, but that country is now targeting for three million cubic metres of plywood exports a year. It presently holds 60 per cent of the world's plywood market but is planning to increase that production quite dramatically. Much of the logged out area is not being regenerated but is part of the 3 per cent increase in land use for crops and development. The overall picture is that of a world being exploited for its timber without proper regulated replacement of this valuable resource. Australia is not entirely blameless in this aspect. In the same period, the native forest cover of Australia has decreased by 17 per cent. This is quite apart from the fact that much of our cleared areas have been replanted with exotic species. I feel that the time has come for the reafforestation of Australia to be attacked on a national basis and that land now producing doubtful cash crops that are struggling because of market changes could and should be sown with native forest. By the end of the century the world will be crying out for more quality timber. The era of the plastic product could be rapidly coming to an end as the world's oil deposits deplete and oil becomes more expensive. Timber is the natural replacement for many of the items on the market now made from synthetic by-products. In a study on Australian forestry resources Leng Sar and Judith Maxwell state that during the 10-year period from 1973 to 1983 hardwood sawlog removals fell by 32 per cent while hardwood pulpwood removals increased by 13 per cent. This, they say, reflects the decline in the availability of the larger logs. However, in my view, the decline is not due to the lack of availability of the larger log. Rather it is due to the sale of the larger log as a component in the woodchip industry. The review goes on to point to the need for greater production of hardwood timber by Australia to keep up with world requirements. Sar and Maxwell say: Changing relative costs of production and environment concerns in Japan indicate that there is potential for Australian exports of hardwood pulp to replace exports of hardwood chips. It is argued that due to hardwood log allocations being adjusted downwards by State forestry services there will be a smaller annual harvest. Unless intensive management is used to accelerate the growth of native species the Australian hardwood forests could be facing serious depletion. They could face very serious difficulties in the years ahead. We must remember at all times that the rotation production of hardwood timbers occupies 50 to 70 years before those trees reach full maturity. I feel that much of the problem confronting the timber industry at the moment is the piecemeal approach and the failure of responsible bodies to grasp the nettle to come up with something that will ensure Australia's future in the timber markets of the world and give us a primary product that will fill the gap left by lost markets in wheat, sugar and meat. The Australia Forestry Council is not giving the dynamic guidance that is necessary for us to save our forests and eventually gain a place in the future world markets for native timbers. It seems content to leave the management of Australia's forest to the State government. Many of the resolutions carried at the Council's meeting in 1984 left the full responsibility to the States. The Council even failed to do anything of substance in support of the national forest strategy, except to note that the strategy did not set out to identify specific courses of action. While such bodies sit and wait for future developments, our forests dwindle in size, and our markets with them. My State of Tasmania is no exception in this matter. In a recent survey it was found that more than 60 per cent of all private forest logged in Tasmania in the last 14 years has been regenerated, but 40 per cent has not been. This land has been lost to the timber industry in a one-off cash crop for woodchipping, and is part of the 17 per cent decrease in forest cover in Australia. In my opinion, it is not enough for the Forestry Council to say that land use is primarily the responsibility of State governments. State rights must be recognised, but the States must also accept that they have a national responsibility. For too long State governments and State bureaucrats have selfishly pushed their own parochial interests. It is true that the States have constitutional rights, but they also have moral responsibilities to the nation as a whole. Too often they claim their rights without fulfilling their responsibilities. By logical planning and the overall acceptance that the forests of Australia are a national resource and asset we can achieve success in an area where a future market waits for our expertise. Mr KENT(Hotham)(12.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you and your colleagues on appointment as Deputy Speakers. I hope that you will convey my congratulations to Mr Speaker. I have a high regard for him. I would also like to mention at the outset the calibre of the maiden speeches that have been made in reply to the Governor-General's Speech, especially those made by Government members. I believe this Parliament will be richer and better for the new talent and new blood of the young people who have been brought into the Parliament. They have high standards and principles. Those honourable members will serve the Government, this Parliament and the nation very well indeed. His Excellency the Governor-General outlined in his speech the second Hawke Labor Government's program. The main aim of the program is to maintain the momentum of the economic recovery which was achieved by the first Hawke Labor Government. Before we pass judgment on this program it is important to stop for a brief moment and reflect upon where we were heading two years ago when the present Opposition was holding the reins and governing this country. I shall remind the Australian people of the direction in which we were moving before the Opposition was defeated. It is important to remember that. In politics events go by quickly and sometimes people tend to forget. For instance, members of the Opposition are attacking the Government for things that they neglected to do during the seven years they were in office. It is the culmination of hypocrisy to do that. On the other hand, when members of the Opposition try to gain votes they go out into the electorate and tell the electors that for 30 years of the last 35 Australia had a conservative government. What did they do in those 30 years and where did they lead us? Every time there is some misfortune, a war or an economic crisis, the people of Australia have to kick out the conservatives, who are very often the cause of those mishaps, and bring in a Labor government to do the job. As I said two years ago, Australia was brought to the brink of economic and social disaster by the gross mismanagement of the economy by the people who are now sitting on the Opposition benches. For seven years the conservatives parroted their leader's recipe for disaster. I quote him: We will fight inflation first and unemployment after. As a result of the obstinacy of the conservatives, their ineptitude and bad economic management, they achieved a record inflation rate of 12 per cent. They said they would fight inflation first, yet in government they brought the rate of inflation to an unprecedented level. That is not all. At the same time their tight monetary policy caused an unprecedented unemployment rate of about 11 per cent. At no time since the Great Depression have we had an unemployment rate of such magnitude. When the former Government lost office, after the Australian people disposed of it because of its bad economic management, it discovered unemployment. For the seven years honourable members opposite sat on this side of the House they never mentioned unemployment. They were concerned about fighting inflation first. They forgot about unemployment. They have now discovered unemployment and are attacking our Government as though it caused it. Unemployment is inherent in the system of private enterprise. It is one of its contradictions. From the turn of the century to today full employment has been the exception and not the rule. There have been very short periods of full employment and long periods of unemployment as a result, as I have said, of free market laissez-faire capitalism. Let me remind the Opposition conservatives that under their Government youth unemployment sky-rocketed, industries were closing down and building had stopped-and all of that was only two years ago. In addition to the economic ruin, the legacy of their Government was a divided society. For seven years the conservatives were setting one Australian against the other, only to evade the blame for their disastrous policies themselves. Their legacy, which we inherited, was economic ruin as well as social division. Even today, in opposition they are trying to create social division. We saw in the last Parliament a sudden upsurge of racist sentiments outside, and to some extent inside, this Parliament. It is fortunate that this Government stepped in in time and declared that there will be no difference between Australian and Australian in this country. This Government stopped the rot in time. But even today Opposition members are trying to create divisions. They are using scaremongering tactics in respect of pensioners. They are trying to scare the daylights out of them by saying that we are going to enter their property and all sorts of other things which this Government has never contemplated. I am sure that the public, including the pensioners, will wake up to these machinations. The task of the first Hawke Labor Government was to unite Australia, to bring the divided community together and to set out to resolve and remedy the economic ills that we inherited. It took the Liberal-National Party Government seven years to ruin the country. We can say proudly that it took us, the first Hawke Labor Government, 18 months to stop the rot and to lead Australia out of the depression. It took us even less time to repair the divisions created in the community by the conservatives. We have brought together the various sections in our community-industry, trade unions, business, local and State governments-to restore the people's confidence in their own future. It is now the task of the second Hawke Labor Government to consolidate the gains. We have brought inflation down to a manageable 5 per cent, we have reduced interest rates and we have reduced the unemployment rate from about 11 per cent to 8.6 per cent. We have resurrected the building industry and restored consumer spending. It is now our task to keep the ship on an even keel and to ensure that the benefits of the economic revival are equally shared by all. The review of the taxation system should have as its main aim restoring equity. We have achieved a lot in a short time and I am proud of that. However, there is a lot to be done yet and the Governor-General outlined in his Speech the future tasks. His Excellency put the Government's program in the field of employment, industrial relations, community welfare, education, trade and other fields of government responsibility. I have no doubt that the program His Excellency put to the Parliament on behalf of the second Hawke Labor Government captured the imagination of the Australian people. There is no doubt in my mind and in the minds of the Australian people that only the Labor Government has the will and ability to lead this great country into the twenty-first century. The conservatives opposite, the members of the Liberal Party and the members of the National Party, will be left where they always were, back in the nineteenth century, while we lead Australia into the twenty-first. On the basis of our program and on the basis of our performance, we are looking forward to two decades of Labor government and consequently to two decades of uninterrupted progress. Mr Connolly —You can live in hope. Mr KENT —It will be a long wait on the Opposition benches. We can look forward to the future with confidence. The only question, the only doubt that I have, is the question whether we are going to have a future at all. We live in dangerous times, in an era when humankind is in possession of the means of its own destruction. Nuclear war is now dangerously close and the leaders of both super-powers now openly talk about the risk of nuclear war. Both sides are producing and deploying more and more missiles that can in a matter of minutes destroy this planet, wipe out our families and all the plans and programs for our future. Until recently, most Australians believed that we were far removed from the dangers of an all out nuclear war and many thought that a nuclear exchange would affect only the northern hemisphere. That belief has now been exploded. To illustrate this let me quote the following extract from the science supplement of the Melbourne Age of 5 March 1984: Research in Australia and overseas is now showing that, far from being a haven in a nuclear exchange between the super-powers, the south will suffer from the same cloud of soot, dust and radio-activity that will blanket the north, threatening a global 'nuclear winter' that could cut out sunlight and bring freezing temperatures lasting two years or more. The consensus of 100 biologists and atmospheric researchers who met in New Delhi last month is that the dust cloud thrown up from burning and pulverised cities in the Northern Hemisphere will upset global wind patterns that now tend to prevent the mixing of air between the two hemispheres. According to Dr Barrie Pittock, Australia's representative at the New Delhi meeting, there would be a rapid transportation of radioactive dust and soot from northern hemisphere to south. Even if no bombs exploded south of the Equator, the Southern Hemisphere could suffer a similar death rate in a nuclear war to the north. 'Two years ago it would have been an exaggeration to say that mankind might be made extinct in a nuclear war,' says Dr Pittock. 'Now I think you have to say it is a real possibility.' The article goes on: Even if there are no explosions in Australia, there will be death from atomic radiation and genetic damage caused by an increase in ultra-violet radiation let in by an ozone-depleted atmosphere. Starvation and cold would be the biggest killers. As Dr Ehrlich has put it, life would mean 'starving to death in a dark, smoggy world.' This is a nice future for our young people! Hundreds of thousands of young Australians reject the theory of nuclear deterrence which will surely lead us into a nuclear catastrophe. I can remember the disarmament talks that took place in Geneva before the Second World War when I was a very young kid. In spite of those talks Europe armed itself. The talks were set aside and arms were used. I do not believe that the answer to our problems is more and more missiles and more and more arms. It is high time that we started to think seriously about disarmament. The two super-powers have arsenals with which they say they can destroy the world. If they use them I will not be safe, other members of this place will not be safe and our children and grandchildren will not be safe. Recent reports confirm that the Pentagon agrees with the findings of scientists concerning the nuclear winter. The Melbourne Age of 4 March 1985 reports from New York that: The U.S. Defense Department has accepted as valid a theory that nuclear war could create a cloud of smoke and dust thick enough to block out the sun and cause a devastating 'nuclear winter'. But while admitting to the dangers of extinction of life on our planet, the report says that 'the ''nuclear winter'' theory would not affect the Reagan Administration policy and did not apply to the controversial ''Star Wars'' defence plan'. This means, in other words, that the Pentagon is hell-bent on destroying humankind, unless the US can impose its own will on the rest of the world. To possess the power to blow up this planet is bad enough, but to have this power vested in the hands of a senile gentleman who could at any time, inadvertently or by design, pull the nuclear trigger is beyond comprehension. Forty-five years ago, humankind was plunged into a total war by a lunatic and 50 million people paid the price with their lives. The mind boggles to think what would have happened if Hitler had had a nuclear stockpile. The young people of today are not willing to place their lives in the hands of lunatics nor into the hands of senile leaders. They do not trust the leaders. That is why millions are marching today all over the world and in Australia. They want to have a future and I want them to have a future. That is why I will be marching with them on Palm Sunday, 31 March, for a nuclear free world, for peace and disarmament. Mr McVEIGH(Groom)(12.16) —I support the amendment moved to the Address-in-Reply by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair). The Government has now outlined its program for the next three years. The Government says it has pledged to create a stronger, fairer and more equitable Australian society. These are fine sentiments and naturally I agree with them. Unfortunately, they are only sentiments. The rest of the Governor-General's Speech only regurgitated policies which are failing Australia. In outlining the programs on trade, the Government has correctly identified the decline in our economic performance. It has correctly identified the problems Australia faces in combating new forms of protection and export supports which are proliferating around the world. It has correctly identified the increasing competition we face in relation to minerals, agricultural products and manufactured goods. Regrettably, there has been no attempt to diagnose properly the disease nor to cure it. This is disappointing because the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) has been one of the more earnest Ministers in this Government in recognising the economic and trading problems confronting Australia. In a speech given in Sydney to the Australian Insurance Association on 19 February, the Minister for Trade admitted that Australia now faces: . . . major debt balance of payments problems, unemployment at far too high a level, a poor trade performance and the stagnation of manufacturing industry. The same Minister, in an address to the Economic Society of Australia on 26 August 1984, belatedly admitted that the economic growth experienced to date was largely due to the previous Government's wage pause initiative, the breaking of the drought and the recovery in the economy of the United States of America. He said at the time that the Australian Labor Party Government had ridden into office on the coat tails of the previous Government's wages pause initiative and its beneficial economic impact. This all comes down to the failure of this Government to enunciate policies which will make Australia more competitive. Australia's export industries are of vital importance in maintaining our high standard of living and in reducing unemployment. Our primary producers, mining industries and manufacturers must be able to increase their share of world markets. Our companies must be able to compete successfully in the face of tough opposition. Unfortunately, we are clearly falling behind in world markets and not moving ahead. Just over the past year Australia has fallen from twelfth to sixteenth place in world rankings of national competitiveness, according to the 1985 report of the European Management Forum on international competitiveness. We have fallen behind countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In order to be competitive Australia needs a flexible wages policy that is able to adjust to a changing economic environment and, in particular, the fluctuations in commodity prices. Instead, we have the ALP-Australian Council of Trade Unions accord and a rigid, centralised wage fixation system. The accord is a shroud over our economic problems. It has not lessened the number of strikes and work bans. If the Government is finding it impossible to put the accord into effect, how can it possibly do anything about removing the inflationary effects of wage indexation? Either it does not understand the wage cost equation or it is simply too helpless in the face of pressure from the unions and the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. The accord represents a deal between big government and big unions at the expense of our export industries and the welfare of all Australians. For the sake of industrial peace we sacrifice international competitiveness. If confirmation of this is needed it can be seen in two things: Firstly, the fall in the value of the Australian dollar. This is not some freak of the market. It is, in part, the result of a perception of the real value of our currency and the overall incompetence of this Government. It is the result of international business judgment on the Australian wage fixation system. It is the result of international judgment on the failure of this Government to maintain a strong line on monetary policy and for abandoning its monetary targets. It is the result of international judgment on the ballooning of the deficit in the last two Labor Government Budgets. It is the result of a judgment on Australia's burgeoning balance of payments problems and, in particular, the expected current account deficit of close to $11,000m. It is the result of a judgment on the growing overseas and domestic debt situation and the likely interest burdens that will arise as a consequence. Whom will these interest burdens fall upon? Who will pay dearly for this Government's economic mismanagement? Unfortunately, as you said in your speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, it will be Australia's youth. Budgets are not just about statistics and vast quantities of paper. To the National Party, Budgets are about people and their futures. Mr Braithwaite —It is the human element. Mr McVEIGH —As my colleague the honourable member for Dawson said-the honourable member for Page (Mr Ian Robinson) agreed-it is about people and their futures. The economic decisions before us must be taken with the long term security and well-being of all Australians in mind. The pure and simple fact is that this Government's Budget is storing problems for the future, for our children and for our grandchildren. After adjusting for inflation, the Labor Government has added more to government spending in two Budgets than the previous coalition Government added in seven years. The Hawke Government is the biggest spending peacetime government in Australia's history. To finance its unprecedented spending spree, this Government has become the highest taxing government in Australia's history. That is not all. Under the Hawke Government our external debt is escalating to a new high of $60 billion, or about a quarter of our gross domestic product. We can compare this with the figures of five years ago when the external debt was only $13.5 billion. We once had the highest per capita income in the world. Australia's income per head in 1870 was 75 per cent greater than that of people in the United States and was the highest of 16 major Western countries, according to a recent study by the American economist, Mr Angus Maddisson, entitled 'Phases of Capitalistic Development'. However, by 1982 Australia had slipped to seventh position in the scale of 16 countries. I wonder what our position on the scale will be in 1990. Whilst the fall of the dollar is a reflection on the economic incompetence of this Government, we must now see that we take full advantage of its depreciation. The inflationary effects of the dollar's decline should not and must not be passed on to the wage earner through the wage indexation system. To do this would dissipate all gains to our international competitiveness. The indication from the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in response to a question in the House recently from my colleague the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), that he would pass on this movement in the consumer price index shows absolutely no respect for economic position and a lack of comprehension of the market-place. For the sake of those entrenched in jobs he would cut the throats of the exporters of the country and all those who are unemployed. The second pointer to our deteriorating economic system is to be found in the latest balance of payments figures which were released for the month of January, the December quarter of last year and the first seven months of fiscal 1984-85. The deficit on the current account for January was massive $1,136m compared with $455m in January 1984. The deficit for the seven months was $6,881m, compared with only $3,934m previously. This has led to comments such as those made by the money market newsletter Syntec, which warned that Australia faces the prospect of what it described as 'the almost constant threat of currency collapse' because of the weak current account position. Wherever we look there appears little cause for confidence and even less for complacency on this Government's part. In every quarter Australians are calling for a lead from the Government. Policy changes must be in order. Australia's high cost structure, intransigent unions, exorbitant taxes and government charges, counterproductive wage system and low commodity prices are putting us out of competitive balance with our trading partners. Our reliability, both economically and politically, is questionable. The Government should be careful not to erode further our trading position by the pursuit of foolish and irrational policies which damage our reputation as a reliable supplier and as a country which lives up to its contracts and its word. The most reckless example of this was the decision taken at the Australian Labor Party National Conference last July to prevent the fulfilment of the export contracts for uranium oxide previously entered into between Queensland Mines Ltd and Electricite de France. I do not want to go into the absurdity of what in effect amounts to punishing the Australian taxpayer to the tune of some $56m last year to allow the French Government to buy its previously contracted uranium at cheaper prices on the world market. What I do wish to say is that our actions have reflected poorly on our standing in the world and our trading image stands dishonoured by these events. This Government has forced an Australian company to renege on an international contract for political reasons which are completely irrational and which benefit only the French, when they were designed to punish France. It can only be described as scandalous that the Government can find $56m to offset its incompetence while hundreds of Australian exporters are denied funds which they were promised by the Government under the export market development grants scheme, initiated by a great Australian, the Right Hon. J. D. Anthony. Two-thirds of Australian exports companies describe the EMDG as critical or fundamental to their survival. Yet the backlog of unfunded obligations owing to exporters under the scheme is estimated to reach a staggering $95m by June 1985. The National Export Marketing Strategy Panel, chaired by Bill Ferris, recognised the seriousness of the situation, and quite rightly called it a disgrace. The full hypocrisy and absurdity of the Government's actions are revealed again in the Minister's current little farce with the West Germany company Urangesellschaft. The real concern must be directed at our reputation as a reliable supplier. We must not leave ourselves open to retaliation from the European Community. Clearly this Government's ineptitude in international negotiations, combined with its pursuit of shortsighted domestic economic policies, has hit export industries and those whose jobs are in them. For example, a year ago the Prime Minister claimed that our beef producers would not lose any of their share of the Japanese market. He made that claim while in Japan after talking with the Japanese Government, but a year later the Australian beef export industry is still smarting from the loss of market share in both Japan and Korea. We are part of a dynamic, growing Pacific region in which the opportunities are enormous. The reality of geography and the vitality of the international market-place have ensured that Australia's economic future is irrevocably bound up with our region. To take advantage of these opportunities requires vision and political courage. We, for our part, are in an excellent position to further regional co-operation because of the firm political relationship we have established with almost all the countries of the region. That is a role we should welcome. History has shown us that countries that have followed the least restrictive economic policies, both at home and abroad, have experienced the most rapid economic growth. Recent examples include Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan and South Korea. While countries such as the United States of America and the United Kingdom are turning back the regulation tide, unfortunately we in Australia, under the Hawke socialists and the various Labor governments in the States, are watching our regulation system grow. The dramatic increase in our regulation defies overseas trends. A nation of our size simply does not need the regulatory mechanisms operating in countries 15 times our size. Too often regulatory intervention delays decision making, creates uncertainty and undermines entrepreneurial initiative, and it is costly. In the late 1970s the Confederation of Australian Industry estimated that it costs the Australian taxpayer over $1 billion per annum, or over one per cent of gross national product, to finance the regulatory mechanisms now operating in this country. How can the farmers, the miners and the manufacturing industries of Australia compete when they have all this government intervention and regulation, costing $1 billion per annum? We need to encourage the more practical side of science and technology so we can further enjoy the rewards of our research. Australia is highly innovative, producing 2 per cent of the world's scientific papers each year, even though we represent only 0.3 per cent of the world's population. Notwithstanding that, of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries only Greece, Iceland and Turkey exported less in high technology than Australia did. It is absolutely no good complaining about international trading matters when our own house is not in order. With the right policies and with a dynamic government this country can maintain its position as one of the great trading nations of the world. It will require boldness in outlook and in policy. It will require a return to the good old fashioned free enterprise policies. It will require the Government to open up opportunities to ordinary people who want to have a go, who want to work and who want to achieve, and for whom competition is a challenge and not a threat. I conclude on this note: I have had the honour of representing the seat of Darling Downs since 1972, through six elections. It has been a seat in the national Parliament since Federation. It is indicative of the strength of the people in the area, their total conviction and dependence on the free enterprise system-as a fifth generation Darling Downs pioneering family member I take great personal pride in saying this-that throughout that long history not once did they dishonour this Parliament by returning a socialist. They have always returned a National Party member or a Liberal Party member. They believe that Australia can be made great under the free enterprise system. The name 'Darling Downs' is a great, honoured and treasured one. It is the cradle of the Australian grain growing industry. Our livestock, our beef, all of our products, are first class and renowned in the world for their quality. The people are the old fashioned Australians who are prepared to have a go and do not want government interference. They are good Christian families who have the right outlook. When the recent redistribution took place, it appeared that the electorate would still be called Darling Downs. But I am disappointed that, probably because of interference from the socialists, as a result of the final report the name 'Darling Downs' is no longer represented by an electorate in this Parliament. The electorate is now the seat of Groom. If the name had to be changed, I am delighted that it was changed to Groom, which honours a great pioneering Darling Downs family, a family which has made an enormous contribution to the business, social and political life of the area. The first member for Darling Downs was a Mr Groom. Unfortunately, he lasted only for two months because the coldness of the climate did not agree with him. His successor, his son, graced this Parliament as a Minister and as a Speaker for a long period of 35 years. If the name had to be changed, I am glad it was to Groom. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Cowan) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(12.36) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to congratulate you most sincerely on your election to the position of Deputy Chairman of Committees. I am sure that you will hold that office with the due respect in which it needs to be held. I sincerely congratulate you. I pass on my congratulations to the Speaker on his re-election. I also take this opportunity to congratulate all those new members who have made their maiden speeches. As has been said earlier today, some excellent speeches have been made by members on both sides of the House. In particular, I congratulate the honourable member for Cowan (Ms Jakobsen) and the honourable member for St George (Mr Dubois) who respectively moved and seconded the Address-in-Reply. The honourable member for Cowan now has stewardship over a considerable number of my former electors. She will, I know, prove to be an active and conscientious member in her electorate and in this House. After the congratulations come the hard realities of political life. A government is elected to govern. This means that from time to time hard decisions have to be made. This Government will continue to face the challenges created by the 30 years of mismanagement of this country's economy by those who now sit on the Opposition benches. Long may they remain there. I will now turn to a number of issues which are of concern to me and, I am sure, to many other members on both sides of this House. We must recognise that there is an unsteady state of relations between the super-powers. This in turn has created obstructions to the creation of effective arms control leading to disarmament. Both the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are to be condemned for their posturing and empty rhetoric on the world stage. There is a real need for them to enter into new and meaningful negotiations to counteract the growth in nuclear arsenals and the deployment of new missiles in both East and West. If they do not do so, the future of the world-I mention especially this part of the world in which we are very much interested-will be bleak. I now turn to the economic effects of the arms race on the health and social development budgets of the countries of the world. These effects can only be described as devastating. It has been estimated that military spending is now running at two and a half times that of health spending. I remind the House of only one area of health as time permits me to look only at one area of health. I refer to infant mortality rates. Infant mortality rates in most Third World countries are many times the rate in this country. I will expand on that point. India has an infant mortality rate nine times, Indonesia 10 times and Ethiopia 12 times that of this country. Surely the world's resources would be better directed towards improving the health of those living in poverty in many parts of the world than on boosting the arms race. Arms spending in real terms has tripled from 1973 to 1983 and conventional arms spending in the period from 1978 to 1982 rose by 70 per cent over the previous five-year span. This expenditure has fuelled the inflation spiral and has had negative effects on economic growth, particularly in Third World countries. This Government has a heavy responsibility over the next two years as a member of the United Nations Security Council to be active in seeking peaceful, practical solutions to global problems. I am sure it will exercise its authority in the Security Council in a sane and realistic way. We are fortunate enough to have in our Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), who is in the chamber, a man who fervently believes in working towards world peace. Nineteen eighty-six is the International Year of Peace. It is important that this Government develops and promotes proposals which will lead to a meaningful International Year of Peace. I am sure that the Minister will give high priority to this matter. I now turn to some domestic issues of concern to me. This Government has shown in a very concrete way its commitment to improving the lot of Aboriginal people. In the two previous Budgets, funds for Aboriginal programs were increased considerably. This has meant increased programs for housing, health, education and training, legal aid and community works. I trust that the Government will continue to pursue vigorously those programs which are now in place and take the opportunity to initiate new ones where necessary. This Government not only recognises that many Aboriginals are living in primitive conditions but also has attempted to do something to overcome their problems. As a result, there has been a significant increase in funds for Aboriginal housing as part of grants to the States for welfare housing. It will, of course, take a number of years before the legacy of the neglect of previous governments-both State and Commonwealth governments-will be overcome in the area of housing. But at least a start has been made. I draw the House's attention to the issue of Aboriginal health. The advent of the community-based Aboriginal health and medical services and the increasing attention being paid to this issue by State and Federal governments has led to tremendous improvements in the level of Aboriginal health. There is, however, a long way to go. In this country the life expectancy of Aboriginals is grossly different from the life expectancy of the white population. Aboriginal life expectancy figures in country areas of New South Wales, according to a survey carried out two or three years ago, are 49 years for men and 56 for women. Significantly, this is some 20 years less than the Australian average. This is scandalous. It is something that this Government must attend to during its current term of office. In many Aboriginal communities in outback Australia there is still a high incidence of trachoma, yet it is almost unknown among the white population. In regard to a wide range of diseases, Aboriginals fare very poorly compared with the non-Aboriginal population. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Sitting suspended from 12.45 to 2 p.m. Mr N. A. BROWN —I refer the Attorney-General to his clear statement in the House on Wednesday that police officers involved in making the Age New South Wales police tapes-I use his exact words-'are not entitled to indemnity'. I also refer him to his equally clear statement on the AM program yesterday-again I use his exact words-when he said 'I can't give them an exemption'. Despite those unequivocal statements, did the Attorney-General's office yesterday, with his approval, say that those statements were 'the Attorney-General's personal view . . . and that no formal decision, one way or the other, had yet been made'? Which statement is correct? Has a formal decision been made on this matter and will the Attorney-General now tell us in clear terms what that decision is? If not, what is the status of this personal opinion of the Attorney-General? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think everybody in Australia would agree that it is improper for anybody, particularly police officers, to break the law, particularly a Federal law relating to the interception of telephone conversations. That is the first premise. I cannot give exemptions to that. The difficulty, as I have mentioned to the honourable gentleman, is that Mr Justice Stewart, by asking police officers whether they would co-operate with him, has been faced with the demand by 31 of them who have said that they will not be able to co-operate unless an indemnity is granted. He suggests that in those circumstances, relating to that matter, they should be granted an indemnity. It is a matter of practice which the honourable gentleman may or may not understand at this stage-it probably happened subsequent to his leaving the office of Attorney-General-that my predecessor agreed with the Director of Public Prosecutions that he would always consult with the Director and take his advice in any matter relating to indemnity. I do not think I am going too far in indicating to the honourable gentleman that the advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions is that indemnity should not be granted for reasons that he gives. I have had the two gentlemen together to see whether we could reconcile the difficulty about the matter, because it relates to the police and it relates to the question of public interest. I do not think the matter has yet been finally resolved. I say that because I have asked them to consider the position again on the basis that we want as much evidence given as the police have about criminal conduct. That is important. It is essential. I make the point, as the honourable member would agree, that I have a duty to uphold the law not on any personal basis but as the first law officer of Australia. If it becomes a yardstick that police throughout Australia need not worry about a Federal law, we will be in dreadful trouble trying to enforce that law against anybody else. If in the course of giving evidence to Mr Justice Stewart the police proceed to give evidence of conversations intercepted, as I understand it, up to January 1984 of everybody, whether they be from the Press or somewhere else- Mr Cadman —Why don't you charge them? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That is a good question. But let me finish my first point. I think public opinion would be horrified. Mr N. A. Brown —Why don't you make a decision about it? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will give the reason in a minute. I have made the point that the matter has not yet finished. I have been in touch with the New South Wales Government on the basis of its having the Commissioner of Police, Mr Avery, reassess the situation. That is not a difficult thing to do. Anonymous evidence-I emphasise the word 'anonymous'-has been given to Mr Justice Stewart by a concerned police officer that in New South Wales there was a special squad doing nothing else but tapping telephones for a long period, that it was an arranged section of the New South Wales Police Department, that in fact it had the blessing, obviously, of that Department and carried out interceptions over a long period. Mr Porter —Who was the then Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know. I make it clear that it was not reported to the New South Wales Government. That is the difficulty. Without delaying the answer too much, it was reported to the Federal police in 1980-81 and the Federal police paid an informant named Hawthorn for that information. There has been a wide-ranging pattern of interception which must cause concern to any law enforcement area. Obviously, it would not be just a question of the segment called the Age tapes; it would be a whole series of tapes covering a multitude of people over a long period with detailed diary notes being made and appropriate records being made. I would think that that information could be made available. I do not think it is easy to prosecute in this area because of having to prove the position. I cannot use any evidence given to Mr Justice Stewart because it is an admission. I cannot use that in a prosecution. It is made to a royal commission. Therefore, there is not much fear of prosecution. The problem I am finding is that police are demanding immunity for breaking the law. I hope that the matter can be intelligently looked at by the New South Wales Police Department. I am assured by the New South Wales Police Commissioner that he has asked the police in New South Wales to reassess their position. I have not had an answer because the police have not yet been able to give the Commissioner an answer about that matter. The position at the moment is that the matter has not been finalised, but the issue of indemnity and immunity not being granted at this stage is in accordance with advice given to me by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I ask the Minister for Housing and Construction: Is the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement now fully operational? Have all Premiers signed the Agreement? How does the current Federal and State funding compare with that of past years? Mr WEST —Yes, the Agreement is fully operational. All State Premiers and the Prime Minister have now signed the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. I might say that it is a very good Agreement. Mr Hurford —Hear, hear! Mr WEST —My colleague, as the former Minister, can take a great deal of credit for the negotiation of that Agreement with the States. The Agreement provides for the payment of $623m this financial year by the Federal Government to the States. Some $495m of that money is in untied grants and $128m is in tied grants for such aspects of housing as pensioner rental accommodation, Aboriginal accommodation, crisis accommodation and the local government and community housing program, not forgetting mortgage and rent relief. I said that we have allocated $623m which is a very high amount. But the total for the Federal and State contributions is much higher than that, because when one takes into account the State matching funds and the State nominated funds under the Loan Council one finds that a record $1,579m has been allocated to public housing in this country this financial year. It is a record in real terms. I have just said that the States can nominate up to the full amount of their Loan Council ceiling for public housing at the very good rate of 4.5 per cent interest. They have nominated $406m under that arrangement this year. So they have all done very well-except Queensland. I find when I look at my records that the Queensland Government nominated only $30m this year under that concessional arrangement, and an abysmal $10m in 1983-84 under the Loan Council arrangement for public housing. That sum is to be compared with $136m by South Australia and $96m by Western Australia. So much for the record of the non-Labor State of Queensland against the Labor States of Western Australia and South Australia. If one sets the record of $1,579m all up, Commonwealth and State, this year, against the record of the previous Government, one finds an interesting comparison. Under the previous coalition Government, whose members now so appropriately languish in opposition, there was systematic and vicious destruction of Federal assistance to public housing. At 1984-85 prices that Government ran down Federal assistance to public housing from $555 in 1978 to an abysmal $338m in the 1981 Budget. Obviously the Labor Government inherited a huge problem. I admit that there is still a problem in the community with regard to the need for public housing. There were many people in Canberra yesterday pressing their views on this matter. There are still 145,000 people on housing waiting lists, 118,000 of whom are receiving social security benefits. There are probably about 400,000 households in the private rental area whose occupants are eligible for public housing. Mr Aldred —On a point of order, I submit that the procedures of this House contain adequate provision for a statement to be made by the Minister on this matter. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I take note of the point of order raised by the honourable member for Bruce. As he knows, there is no restriction on the time taken by answers, but I ask the Minister to round off his answer. We have had only two questions in 13 minutes. Mr WEST —I intend to make the point that, as a result of the vicious destruction and systematic rundown of Federal assistance to public housing over a long period, and, despite the record efforts of Labor States and the Federal Labor Government in regard to Federal assistance, there is still a problem and we recognise it. We are going to do what we can about it. This Federal Government has a strong commitment to public housing-$623m. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Minister to conclude his answer. Mr WEST —I refer to a sum of $1,579m for help in this financial year. AGE TAPES Mr PEACOCK —I direct a question to the Attorney-General, who is Acting Prime Minister, in seeking to resolve the matters on which he was questioned by the honourable member for Menzies. The situation we have reached in respect of the Attorney-General's response-- Mr Young —Is this a speech? Mr PEACOCK —No, it is not; it is a question. The Attorney-General has expressed the view in this Parliament that the New South Wales Police were obviously committing a breach of the Telecommunications (Interception) Act and that they are 'liable to punitive action'. I am not advocating prosecution, but it is the inexorable logic of this man that would follow from those words-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask the Leader of the Opposition to come to the point of his question. Mr Keating —On a point of order, I submit that there are standing orders in this House and that questions must take a certain form. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the Treasurer had contained himself he would have heard me asking the Leader of the Opposition to come to the point of his question. Mr PEACOCK —Why, therefore, did the Attorney-General say that these police officers had committed a breach of the Act and were liable to punitive action if now he says he is not taking any action? Secondly, as we are getting no resolution on the question of indemnity and the honourable member for Menzies asked the Minister for his personal view, quoting the alleged personal view of his Department, will the Attorney-General now say whether he still sticks to his personal view that indemnity should not be granted? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I made the point that indemnity would not be granted where there was a deliberate breach of the Telecommunication (Interceptions) Act and that there would have to be proof of that. For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, let me make it clear-this is the difficulty I am in-that Mr Justice Stewart does not want his report tabled. In fairness to the Parliament, I indicate that his view is that there has been a breach of that Act-not found by me, but found by him. This is the problem I face. The other question is that the Leader of the Opposition says-with his natural ability because he does not have to abide by other constraints-'Why not prosecute the police?'. The point I make is that no admissions have been made. So what evidence would I have? I cannot put Mr Justice Stewart in the box and say: 'Well now, you have obviously found something'. Mr Peacock —You are going round saying that they have committed a breach and are liable to prosecution. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am telling you that is a finding; do you understand? Mr Peacock —You said that 48 hours ago. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is a finding as a result of interviews and other evidence. Does the Leader of the Opposition understand that? It is not a view but a finding. It is difficult in interception matters to get a conviction unless one can get actual evidence of the interception. If one goes back to the Federal Police investigation, which was a joint task force arrangement with the New South Wales Police, it will be remembered that the police reported to Mr Temby that there had been no illegal interception by any of them. That was the report-no illegal interception by any of them. With the greatest respect to the police, that is not supported by His Honour. When that dilemma comes into existence, His Honour says to me: 'Well, the issue is the authenticity of the Age tapes'. Mr Hodgman —Last year you said they were fakes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think that could still be a problem. The point I would make is that I think there are probably better tapes somewhere else, much better tapes, like original tapes-not the third, re-edited version of some tampered tape, which is obviously the position. Let me come to the point. If one could now find evidence that would warrant prosecution, obviously there would be a duty to do that. But here we are in the interesting situation that it is recognised that the tapes were made. They were made available to the Federal Police in 1980 and 1981. There is some evidence there perhaps of intercept, particularly in respect of Hawthorn, the New South Wales Police person, now retired, who would have problems. The issue I am facing is the public interest one: Is there any crime that has been covered up, as alleged by Senator Chipp in another place? I am anxious to avoid any suggestion of a cover-up. Mr Tuckey —You are like Nifty-you just want the cover-up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, I am not like the honourable member for O'Connor who always takes that sort of view. I have a duty to uphold the law. I make the point that if interceptions did go on to January 1984-that is a lot longer than people first thought-there must be a lot of tapes and a lot of intercepts. So we ought to be talking about exactly what is the subject of the indemnities. That is why I have asked the New South Wales Police to reassess the situation. I know that Senator Chipp will by now have asked whether he can look at the reports of His Honour and Mr Temby and I know what will be said in the Senate. I say in fairness to the honourable gentleman that, although he has not asked that question, I am prepared to make those reports available to him now on a confidential basis. Ms JAKOBSEN —Can the Minister for Health inform the House of the outcome of negotiations between Australia and Italy on the subject of reciprocal rights for health insurance cover? Dr BLEWETT —I thank the honourable member for her question. Medicare has enabled the Australian Government to begin negotiations for reciprocal health agreements with a number of countries. These agreements will enable short term visitors from those countries to be covered for health services in this country. In return, short term Australian visitors overseas will be covered by the health provisions of those countries. To date, negotiations are well developed with Italy and Great Britain, and this Government and the governments of those two countries are confident that the reciprocal agreements will be completed by the end of this year. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of discussing a similar reciprocal treaty with Yugoslavia and, again, negotiations went well. We are confident that within the next 12 months we will achieve a reciprocal agreement with that country. I have also been approached by the Government of Ireland to make a similar agreement. All such agreements are possible because of the Medicare system in this country. Mr SPENDER —I again refer the Attorney-General to his statement about New South Wales Police officers made in the House on Wednesday when he said: Mr Temby QC advises me that they are not entitled to an indemnity . . . I refer him now to what he has said today, namely, that it was suggested by Mr Justice Stewart that the police officers be granted an indemnity, and to what Mr Justice Stewart said when he made the following statement: 'Stewart doesn't want the report tabled'. I ask the Attorney-General: When did Mr Temby give his advice? Will the Attorney-General table that advice? Is it not false or misleading to say that he was advised that police officers were not entitled to an indemnity and that such matters are always a question of discretion for the Attorney-General? Is it not the case that Mr Justice Stewart did not suggest that indemnities be given, but formally requested them? Will the Attorney-General table a sanitised version of that request, omitting delicate or controversial material so that we can make our own judgment? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point is that Mr Temby, as Director of Public Prosecutions, having looked at Mr Justice Stewart's report which recommended that an indemnity should be given, recommended that they not be given. Mr Spender —When did he do that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He did it in this report which was released in December. I got the two gentlemen together in the hope of resolving the matter, because Mr Justice Stewart was actually absent from Australia throughout January. Mr Spender —When did that happen? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Early February. My most recent conversation with Mr Justice Stewart was held on 28 February, following a meeting of all of us which had taken place earlier in February. I had this meeting because I wanted to put to him the question of whether further efforts should be made to overcome the dilemma to which the honourable member has adverted. Mr Justice Stewart said he would consider whether he could get more co-operation from the New South Wales Police. He subsequently wrote to me in March saying that, having had discussions with his counsel, Mr Hampson, he felt he would not be able to get that co-operation. Mr Spender —So he had reached the end of the track with the New South Wales Police? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That raises another point. As far as Mr Justice Stewart was concerned, that seemed to be the situation. I felt that further efforts should be made with regard to the New South Wales Government. So on 7 March I wrote to that Government emphasising that in my view police officers throughout this land have a duty to disclose any information relating to criminal conduct. It is also a matter of common knowledge that an anonymous letter had been written-a copy would have been given to Mr Greiner and also to Mr Hatton, MLA-alleging that a whole series of interceptions had occurred under a very organised arrangement with the New South Wales Police Department. I feel that that matter ought to be investigated, from the point of view of our knowledge of all those matters and because the anonymous letter talked about police diaries being available. The fact is that in the New South Wales Police Department there should be written evidence of every intercept, because that is the normal arrangement. Allegations have been made. I am not saying that they can be substantiated. They were made by someone who was referred to as a 'concerned police officer'. But it was worth while, in my view, and is still worth while, asking whether there is any validity in these matters because the police officer actually names the officers who were in charge. He states what other detectives had to do before they could set up an illegal tapping arrangement. He mentions that the equipment purchased cost in the vicinity of $400,000. It was very sophisticated. This was not just an ad hoc arrangement; it was continuous. I feel that there must be some extrinsic evidence in that letter which might substantiate some of the matters being dealt with by Mr Justice Stewart. I make the point now that we still have not got an answer. I am also making the point that I am quite prepared to let the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) have a look at Mr Justice Stewart's report on a confidential basis. I have cleared that with Mr Justice Stewart. I asked Mr Justice Stewart whether I could release a sanitised edition of his report. He said he would still like to consider that matter. Mr Spender —What about the possibility of releasing the relevant part dealing with his request to you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —He will not approve of any release until he has had a think about it. I can understand that there is some frustration but I am quite happy to make an edited version available. The difficulty is that Mr Justice Stewart's report names the officers concerned. I do not want to mislead the Parliament in any shape or form as to where we stand at present. As far as I am concerned I want every item of information within the knowledge of the New South Wales Police made available to Mr Justice Stewart. Mr N. A. Brown —Do you still stick to your personal view? Do you still maintain that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —My personal view is held on the basis that I cannot grant indemnities to people who break the law. But other matters have to be looked at. Mr Coleman —You have a discretion. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Admittedly I have discretion, but I made the point earlier to honourable members that at this stage Mr Temby is preventing my using my discretion because he has used his discretion in accordance with an arrangement made to the effect that when he was appointed Director of Public Prosecutions the Attorney-General would act in accordance with his advice. Mr Peacock —That was an arrangement between him and your predecessor. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I accept that, but I am not satisfied at this stage that we have got to the end of the tether and have to make use of a discretion. Mr Hodgman —Will you now name the New South Wales politician involved? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Quite frankly, I know nothing about that allegation made by Mr Bottom. Mr Peacock —I don't think you want to know. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be very easy for Mr Bottom to give the information to Mr Justice Stewart. What is wrong with that? We have to avoid something which the Opposition is anxious to have, namely, a trial by media. Mr Howard —Come on! On with the show. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am happy to get on with the show because I am telling honourable members opposite that if they look at the two reports which I have they will see the conflict. I do not suggest this has ever happened before so there will come a time when one has to use discretion in the end. Mr FREE —Will the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations inform the House whether employment prospects for young people have been improving recently? Specifically, can he advise what the Government is doing towards the introduction of youth traineeships? Mr WILLIS —I assure the honourable member for Lindsay that prospects for young people in the labour market are improving. As honourable members would be aware, there has been a long term decline in employment prospects for young people, from about the mid-1960s to the early 1980s, during which period the number of full time jobs for young people declined alarmingly. This occurred in almost a constant wave for teenage girls and in two bursts for teenage boys from the mid-1960s to the early 1970s, and in the early 1980s. Since this Government has been in office that long term trend has been reversed and in the last 12 months we have had growth in the full time employment available for teenagers of 16,500 jobs, an increase of 3.8 per cent. We have had a decline of 22,000 in teenage unemployment figures for those seeking full-time work-a reduction of 12 per cent-and the teenage unemployment rate has declined from 27 per cent when we came into office to 23 per cent now. Although that is a substantial improvement and a reversal of the trend which we inherited as a government, it is still far from satisfactory and the Government is determined to improve substantially on it. In that regard we look forward to increased employment growth continuing to assist young people, but we need more than that. The Government has been in receipt of three reports recently which have recommended that the Government seek to develop some form of youth traineeship to develop education and training qualifications for young people, that being the major reform needed to develop their employment prospects. The three reports are the report of the Kirby Committee of Inquiry into Labour Market Programs, the report on youth policy in Australia by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the most recent report, the Bureau of Labour Market Research report on youth employment patterns. That latest report by the BLMR states that, whilst education and training qualifications for young people are the core of the problem, we need to look in addition at things like giving special assistance through measures like quotas, subsidies or affirmative action and also schemes like work sharing to assist them. The report points out that all of those concepts can be caught up in the youth traineeship concept. That is a unique way of developing the key features seen by the BLMR as necessary to greatly improve the employment prospects of young people. I am pleased to inform the House that the Government is moving rapidly to develop that concept of youth traineeships. Discussions have been undertaken in recent weeks with State governments, with the Ministers for labour, education and youth affairs, with the industry training network and with technical and further education authorities. In the course of the next few weeks we will be in a position to consider this matter further in Cabinet to decide whether we are in a position to develop a pilot program for implementation by the end of this year or the beginning of 1986. I am confident that we will be in that position and that youth traineeships will become a major feature of youth employment in this country from next year. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I refer the Attorney-General to his considered written answers to questions submitted to him by the Age newspaper and published in that newspaper today, where he said: Lesser criminals are sometimes given indemnity on the basis that their evidence will lead to the successful prosecution of major criminals. Police officers do not fall into that category. In the facts of the present case, is the Attorney-General seriously suggesting that the crimes of alleged conspiracy, corruption, interference with court processes and crimes associated with importing drugs are lesser crimes than whatever offence the New South Wales police may have committed? If not, will the Minister now apply to the facts of this particular case the declared policy which he had published in the Age newspaper this morning? Does the Minister maintain that there are no circumstances-I repeat, no circumstances- whatsoever under which police officers could be granted an indemnity? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —In answer to the last part of the question, I certainly do not maintain that that would be so in all circumstances. In answer to the question of an indemnity, I make the point that it usually relates to an offence in which there is more than one party and one can grant indemnity to the person involved in the lesser part of the offence to obtain a conviction against the major offender. That is frequently done. That is a little different from law enforcement officers not being related to any of the offences but intercepting telephone calls of citizens right across Australia, and then selling the information. What about questions of blackmail and privacy? What about the fact that these people have sworn to uphold the law? What does it do for the Telecommunications (Interception) Act if we now write into it 'Well, of course, police officers are exempted from getting judicial warrants' when our own Australian Federal Police cannot do it without judicial warrants? What provision is there for officers of the law not obtaining judicial warrants? What sort of a hackneyed law apparatus have we got if we can just ignore the laws of this Parliament, which carry a penalty of $5,000 or two years' imprisonment? Are honourable members opposite going to say we should cast that aside? Is that the Opposition's standard for carrying out parliamentary functions? Of course it is not. It is about time that honourable members opposite looked at what they are talking about. I make it very clear that Trimbole and others like him all did their deeds during the time members opposite were in government. Certainly we need to have an effective mechanism for dealing with criminals. Honourable members opposite must not get too upset about the fact that they were an abject failure in terms of law enforcement or prosecutions, be it bottom of the harbour schemes or anything else. It was a miserable period for the enforcement of law. At the present time, hundreds of cases are being prosecuted in relation to offences committed in the period when the Opposition was in government. Hundreds of cases are pending now, yet honourable members opposite have the audacity to suggest that suddenly something has gone wrong. I make the point that all of the interceptions basically occurred between 1976 and 1981. Mr N. A. Brown —You said '1984'. Mr Peacock —Didn't you say '1984'? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has now gone up to 1984. Mr Howard —It was the President of the New South Wales ALP. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, let me make the point on the Age tapes- Mr Peacock —Keating was President in New South Wales. Mr Howard —Keating and Wran between them. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You are just name droppers and smearers. That is all you ever do. Mr Howard —Keating, your President-- Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The little former Treasurer wants to talk about this. He ought to have section 16 emblazoned across the front of his house. It has been his refuge for a long while. He was never able to know who was a tax avoider. He was not supposed to know. That was utter rubbish under his law. Mr Howard —Get back to the question. You are snivelling around trying to protect your mate, Neville Wran. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have never attacked-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the House come to order. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —We come to the point-- Mr Porter —What has this to do with the point? Have you-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Barker. His daily interjections are becoming intolerable. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Why does he not control himself? Let us have a little bit of decorum. The issue is very much alive. It relates to the period from 1976 to 1981. Mr N. A. Brown —You said 1984 before. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It does in my view, but in the honourable member's view-- Mr N. A. Brown —You said '1984'. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Age tapes relate to the period from 1976 to 1981. Mr N. A. Brown —It is 1984 according to you. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —They do now. We are not talking about Age tapes now when we speak about 1984. We are talking about 1981 when we talk about the Age tapes. I want to get that clear in the honourable member's head. In other words, interceptions have continued. That is the disquieting factor. Interceptions have continued. I suppose they might have been encouraged to continue by the fact that when the Federal Police saw the tapes between 1980 and 1981 and paid money for them-in fact, they borrowed the tapes and we have all the information from the tapes-- Mr N. A. Brown —Have you read them now? Do you know what is on them? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I have not read them, no. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left have had the opportunity to ask a series of questions. I suggest that the Acting Prime Minister be allowed to answer without interruption. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am very much aware that the Age tapes have as much circulation now as a Penguin paperback. We know that the member for Northcott in New South Wales gave a copy of the tapes to somebody else who has-- Mr N. A. Brown —Don't you think it is about time you read them? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not think so because this matter relates to the honourable member's period in office. Here we have a series of conduct-obviously approved by the Federal Police, regrettably-in the period from 1976 to 1981. The Federal Police have used the information. Nevertheless, I wonder why it is that the former Attorney-General could not tell us that he knew nothing about those matters himself. He has asked me whether I know about the tapes. He was Attorney-General when the Federal Police had the tapes in their possession, and he knew nothing about that either, apparently. Mr N. A. Brown —I have asked you whether you have read the transcripts of the tapes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I want to make the point that the tapes-the original tapes-as honourable members know from the report by Mr Temby which was tabled in this Parliament, were given to the Federal Police. We are not talking about a sanitised version of the Age tapes now; we are talking about the originals. Nobody did anything about that, except pay money for the tapes. Mr Howard —How do you exercise a discretion if you have not read the transcript of the tapes? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I will tell the honourable member how I would exercise my discretion. One of the advantages of looking at Hansard is perhaps to look at remarks made by one's opponents. I think the honourable member for Menzies is on record as saying in December 1982, at the time he was Acting Attorney-General: Before a decision is made to grant an indemnity or to recommend to the Governor-General the granting of a pardon, all possible alternative courses must be considered. Mr ROBERT BROWN —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. I ask him whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, Ian Temby, in his report on the Age tapes referred to what amounts to the commission of an act of corruption by an officer of the New South Wales Police Force, namely, a Mr Jock Hawthorn, in illegally taping and selling to the Australian Federal Police, in return for funds from the Australian Federal Police, tapes which had been illegally obtained from the Radio Branch of the New South Wales Police Force, to which Mr Jock Hawthorn belonged. Is it true that the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police at the time was the former member for Bass, the Hon. Kevin Newman? Is it also true that Minister Newman, acting in his capacity as the Minister responsible for the Australian Federal Police, acted under the directions of the then Prime Minister, Mr Fraser, in directing Superintendent Lamb of the Australian Federal Police to apply Federal Police funds for the purpose of commissioning the act of corruption on the part of Jock Hawthorn to which I have just referred? Mr Sinclair —Mr Speaker, I ask the honourable gentleman to substantiate the allegations that have been made. Mr SPEAKER —Can the honourable member for Charlton substantiate the statements, as required by the Standing Orders? Mr Robert Brown —I can substantiate the fact that Ian Temby reported. The right honourable member can refer to Ian Temby's report himself if he is embarrassed by it. I can understand the Opposition's embarrassment. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Charlton has responded by substantiating them through the Temby report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The Temby report, which was furnished in July 1984 and tabled in this Parliament in August 1984, has all the matters in it to which the honourable gentleman referred. Mr Sinclair —Kevin Newman is not referred to in that report. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, but who was the Minister responsible for police at the time? Mr Howard —Are you claiming that there is a reference in the Temby report to the former Prime Minister? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am responding to the question and the honourable member is sitting over there. I make the point that the evidence tabled-tabled; a matter of record-is that Detective Superintendent Lamb gave evidence to Mr Temby, and it was published, acknowledging the receipt of sound tapes from Jock Hawthorn, a serving member of the New South Wales Police, and said that certain cash payments were made to Hawthorn; that Hawthorn, who was registered as an Australian Federal Police informant under the code name 'Irish', denied knowledge that the Hawthorn tapes were of telephone interceptions; and that he assisted Lewington and Jones by facilitating their access to the Hawthorn tapes. That was Superintendent Lamb's report. Apparently Jock Hawthorn, a former Sergeant Second Class and a member of the Radio Branch attached to the Crime Intelligence Unit, was unprepared to co-operate with the inquiries, admitted assisting Superintendent Lamb in setting up radio gear and denied being involved in anything illegal. What the honourable gentleman said is right-tapes were in existence. They were given to the Federal Police. They obviously came through Hawthorn. They were the result of illegal intercepts. The Federal Police paid money for those tapes at that time and probably used the information. To that extent the honourable gentleman is entitled to ask: What knowledge did the Ministers who were responsible for the Federal Police have of that matter? It is a matter of record in the Temby document which has been tabled that the matter was discussed with Sir Colin Woods, who agreed that the tapes could be received. There we have at the highest level of this nation's officers of the law understanding that there had been intercepts of telephone conversations, taking the tapes, transcribing them and using the information. Obviously the question is not one of giving that information to anybody in the New South Wales Government. I would be surprised if that information was given to any Minister in the Government at that time. I would be surprised if that happened. Honourable members might ask: What was the authority for the payment of the money? It must show a very extraordinary lack of accountability to parliament to think that all those matters could have happened-I am accepting the nuances coming from the other side-and nobody knew anything about them. There is ministerial responsibility and accountability for everything that happens in a Minister's department. There is an implied accountability. I think the point at issue is a matter of record. It is not for me to-- Mr Peacock —Mick wants you to wind up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mick does not have to worry about that. He is only making the point that we gave the Opposition plenty of time yesterday. This is a matter of record. If one looks at that record one must seriously wonder what happened during the period 1980-81. Mr N. A. Brown —You are the Attorney-General. Why don't you get on with what has to be done? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —If the honourable member gives me permission, I will look at what happened. Will he give me permission to look back? Mr N. A. Brown —You can look at any papers you like that I had in the time that I was there. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Including the honourable member's decision not to prosecute Mr Morgan Ryan on forgery? Mr N. A. Brown —Yes, indeed, do that. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Menzies. Mr N. A. Brown —No such decision was made. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —And the reason for that decision? Mr N. A. Brown —There is no such decision. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —You, the upholder of the pillars of law. Mr N. A. Brown —I repeat that there is no such decision. Mr SPEAKER —I have warned the honourable member for Menzies. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —There was a decision on 1 November 1982. The honourable member made the decision, unilaterally. Let us make that very clear. Mr N. A. Brown —You are wrong. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Do not deny your way out of it. It is a matter of record. There were two charges and you dropped one, by your own indications. Mr N. A. Brown —I take a point of order. Mr Speaker, may I have the opportunity of correcting the record on that matter? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies has been a member of this Parliament long enough to know that if he wishes to correct a personal misrepresentation he does it at the appropriate time by way of indulgence of the Chair. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The matters raised by the honourable member for Charlton are very valid and very serious. They happened in the period 1980-81. There are plenty of answers. The reason we are in government is that the former Government failed to administer the law. It failed to prosecute crooks. It failed to uphold its own law and, worse still, it paid money to people who broke our law. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Commonwealth-State Relations) —Pursuant to section 7 of the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations Act 1976, I present the Advisory Council for Inter-Government Relations annual report for the year ended 31 August 1984. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Pursuant to section 12AA and 12G of the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973, I present the Remuneration Tribunal and the Academic Salaries Tribunal annual reports for 1983-84. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr MacKellar) adjourned. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the text of a statement by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) relating to the overseas student policy review reports. 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) —Pursuant to section 39 of the Architects Ordinance 1959, I present the annual report of the Australian Capital Territory Architects Board for 1983-84. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong-Leader of the Opposition) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr PEACOCK —I do. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr PEACOCK —I would just like to say, Mr Speaker, that this is about the third or fourth time in nearly 20 years in this Parliament that I have sought to make a personal explanation. I normally allow comment to go through. Government members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I would remind the House that the period for explaining personal misrepresentations is a very difficult time for the Chair and should be heard in silence so that the Chair can hear clearly what is said. Mr PEACOCK —In a report in the Sydney Morning Herald of today's date allegedly written by a Hugh White it is stated, inter alia: On Wednesday in Parliament Mr Peacock asked the Government to release an ONA assessment on the CTB which said that a test ban treaty would be destabilising, unverifiable and disadvantageous to the Western alliance. In making his request, Mr Peacock gave every indication of endorsing the views that he attributed to ONA. That is a lie. It is in fact an outright fabrication. At no stage in either question-and honourable members will see it at pages 574 and 575 of Hansard dated 20 March-did I give any indication at all, let alone every indication as the person whose name appears on the byline indicates, of endorsing the views of the Office of National Assessments. My views on the comprehensive test ban-CTB-are on the record and I will stand by them. To ask a question in this House is not to affirm a view. For a journalist to write that I did and gave every indication-- Mr Hayden —Gee, you are thin skinned if you are going to get upset by something which has been said by a journalist. Mr PEACOCK —The Minister knows what both of us have had to cop over the years. I will cop any criticism on comment but I am not going to have put on the record without any checking with me that I have said something which is just not there. I do not think that any member of the House, frankly, has to put up with an allegation that he said or gave an indication of a view when he did not, and that would apply to anyone here. It is just a false and fabricated report. All I want to do is to nail the author for that and indicate that it is the fabrication I have mentioned. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies) —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N. A. BROWN —Yes, I do, Mr Speaker. During Question Time the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) said that one of my many shortcomings was that I had a matter concerning Mr Morgan Ryan before me-I think he said it was the charge of forgery-and that I had decided not to prosecute him. Mr Speaker, that is completely false and baseless. Let me say two things about it to support my explanation. I will do it as concisely as possible. It is true that when I was Acting Attorney-General towards the end of 1982 papers were put before me concerning that man. I might say that it is unfortunate the Attorney-General should be mentioning his name in public. Nevertheless he does. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that the honourable member go- Mr N. A. BROWN —He is awaiting trial, I might remind the Attorney. Mr Lionel Bowen —He is awaiting an appeal. Mr N. A. BROWN —He is awaiting trial. Why does the honourable gentleman not look up some of the facts? He is awaiting trial. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the honourable member get on with his personal explanation which he is making with the indulgence of the Chair and stop the cross chatter. Mr N. A. BROWN —I appreciate your indulgence, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, the papers were brought to me in 1982. The man had been charged with two offences. With respect to one of the offences, the Crown law authorities had decided already that that was not proceeding and therefore it was a dead issue and was not put before me for decision. With respect to the other one, the representations were to the effect that I should drop the charges, and that I should file a no bill. There was material put in in support of that application, including representations from some members of parliament. I reached the conclusion that the application should be rejected and that his trial should go ahead. That was my view. I got the opinion of counsel-indeed, I think the Solicitor-General as well; but certainly very senior counsel-who shared my view. My conclusion, supported by all the evidence, was that the trial should proceed and his request for a no bill should be dropped. That, Mr Speaker, was the decision I made. It was for that very reason that his trial proceeded. That was the reason he was convicted-because I rejected the application. Mr Lionel Bowen —Rubbish! Mr N. A. BROWN —Repeat that outside or you are a coward. Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Menzies does not come to order he will be outside by resolution of the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Mr Speaker, I claim to have been misrepresented. Mr SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister may proceed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) has made the point that I was wrong in suggesting that the person concerned had not had to face a charge of forgery even though it was one of the initial charges on which a committal for trial had taken place in March 1982. The record shows that representations were made over a period, as the honourable gentleman would know, not to have any bill filed against that gentleman. On 24 September 1982 a submission was made to Acting Attorney-General Brown indicating that the latest representations did not change the earlier recommendation; that is, that the two charges stand. The Acting Attorney-General obtained the Solicitor-General's opinion that the trial should proceed. On 1 November 1982 the Acting Attorney-General decided that the trial should proceed on the conspiracy charge-one charge, not two. Mr N. A. Brown —It was the only matter before me. Can't you understand that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not know how that was the only matter before the honourable member when as a matter of record- Mr SPEAKER —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The representations are quite serious. Mr SPEAKER —Order! So far the Acting Prime Minister has stuck to the matter of fact in respect of where he was misrepresented. I invite him not to extend his remarks into debate. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Just for the benefit of the lapse of memory by the honourable gentleman- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I seek the assistance of the Acting Prime Minister. There has been a growing habit in the House of trying to extend personal explanations into a debate. I ask for the assistance of the Acting Prime Minister. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, I am answering an interjection which I guess was out of order. Mr SPEAKER —Interjection is out of order and you should not respond to it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The point is that the committal was on two charges and the trial was on one. The discretion not to proceed on the other was the decision made on 1 November. As a matter of record- Mr N. A. Brown —It was not a decision by me; you know perfectly well. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, it says here that the Acting Attorney-General decided that the trial should proceed. I make the point, though, on the question of the trial, that the person concerned was not brought to trial in the period when the Fraser Government was in office; he was brought to trial in the period of the Labor Government. Mr N. A. Brown —Mr Speaker, I ask the Attorney-General to table the document from which he was quoting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The whole document completely which will show the earlier submissions made? The whole document? Mr N. A. Brown —Yes. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Yes, I am quite happy to table it. You are not going to bluff your way out of that. Mr N. A. Brown —You are a liar. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Mr Speaker, you would have heard the interjection. Mr SPEAKER —No, I did not. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, I was accused of being a liar. Mr N. A. Brown —That is right. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I ask for that accusation to be withdrawn. Mr N. A. Brown —I will not withdraw it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Well, you ought to be thrown out this House. What sort of a weak character are you? What sort of rubbish is that? Mr SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member for Menzies referred to the Acting Prime Minister as a liar he will withdraw. Mr N. A. Brown —Yes. I know there is one rule- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I ask him to withdraw it without reservation. Mr N. A. Brown —I withdraw. I will withdraw and I ask the honourable gentleman to repeat the allegations outside the House. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It is tabled; it is a matter of record. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, I do. During the adjournment debate in the House last night, the honourable member for Canberra (Mrs Kelly) accused me of making public remarks at the time of the serious fires around Canberra and Queanbeyan in early March which she claimed lowered the morale of the fire-fighters. I find her allegations not only personally offensive but grossly inaccurate. To suggest that I should set out to lower the morale of the very volunteers whom I have praised so often and whom I have fought beside is both fanciful and in very bad taste. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Bradfield will get on to where he has been personally misrepresented. He knows his explanation must be without any element of debate. Mr CONNOLLY —Yes, Mr Speaker. The comments to which I presume the honourable member was referring were made in a radio interview on 2CN-the Claire Martin show-on Monday, 4 March. I seek leave of the House to table a transcript of my remarks which cannot be interpreted as being in any way critical of the fire-fighters but which questioned some aspects of the administration of fire-fighting in the Australian Capital Territory. Mr SPEAKER —Is leave granted? There being no objection, leave is granted. Mrs Kelly —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. In my speech I did not refer at any time to that program. Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Bradfield sought leave to table the transcript. Mr Young —I am somewhat confused. If the transcript was not referred to by the honourable member for Canberra there would be no reason for us to give leave for it to be tabled. Mr SPEAKER —In other words, the Special Minister of State refuses to give leave. Mr CONNOLLY —I have already spoken to the Minister sitting at the table who gave me leave. Mr SPEAKER —Leave has been refused now. Mr CONNOLLY —Mr Speaker, with due respect to your ruling it is very difficult for a person to be able to-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I correct the honourable member for Bradfield. I ask him not to reflect on the Chair. When a request for leave to table a document is made it requires the leave of the members of the other side of the House, not of the Chair. I asked whether leave was granted. The Minister has made an explanation as to why he refused leave. I call the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr CONNOLLY —I will conclude, by quoting an article from the Canberra Times of 5 March. It quoted what I said which, apparently, the honourable member for Canberra found so offensive. The article stated: The Opposition spokesman on environment, Mr Connolly, criticised yesterday the handling of bushfires in the ACT and the co-operation between ACT fire authorities-- that is 'fire authorities', not fire-fighters, for the benefit of the honourable member for Canberra-- and those in nearby parts of NSW. Mr Connolly suggested the formation of a ministerial committee to support firefighters. He said that the need for co-ordination between authorities was shown by differing systems for declaring fire bans in the ACT and in neighbouring areas. Early yesterday morning there was no fire ban in the ACT when there was a fire ban in Yarrowlumla Shire. Mr Connolly also called for a national fire-education campaign, a review of firefighting resources in the Southern Tablelands, the replacement of old trucks and equipment and the prosecution of those who negligently or deliberately started fires. That is something the Australian Capital Territory has a long way to go to achieve. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-The Government is outraged by reports that at least 17 people were killed yesterday, 21 March, near the town of Uitenhage in violent clashes between South African police and black demonstrators. The Government condemns out of hand these killings, reportedly by South African Government authorities. It is almost beyond belief that this should have occurred on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the infamous Sharpe- ville massacre. Honourable members will recall that at Sharpeville 67 blacks were killed when police began firing on an unarmed crowd demonstrating in favour of the anti-pass campaign of the Pan African Congress. The Sharpeville massacre aroused unprecedented world concern and opinion against South Africa. It convinced the leaders of the African National Congress and Pan African Congress that peaceful methods offered no hope. Are the South African police incapable of learning from their own mistakes or should we interpret yesterday's events as confirming our worst fears about the deep-seated prejudice of the enforcement agencies of the white minority? This latest incident is yet another example of the continuing unrest in many parts of South Africa. Only recently 18 people were killed and over 200 injured in disturbances in the Crossroads settlement. This violence had been sparked by fears on the apart of the black residents in the Crossroads settlement that the Government was proposing to remove them by force to a new settlement at Khayelitsha. These violent incidents are not isolated. There have been many similar incidents in the past resulting in loss of life. At least 200 people were killed in violent political demonstrations in black townships during 1984, some because of differences within the black community, but most because of police action. Hundreds of individuals, including prominent trade union, student and community leaders, have been detained by the Government for demonstrating against the South African Government's proposed constitutional reforms. Last year there were widespread demonstrations in South Africa against the South African Government's constitutional proposals. Police and army units moved into black townships in an effort to stem the tide of violence and unrest. Many black political leaders were detained. The Government then deplored the suppression of legitimate political expression and the widespread system of arbitrary detention practised by the South African authorities. Again, we reaffirm our abhorrence in the strongest possible terms. The Government believes that the vile and repugnant apartheid system remains the basic cause of the unrest and discontent amongst South Africa's majority black population. The recent disturbances have been detonated by many issues. The principal cause is the continuing frustration and anger felt by blacks about the South African Government's failure to institute political and constitutional reform in line with the legitimate political aspirations of the black community. Twenty-three million blacks, 77 per cent of the population, cannot be deliberately excluded from the political life of their country. There are other issues of serious concern to blacks-arbitrary rental and utility increases; rising unemployment and inflation; and widespread dissatisfaction over inferior education for blacks. Above all, black anger is directed at the South African authorities' short-sighted and obdurate refusal to redress the abuses and injustices of apartheid and to initiate processes to fulfil the just aspirations of South Africa's disenfranchised black majority. The South African Government said that it seeks to establish dialogue with the black community. By arresting and detaining its political opponents, it has exposed its continuing intolerance of legitimate political opposition. This unwarranted slaughter has demonstrated its determination to crush ruthlessly even the mildest dissent. It makes a sham of the South African Government's professed intention to widen participation in the political process. The Australian Government is implacably opposed to apartheid. There is now no doubt that the fundamental elements of apartheid remain unchanged as the basis for political and social development in South Africa. Until it emerges clearly that the South African Government is moving to introduce fundamental reforms the Australian Government must reject as hollow pretence any claims that democratic progress has been made in South Africa. The Australian Government expresses its outrage that these killings should have occurred on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre, which focused international attention on racial injustice in South Africa. I repeat our condemnation of these outrageous killings of black people yesterday. The Government reaffirms its total opposition to the injustice and inhumanity of apartheid as demonstrated in yesterday's massacre. Finally, it calls upon the South African Government to act immediately to initiate a process of peaceful transition to democratic government for all races in South Africa. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein) —by leave-The Opposition wholeheartedly endorses the Government's statement. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has said, the episode itself is sad enough, but the fact that it should occur on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre can cause only dismay as well as horror in the minds of all reasonable human beings. This tragedy is undoubtedly a direct product of apartheid. In government the Liberal and National parties condemned that constitutionally and legally imposed system as being repugnant to the fundamental human right of people to be treated equally. In opposition we repeat that condemnation and reaffirm our abhorrence of apartheid. The perpetuation of that system creates intolerable injustices for the majority of residents of South Africa and is offensive to all persons who believe in the equality of human beings. No person who enjoys the privileges of equality in a democratic country such as ours could deny others elsewhere the same right and privileges. Consequently, not only does the Opposition support the sentiments expressed by the Government but also so should all Australians. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a statement on allegations made against me yesterday by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Is leave granted? Mr Young —Madam Deputy Speaker, we have made an arrangement with the Manager of Opposition Business to grant leave. It is a bit unusual. It follows on from yesterday. I thought it would probably be done by way of a personal explanation, but probably it would be done more quickly this way. We have agreed also that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs should have a very short time in which to reply. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Leave is granted. Mr EVERINGHAM —A new member such as myself can only feel flattered by and curious at the attention accorded me over the past two days by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), especially when one thinks of rising interest rates, falling expenditure on mineral exploration and some of the other problems facing both Ministers. It would seem that in their attempt to divert attention from their plan to penalise the Northern Territory electorate financially for daring to vote out my predecessor in this House they have decided to play the man and not the ball. They seek to justify the dishonourable intention of breaching the self-government financial arrangements by misrepresenting the Northern Territory Government's acquisition of the Darwin and Alice Springs casinos as some sort of evidence of financial resources available to the Northern Territory. I mention this in passing because the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs mentioned it in passing in his tirade yesterday. Let me make this quite clear: The fight with Federal Hotels Ltd was not about selling. It put the casinos on the market in 1983. It signed a contract for sale in April 1984. The fight was all about the price. This Government allowed itself to be used like a commission agent to drive up the price. The General Manager of Federal Hotels threatened me in August last year. He said that if I did not agree to pay the $55m Federal Hotels was after, his good friend John Brown, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, would help him out. I wonder how much commission on the eventual sale went to the stalking horse. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Order! I remind the honourable member for the Northern Territory that there is a standing order that does not allow honourable members to impugn improper motives to any other member of the House. Mr EVERINGHAM —Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps you could direct me as to whom I may have impugned. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —I was merely pointing the standing order out to the honourable member. As he is new to the House he may not be aware of it. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said that I offered to grant title to Ayers Rock to the Aboriginals. That is so, but at the time the Federal Government was pointing a gun at my head. Rather than the Territory lose everything, it was preferable to try to save some chestnuts from the fire. The Minister knows this well. It is just another example of his double standards and double talk. He knows that the Northern Territory Government is opposed, and always has been, to land claims over national parks, and I think so would other honourable members be in their States. If, as the Leader of the House (Mr Young) says, this is the big league, I think we should not be bowling underarm. Perhaps the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs might consider what he is saying in future and perhaps the Government might have scrutinised the credentials of its front line players with more care. The Minister has plenty to hide because, even though he will try to blacken me here in coward's castle, he would not come on the PM program and debate the matter with me last night. He is frightened of Richmond Council coming back to haunt him. The record of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has been abysmal. Even the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory has attacked his handling of the land rights issue. He has the unique distinction of being the author of 'the preferred land rights model' that nobody prefers, not even the members of the Northern Territory ALP. He should never point the finger at consultancies. After all, the Minister as a lawyer and consultant has been at the centre of a judicial inquiry on corruption. Let me first deal with the question of the manipulation of the Mititjula community at Ayers Rock by white advisers. My point has been proven not once but many times, before and after the Minister's recent visit to Ayers Rock. Honourable members will remember the blanket ban on the media going to Ayers Rock after the recent Willesee program. First we had the announcement that bans on the media to visit Ayers Rock had been lifted for the Minister's visit. Then we had the extraordinary situation in which the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in the Territory found it necessary to approach a white adviser to obtain a reaction from the Mititjula community to the announcement of the Minister's $100,000 rental deal on the rock. Holding drives your dollar further! Then, when I say my piece about white advisers, whom does the ABC go to for a rebuttal of those views? Not the Aboriginals; no, again it goes to a white adviser. The Aboriginals just are not allowed to speak for themselves. We found that once the Minister left the rock, the media bans were reapplied and the Melbourne Herald staff were refused permission to photograph the rock for a tourist promotion feature. I quote from the front page of the 18 March issue of the Herald: At Ayers Rock we were told that no-one from the Mititjula community could talk to us except in the presence of their community adviser, Mr Ross Johnson. Mr Johnson could not be contacted. Why is it that white advisers, three of them-lawyers I believe-do not want the Aboriginals talking to the media? It could be dangerous. It could dispel some of the myths and baloney perpetrated over the years by these white advisers about Aboriginal connections with the rock, and, worse, they could lose their power base and all their Federal funding. There is every reason for the white advisers to want to hide the truth. I seek leave to table a letter dated 14 September 1947 from William H. Liddle, obtained from the Australian Archives. Leave granted. Mr EVERINGHAM —Thank you. Mr Liddle, a Centralian pioneer, was married to an Aboriginal woman and lived at the Angus Downs Station near Ayers Rock. That letter is over 30 years old. It was to the Northern Territory Administration and comes from the Commonwealth's own archives. It states in part: We have two wonderful places, Mt Olga and Ayer's Rock-geological wonders of the world, but at present they are just in the native reserve. I think that both places should be open to the public. I have known these places for nearly 30 years, and all that time the only natives ever there were only travelling through and only camp one or two nights. There is really nothing to keep natives there, as there is no game to speak of. So it goes on. Land rights, it was the boast, would lead to a resurgence of pride and self-confidence among Aboriginal people. Does title over the rock mean that a group of people should lose their right to speak for themselves? Is that conducive to a resurgence of pride and self-confidence? The Minister champions the cause of these confidence men. The Government could have done a lot better than to choose the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to point the finger at consultancies. This Minister will not be going down in history as a paragon of legal ethics; more likely it will be as a partner in Doddson and Fogg. His record as a lawyer and consultant to the Richmond Council, while he was Leader of the Opposition in Victoria, has probably been the source of quite a few learned articles on what not to do as a legal practitioner. The Minister, after all, warrants a section to himself in the Nicholson report on corruption in that council. At page 680 of the report there is a section headed 'Mr Clyde Holding, MHR'. I quote from that report: The position is complicated by the fact that Mr Holding was a member of a firm of solicitors which advised the Council from 1970 until the conclusion of its litigation with Protean in 1980 . . . At some stage during this period Mr Holding withdrew from active practice as a partner in that firm and became a consultant. Although, let me add, he continued to act for the Richmond Council. Mr Tuckey —Wrote letters for them. Mr EVERINGHAM —Yes, he wrote letters for the Council. There is no foundation in fact. It is astounding that the Minister should have the temerity- Mr Young —Come on, it's not a second reading speech. Mr EVERINGHAM —Cut me off, gag me again. It is astounding that the Minister should have the temerity to raise the issue of a possible conflict of interest. I quote from the same report: The conflict of interests involved in his . . . role as a politician . . . and his role as a legal adviser were such as to have made it unwise for him to have endeavoured to perform the latter role. If the Minister would like it, I will seek leave to have the relevant pages incorporated in Hansard. I will be acting only as a general legal consultant to the firm of Morris, Fletcher and Cross in Darwin, rather than Brisbane as the Minister suggested. I have applied in the normal way for the issue of a practising certificate. Unlike the Minister, I severed all financial and beneficial connection with my own legal firm in 1978, when I became Chief Minister in the Northern Territory. I have had no previous commercial relationship with Morris, Fletcher and Cross, and to suggest that I could, or would, tell White Industries Ltd who to employ as its legal advisers is beyond belief, and an insult to a listed public company. Nor did I have anything to do with retaining the firm's services in respect of the casino development; absolutely not. A number of firms are carrying out legal work for the Northern Territory Development Corporation as well as the Corporation's own in-house lawyer. The Minister might like to know that my personal legal work has, until this year, been carried out by another firm. Let us take a last look at the Nicholson report. Page 683 states: As far as electoral frauds were concerned, I am satisfied that the 'proof' was within Mr Holding's reach-if he had wished to grasp it. History repeats itself. Like the Bourbons, the Minister seems to have learned nothing from it; although, unlike the Bourbons, when he answered the question he must have forgotten something. He is like a dog going back to its vomit. The proof of improper use of funds within the Aboriginal Development Commission is today well within his grasp and has been for months and months. Yet again he prefers to look the other way. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs he should grasp the nettle, even if it does sting him. The Minister also said that I am adept at giving away other people's property. That is really fine, coming from him. He is so humourless that he would not see that it is the old pot calling the kettle black. Talk about give-aways; this Government has been giving away taxpayers' money, more than $100m of it so far, I believe, buying uranium from Queensland Mines under its sales contract with France. This man will be remembered as the Minister who gave away Australia's greatest natural attraction. He has handed it over to the control of an embittered group of white advisers who will ban access to the rock to anyone who dares to question their motives, might even like to feature it in a tourist promotion supplement in the Herald or, worst of all, who might ask embarrassing questions of the Aboriginals. My offence, in the Minister's eyes, is that I have stood up to him over the seizure of Ayers Rock, which is nothing more nor less than a brazen act of piracy against the Australian people. As the sole representative of the Northern Territory in this House I will not acquiesce in his destructive and divisive policies on land rights. No one wants this Minister-not the Aboriginals, not the ALP, not the miners and certainly not Mr Burke. He has been a total and abject failure. If the Minister thinks he can bludgeon me into submission, that he can impose his disastrous land rights policies on the Northern Territory and throughout Australia, he has badly misjudged the mood of the Australian people. Government members can bucket me on every sitting day if they like. They can tip away for all they are worth. But it will not make a shred of difference to my firm conviction-and I know that it is the firm conviction of the majority of Australians-that Ayers Rock belongs to all the people of Australia. To the people, all of the people-not some tiny group-it must be returned. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-The honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) was quite wrong when he said that his offence in my eyes relates to his perception of Ayers Rock. His offence in my eyes, and the matter which triggered this debate, was a broadcast made by the honourable gentleman in which he openly and publicly slandered two solicitors and a whole Aboriginal community. So gross was the slander that within 24 hours the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in Darwin dissociated itself from the remarks and made a public apology. It is all very well for the honourable member for the Northern Territory to slander solicitors who act for Aboriginal communities. I have never heard him slander or use the same terms for legal advisers acting for mining companies or corporate structures. But there is always the presumption that if one is a lawyer trying to do one's best for an Aboriginal community, one is manipulating it. That concept has been repeated by the honourable gentleman. How gullible does he expect this House to be, when it is confronted with the fact that he offered a title to the Aboriginal community at Ayers Rock before this Government was elected? How gullible does he expect this House to be when he says in this House today: 'I only did it because the Federal Government had a revolver at my head'? What Federal Government? Who was the Minister? The Federal Government that he is talking about was the Federal Government of Mr Fraser. Which Minister for Aboriginal Affairs was holding the gun at his head-the aggressive Mr Wilson? He will have to do better than that. He might get away with that kind of nonsense in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. But one of the commodities of this place is that if he wants to make those sorts of statements he will be checked and called to account when he so grossly misrepresents the facts. The facts were referred to yesterday. The very community that he now says today should not have title is the very community that he visited-the date is available so there can be no doubt about it-in January 1982, because the Federal Government had a revolver at his head! This fearless advocate of white rights in the Northern Territory went to the community because of the enormous pressure from Mr Fraser and his fearless Minister, Mr Wilson, in order to say: 'I will give you a perpetual freehold title, the strongest available title in Australia'. Of course, the reality is that it was not his to give. The Aboriginal people did not need any legal consultants to tell them that he could give them nothing. As I said yesterday, this is the man who is more than generous with other people's property. What was the thrust of my allegation? There is not a single statement that I made in this House yesterday, which so excited members of the Opposition, which the honourable gentleman has sought to refute; not a single fact. I ask honourable members this question: Why should a simple statement of fact produce such frantic movement within the Opposition? What are those facts? They are very simple. The facts are that, having entered this Parliament, the honourable gentleman, not holding a practising certificate in the Northern Territory- Mr Duncan —He has applied for one now. Mr HOLDING —I assure honourable members that whether he gets one is a matter of deep question in the Northern Territory. I am concerned to raise this matter, not so much in terms of the honourable gentleman, but in terms of the principles and processes which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock) thinks are appropriate to be adopted in respect of what has to be seen-we might not see it this way, but this is the way in which the Opposition poses as the alternative government of Australia. When the Leader of the Opposition wants to lecture us on how to run the Government, we are entitled to ask: How well does this Leader of the Opposition run his shadow Ministry? The fact is that any shadow Minister has privileges, additional rights, in order to enable him to discharge his duties. The question I raised-I believe legitimately and properly-was: How is it that a man who does not hold a practising certificate and who has not practised law in any serious way for some years because he had a responsible task to fulfil in his role as a politician was suddenly offered a retainer from a Queensland law firm? Mr Hodges —What is wrong with that? Mr HOLDING —I will deal with that in a minute. There is certainly nothing wrong with a law firm making the offer but there may be something very wrong with a Leader of the Opposition who permits a shadow Minister to enter into these arrangements with this Queensland-based law firm. Mr Sinclair —Hawke was wrong? Mr HOLDING —I will deal with that. Why was this firm so impressed by this man who does not have a legal practising certificate? Representatives of the firm must have met him. In what capacity would they have met him? This law firm was the legal adviser to White Industries Ltd, the developer of Yulara, which the Northern Territory Government is underwriting 100 per cent. That is taxpayers' money. That firm acted for the two companies used as vehicles to buy the casino. Mr Kent —It is big business. Mr HOLDING —Yes, it is big business. The man who is at the centre of it-not as a legal adviser-is the former Chief Minister. This firm just happened to act for the Northern Territory Government in the casino takeover. I wonder who gave the firm its instructions? I wonder who impressed the firm with his knowledge of the law? This firm now acts for the Northern Territory Government in respect of the Yulara development. The lawyers opposite, among whom there are several Queen's Counsel, know that it is possible to retain a very senior member of the legal profession for a retainer of $3,000 or $4,000. A person has to have an exceptional legal talent to obtain a retainer of $20,000 on a yearly basis. How is it that this law firm chooses to advise it on legal problems, of all the lawyers available to it from the Victorian and New South Wales Bars as well as the Northern Territory Bar, a man who does not even have a practising certificate? Mr Hodges —When are you going to make a good point? Mr HOLDING —All of a sudden we are asked to believe that this man who has not practised for years and who described himself as a shyster lawyer-that is his term, not mine-receives $20,000 on the basis of advice to be given. I do not believe it. His legal colleagues in the Northern Territory do not believe it. I do not think that any person who objectively looks at the situation believes it. This is not payment for advice to be given and honourable members opposite know it. I did not say it yesterday but what worried the honourable member's colleagues and caused all the excitement was that honourable members opposite believe, as do many people in the Northern Territory, that it is payment for services past rendered. Let us deal with that. What does that mean to the Opposition? If it is good enough for the honourable member for the Northern Territory as a shadow Minister, why is it not a standard that is generally applicable to other shadow Ministers? Can we honestly believe that John Howard, as the shadow Treasurer, would take a $20,000 or a $5,000 retainer from a group of banks to advise them on the financial system? Can we honestly believe that anybody would retain-- Mr Leo McLeay —Neil Brown. Mr HOLDING —That is right, Neil Brown in his capacity as shadow Attorney-General? What we have got here-- Mr Shipton —When are you going to worry about the Aboriginal people? Mr HOLDING —If anyone wants to retain the honourable member for Higgins and some of his colleagues opposite in regard to Aboriginal affairs, they would come as a job lot. It would not cost anything like $20,000 for them. The Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition have to make up their minds. This is a simple issue. I do not believe that our Westminster system can survive on the basis of Ministers or shadow Ministers being for hire. It is as simple as that. The reality is that this boy from the bush has been prepared to adopt a standard which strikes at the whole process of government. The fact that it is being condoned, and it has been condoned, by the Leader of the Opposition means that we have a new standard in the Liberal Party of Australia. This is the Opposition with shadow Ministers for hire. It is a case of rent yourself a shadow Minister if you want a favour and you have a pocketful of dollars. We do not accept that principle. The Opposition should not accept that principle. All the bluster of the honourable member for the Northern Territory does not overcome the betrayal of the Westminster system. The Acting 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 satisified with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that 'the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Humble Petition of the undersigned Citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. THAT the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. THAT we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron and Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth; That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and its future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the force of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in 'Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid 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 school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Baldwin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to introduce laws to: (1) Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications, (2) Register imported pornographic video tapes for non-commercial use with the Film Censorship Board and require the Censor to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are greatly concerned with the extent to which serious crime including murder, major drug financing and massive tax frauds have penetrated into the highest levels of Australian society as shown by the investigations of various Royal Commissioners and in particular by Mr Frank Costigan Q.C. That we are concerned that the National Crime Authority has too many restrictions and possible lines of veto placed upon it for it to be an effective successor to the Costigan Enquiry and that this will allow major criminals to avoid prosecution. And your petitioners humbly pray that the Federal Government negotiate urgently with the Victorian Government on the reactivation of the Costigan Commission and to extend its term to at least the 31st March, 1985 and also to provide the Costigan Commission with whatever resources it may need to successfully conclude its investigations into organised crime in Australia. Further we believe that the issue of organised crime in Australia is so important that the Parliament should not be dissolved until at least the interim Costigan Report has been received and fully debated in both Houses of the Parliament. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitants be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Holding. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government reject any attempt to re-introduce tertiary fees. by Mr Kerin. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that your petitioners are concerned that action by the Government to: (a) extend entitlements and allowances to de facto relationships as outlined in the August Budget (b) to granting of overseas travel entitlements to other than spouses of Federal members of Parliament (c) failure of the Government to prevent the granting of privileges and travel allowances of homosexual partners of members of the A.B.C. Has imposed on the Australian community a moral standard fundamentally opposed to the principles of the Christian Church and the majority of the non-Christian community. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take immediate action to ensure that these allowances and privileges are withdrawn and that the Government should do all in its power to consolidate the position of the traditional family unit in the Australian community. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Millar. 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 people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their effort to achieve a Nuclear-Free South Pacific and such declaration being endorsed by the people at a General Election. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the US 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 Milton. 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 Donald Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of concerned people of the Electorate of Indi respectfully show their desire that your honourable House (the Government) act to implement more equitable guidelines for payment of independence allowance to enable young Australians who have been employed in the work force to be eligible for Tertiary Education Assistance allowances where that employment has been undertaken while still at school. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors in the State of South Australia showeth that we strongly object to the cruel slaughter of brumbies in Northern Queensland and demand its cessation. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will do all in its power to stop the slaughter of brumbies, or, if this is not possible, to have it carried out in a humane manner. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Wilson. Petitions received. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —I wish to inform the House on behalf of Mr Speaker of the membership of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education. Mr Blanchard, Mr Campbell, Mr Gayler, Mr Hand and Mr Price have been nominated by the Government Whip. Mr Everingham and Mr Shipton have been nominated by the Opposition Whip. Mr Ian Cameron has been nominated by the National Party Whip. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies Act 1964, this House appoints Mr Gayler and Mr Shipton to be members of the Council of the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies and to continue as members until the dissolution of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. The following Bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or requests: Trust Recoupment Tax Bill 1985. Trust Recoupment Tax (Consequential Amendments) Bill 1985. Honey Levy Legislation Amendment Bill 1985. Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that consideration of the amendment in Committee of the Whole House be made an order of the day for the next day of sitting. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take effective action against organised crime in the light of matters arising from the New South Wales Police tapes. 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 N. A. BROWN(Menzies)(3.41) —This matter of public importance will proceed in the terms in which it is presented, but I could not help thinking as it was read out that perhaps its terms should be changed to read something on the following lines: 'The complete disappointment of the Australian people and their state of complete confusion brought about as a result of the Attorney-General's handling of the matter relating to the Age and New South Wales Police tapes'. If ever there were a case in which confusion reigned supreme in this House in regard to the actions of the present Government, this must be it. There can be no doubt that the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) should be condemned for his whole handling of the Age New South Wales Police tapes matter from beginning to end. If there were a case for condemning him at the beginning of this day, there is certainly a case for condemning him now in even stronger terms. The result of his performance at Question Time is that everyone is in a state of complete confusion as to the Government's position on this matter and there is no doubt whatever the Government does not have its heart in pursuing organised crime. It is abundantly clear that the Government does not have its heart in pursuing those aspects of organised crime which we are continually being told are revealed by the Age tapes. I thought there used to be confusion when the previous Attorney-General was speaking, but the present one makes him look like another Sir Owen Dixon. I have never seen a situation in which an aspect involving the running of law and order and the enforcement of law in this country had been put into such a state of utter confusion. We now have a situation in which the Government is not prepared to take firm action against the specific matters of organised crime referred to in the Age tapes. We have a situation in which the Attorney-General, faced with a personal decision on the granting of indemnities, probably has a personal conflict of interest himself. He has allowed conflict of advice to arise and degenerate to the extent that no clear decision has now been made as to whether indemnity is to be granted to the police. The Attorney-General, apparently, has no concept of the seriousness of the major features of organised crime revealed on the tapes compared with the breaking of a statutory provision as had been alleged in regard to the New South Wales police. Let us look at the outset at the question of indemnity. I put it that the Attorney-General clearly has no concept of the principles in respect of indemnity. He seems to think that simply because there has been a breach of the law no indemnity should be given. That is complete and absolute nonsense, and contrary to some very authoritative statements made on the subject. Even in this country we have had the reports of the Williams Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drugs, the Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking, the Stewart Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking, and indeed Mr Temby himself, the Director of Public Prosecutions. All of them have made the basic point that on occasion, in the enforcement of law and order in the pursuit of crime and particularly organised crime, indemnities must be granted. Of course there are principles to be considered, but it should be firmly understood that indemnities can be granted and in appropriate circumstances should be granted. Indeed, it can be said that they can be granted even where police officers are concerned if a case has been made out. But what has happened? The Attorney-General has put himself in this position. He started off by making statements in the House and in the Press to the effect that indemnities should not be granted. I remind the House of the words he used in this House the other day-- Debate interrupted. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 3.45 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require the question to be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Debate resumed. Mr N. A. BROWN(Menzies) —Let me remind the House of what the Attorney-General said in the House. He said that the police concerned are not entitled to indemnity. If ever there was a clear statement of the Attorney-General's own position, that was exactly it. He then went to the media and said on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio: 'I can't give them an exemption'. If there was any doubt as to the Attorney-General's position, it surely must clearly have been that he had reached the conclusion that indemnities would not be granted. Despite that, his office put out a statement to the effect that that statement was a personal view, that no formal decision had been made. I do not know how an Attorney-General can have a personal view on a matter like this. That was the view of the Government; that was the position. It was only when he was pursued on the matter today that he grudgingly came forward and said: 'I have had advice from Mr Temby, I have had advice from Mr Justice Stewart, I can't make up my mind, and the matter is still open. We are talking to Mr Justice Stewart about it'. This shows a complete abrogation of responsibility on the part of the Attorney-General to make a decision himself. He has the facts before him, he has the advisers, he has the principles, he should know what the tests are to apply, and the obligation is his. He has given that obligation away. He has abrogated all his responsibility to make a decision on this matter of indemnities. In the course of that he has brought about utter confusion as to the position of the police concerned, and in the minds of the public, as to whether strong action will be taken to pursue the matters of organised crime revealed on these tapes. That is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation, for which the Attorney-General himself should be condemned. He should not have allowed the situation to degenerate into a state of utter and complete confusion, as he has. He should have taken personal control of the matter, and he should by now have been in a position in which he can make a decision. But he keeps saying: 'Well, the matter is still open. We are getting advice. We are talking to this one, and we are talking to that one'. The House is entitled to ask how much longer we have to wait. It is entitled to say that until honourable members get a decision on this matter we are entitled to conclude that the Attorney-General is weak, that he is not prepared to give the necessary indemnities so that evidence can be given by the police on the making of the tapes. It is a complete abrogation of responsibility by any Minister, particularly by an Attorney-General, to take that attitude. Secondly, we can look at his attitude to the police. The Attorney-General has no scruples whatever about standing up in this Parliament and saying that the police have obviously committed a crime. I have never heard an Attorney-General say that of anyone in a parliament. I have never heard an Attorney-General, in this country or overseas, stand up and say: 'This particular person, these particular people, have obviously committed a crime and should have punitive action visited upon them'. That is an outrageous attitude which brands the police as criminals. What sort of standards of justice are being applied by this Attorney-General if that is the sort of thing he says? There is no doubt that what he is doing is preparing the ground for a situation in which indemnities will not be granted. It will be dressed up as advice he has received from outsiders. It will no doubt be motivated by the feeling that he does not want indemnities to be granted, and he does not want them to be granted because he does not want these very serious matters of organised crime to be pursued vigorously. Thirdly, I have put to the Attorney-General that his position is compromised, and if there were ever a situation in which a Minister should be in a independent position, uncompromised by personal considerations, it surely must be the situation of an Attorney-General. He represents the people's interests in the law, and if the people have no confidence in the Attorney-General they have no confidence in the administration of law and justice. I put a direct question to the Attorney-General as to whether he had a meeting on 9 February 1980-I repeat '1980' because he seems to have trouble grasping that point-with one of the people who is said to have been intimately involved with a number of matters referred to on the Age tapes. The Attorney-General replied to that question by saying: 'Oh, I had representations from a man'. He gave the man's name. I repeat my point that it is incredible that the name of a person awaiting trial can be mentioned in public, in the Parliament and particularly by the Attorney-General. That is a discreditable act. I come back to my basic point which is simply this: It is not as if I was asking the Attorney-General whether he was compromised by a meeting he had with a particular person. The fact is that that meeting on 9 February 1980, if it did take place, took place at the very time that a number of the acts occurred which were described on the Age tapes and which have been referred to in the media. Dates and descriptions were given of the actions that people allegedly engaged in. An Attorney-General cannot allow himself to be put in a position where there is an apparent conflict of interest between what he knows, what he has done personally, and his public duty. He cannot allow a situation to arise where there is even an apparent conflict of interest let alone a real one. We believe the Attorney-General should concentrate on the issue for a start and get the facts right. I am asking him about a meeting in 1980. If he wants to give us other details of associations he has had with the person concerned, let him do so. If he wants to give us particulars of associations he has had with other people concerned with these matters, let him do so. But at the outset let him concentrate on the facts and then ask himself honestly whether he can exercise his discretion as Attorney-General, tainted-I use that word advisedly-by that involvement with at least one person who is concerned with events described on the Age New South Wales Police tapes. Before the Attorney-General goes any further in naming people in public and in saying that people are obviously guilty of offences he should consider what one of the famous British Attorneys-General said of the role of an Attorney-General. He said that an Attorney-General must be wholly detached and wholly independent. I suggest that for centuries it has been an accepted principle in our sort of society that an Attorney-General cannot allow himself to be put in such a compromising position. The Attorney-General has compromised himself by his actions in this matter. What are the motives behind the Government's performance on this extraordinary matter? On the one hand it has no qualms about saying in the Parliament, through the Attorney-General, that the police have obviously committed offences and crimes and are deserving of punitive action. But when it comes to the Opposition putting the proposition to the Government that it do something positive about the substance of the organised crime described on the Age tapes material, then hands are thrown up in horror and the Attorney-General does two things. He says: 'Oh, no, we are going to get advice from this one and that one. We do not want any hasty action. We have been looking at this matter for only 12 months and you cannot rush this sort of thing. We will look at it and in the fullness of time something may or may not be done about it'. The Government has failed in giving a proper balance between what on the one side may be a statutory breach by the police and what on the other side is evidence of corruption, attempts to pervert the course of justice in New South Wales, offences relating to the import of drugs and other far more serious matters. We say that the Government has failed in its responsibility and in its obligation because it has no concept of the serious matters relating to organised crime to which it is turning a blind eye. We say that the Government will continue to fail in its responsibility until it gives proper consideration to these serious criminal matters and until it puts to one side whatever statutory offence the police may have committed and takes some positive action to prosecute. If that means granting indemnities, we say: 'Grant indemnities'. The Government does not have to lay down a rule for the future about the police. We are not saying that in all circumstances indemnities should be given to the police. We say: 'Look at the facts. Look at what has happened. Consider that the police were trying to do their best, acting under guidance and authority. They were chasing organised criminals who, it is said, are involved in the most serious crimes'. As long as the Government fails to concentrate on that issue, as long as it fails to take positive action to prosecute and as long as it dresses up the problem with all the nonsense about the difficulty of granting indemnities, we will continue to say that it is failing in its duty. It is failing in its duty today. It is not pursuing these matters of organised crime, and it should do so. I ask rhetorically: 'What are the motives? Is some senior politician in New South Wales being protected? Is that the reason? It will come out sooner or later. The Government can follow the way of its brothers in New South Wales if it likes and have the matter drawn out like teeth, tooth by tooth, day after day, or it can come clean, make the whole thing apparent now and take some positive action. The choice is up to the Government. But at the moment it has failed in its responsibility and it should be condemned for not fully, vigorously, enthusiastically and honestly, pursuing these very serious matters of organised crime. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford Smith-Attorney-General)(3.55) —The honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown) is noted for his eloquence and also his ability to put a very good case. Today's matter of public importance relates to organised crime in New South Wales. I did not hear one example of failure to pursue that matter. I accept the view that Question Time today was a little serious from the point of view of the honourable member for Menzies and he seemed to lose control of himself because he was worried about how he had performed. I do not take any umbrage at that. The whole of the honourable member's 15-minute speech today was his personal view of me, which he is entitled to have. Surely the issue is wider than that. The honourable member asked me a question about the Cessna-Milner case, something of which I have no knowledge, and he asked me about something that happened in February 1980. I have no knowledge of that. There is no conflict of interest, and I am certain that I never met the person concerned until 1982 in circumstances which were directly related to his being committed for trial. Mr N. A. Brown —You said 'certain', did you? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am certain of that, yes. At the time the honourable member originally raised that question I was not aware of what he was driving at when he referred to February 1980. I admitted to meeting the person concerned. I make the point that, if the honourable member raises, as he has today, the question of being tainted by association, he would have had more association through representation with that person than I would have had. Mr N. A. Brown —I never met him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable member may never have met him but he acted in that case. I made the point that I had to see him because of Mr Birney, the Federal member for Phillip, who was representing that gentleman at the time. The honourable member knows that that is a matter of record. He asked that information regarding that matter be tabled today, and it is all on record. I ask why the honourable member should get up now, having looked at that information, and suggest that there is some question of my having a personal interest in this matter. As I understand the honourable member's attack today, he says the 31 police involved in the making of the tapes should be exempted because by so doing there would be an opportunity to prosecute criminals and unless indemnities are given we might not be able to do that. That is not the evidence. I do not want to go over it in detail. The evidence is old and obsolete and goes back to a period between four and eight years ago. It is very clear that the criminal intelligence gathered in the Age tapes was, in fact, used. The shadow Attorney-General would know that. It has led to prosecutions. There is no question of certain evidence not being known. I emphasise again that it was known to the Australian Federal Police. I emphasise again that it was used. The honourable gentleman is worried about organised crime. Everyone is concerned about organised crime, but if police officers are exempt from the law, that in itself sets a very poor example. We are not here to prosecute the police, but the police have asked for exemption from the law. The media today is divided on the issue. Mr Howard —Because there is a worry that serious crime has been committed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It would be an extreme worry if investigation of serious crimes was being avoided by the police. The problem that the honourable gentleman has lies in his trying to find a particular case. Mr Temby said: 'You cannot give exemptions in this matter'. I will have to make a decision but this will not be done with any uncertainty. It is quite clear that all that is necessary is that those police officers should tell what they know. That is all that they are being asked to do but they are resiling from that position. It is very clear by today's attack on me that the Opposition cannot find a case. We have had problems with organised crime not only in New South Wales but throughout Australia. The narcotics trade, the Nugan Hand Bank, bottom of the harbour schemes go right across the length and breadth of this nation. The previous Government did not pursue taxation investigations, the stripping of companies and the collection of tax in the period commencing in 1977. If members opposite look at the McCabe-Lafranchi report, the Costigan report and the Williams report they will see that in that period there was massive organised crime and even murder-I refer to the Wilson murders. Trimbole was allowed to leave the country during that period. The Opposition cannot suggest that it has a good record on organised crime. Organised crime is what I was hoping would be addressed here today. Mr Temby now has literally hundreds of prosecutions under way. They relate not only to criminal conduct but also to the recoupment of tax due to this country. Members opposite should ask themselves why they lost office. They lost office because of the facts coming out of the Costigan report and the McCabe-Lafranchi report, and their failure to pursue matters raised in those reports. Mr Justice Stewart had all the information made available to him, on the recommendation of the Government. That information was also made available to the Special Complaints Commissioner in New South Wales, by statute of this Parliament. Mr Justice Stewart has stated that he wants an indemnity for all of the police. Mr Temby has said that the police should not have indemnity. That is the position. I have gone back to both of them and have said that I would be very grateful if they would come to a unanimous decision on this matter. That is why I have made reports available to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Peacock). He can judge for himself. Somebody eventually has to make a decision in the matter. Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby cannot make a decision. In fact, Mr Justice Stewart does not want his report tabled, so I am in the position of having to recognise what honourable members opposite say are the rights of the police concerned, because they are named in the report. I also have to recognise the fact that Mr Temby, QC, is of the view that the public interest has to be considered in this matter. He has said: 'What of the future conduct of police if this is the precedent?'. What precedent do we set if we allow police to be exempt? The opportunity to do it legally was there. It was a question of getting judicial warrants, as the Federal Police do. It was a question of being able to use the normal processes of the law. The fact that the normal processes of the law were not used cannot be readily excused. I accept the view that in certain circumstances, where there is a suggestion of crime, discretion would have to apply, but this is a lock, stock and barrel operation. We have 31 police, all in or all out, asking for exemption. That is where the difference of opinion arises. In the recent High Court case concerning the Australian Secret Intelligence Service raid it was stated: The incapacity of executive government to dispense its servants from obedience to laws made by Parliament is the cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. The Federal Telecommunications (Interception) Act is a protection of the civil rights of the citizens of Australia. Breaches of it, particularly by police, are not matters that can be overlooked, except in situations of the utmost gravity. The Age tapes authentication issue relates to a period four to eight years ago. It is the considered view of both the learned Mr Justice Stewart and Mr Temby that everything possible has been got out of those tapes by way of criminal intelligence. They have in fact been used and have been very helpful. Mr Bottom has said he has further information of somebody trying to stop a prosecution. Let him appear before Mr Justice Stewart immediately and relate that issue, but the issue is certainly not new matter to do with the Age tapes. We have to talk about responsibility in this area, in which I have a difficult decision to make. I will accept the abuse levelled at me by the distinguished member opposite, the honourable member for Menzies. I am still going to make that decision. I see nothing wrong with my conduct in calling both these parties together and asking why it is that they cannot agree. If and when their reports are published, be they a sanitised version to protect people or otherwise, honourable members will be able to see the conflict of interests that they have. The dispute between them as to the public rights of individuals in respect of their privileges will be seen. If one looks at Mr Justice Stewart's report one sees that he found that the interceptions went on until January 1984. That is an extraordinary state of affairs. Obviously there are a lot more tapes around. It is not a question of just this limited select period-- Mr N. A. Brown —Did Mr Young and yourself know about that? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I think it is a matter at issue here, but I would not have known about it. Mr N. A. Brown —Did Mr Young? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Did you? Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Menzies is not in the courts conducting a cross examination. He is in the Parliament and he will remain silent. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I make the point that that is where it is at the present time. Obviously people must have known about it. That is the interesting point. How many people are affected? It is not just people engaged in criminal conduct. It might be people engaged in perfectly honest and legitimate conversations, be they members of the Press, politicians or ordinary citizens. Unless the honourable member accepts the principle that we have a Telecommunications (Interception) Act prevention, unless under judicial warrant, we can throw the Act away. The argument that is made here today is: Thirty-one police did what they did and they have to be exempt because they asked for exemption. Let us have another look at the evidence available. We are not really talking about the question of criminal intelligence in this matter; we are talking about the authentication of the Age tapes. But that is a minor issue compared with the fact that there could be thousands more tapes. That is clear when we look at this other evidence. What is my responsibility? Should these people be able to obtain an indemnity so that they can say whatever they like about everybody for any length of time? Even the honourable gentleman admits that there would need to be some qualification of what they would be able to say, be it in respect of a particular period or be it in respect of a particular matter. It is not a question of the police officers talking about whether the Age tapes exist of not; it is the people who are mentioned in the course of that conduct. I think that is a matter well known to the police in Australia. The Government of this country has a responsibility to uphold the Telecommunications (Interception) Act. It has a responsibility to expect that police officers will carry out their duties in a lawful way. It has a responsibility to guarantee that in an issue of gravity suggesting serious crime discretion applies, but it very seldom applies to the extent that it requires the granting immunity to 31 police at one time. We have a report on the conduct of the previous Government in Mr Costigan's report. The report says that the level of crime, bottom of the harbour schemes and trading in narcotics-all of which relate to the Age tapes period of 1976 to 1981-was massive. We were able to attack the Government of the day on its failure to do something about these issues, particularly the taxation issue. The Government lost office and it certainly lost credibility. It made no prosecutions in the whole of that period. It is a very bleak record. That is why honourable members opposite are in opposition. Mr Costigan reported that organised crime had virtually raped this country during the period that honourable members opposite were in government. Mr Sinclair —Not true. What about Mr Costigan? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad to have the recognition of it. We are fighting very hard against organised crime. In recent months we have been very busy organising extradition treaties, which could have been organised many years ago but which were not, particularly in countries to which criminals flee. Nothing was done about that. We are very much up front in organising extradition treaties with all countries with which we can make treaties. Members opposite might ask why it was not done in the case of Ireland. One might recognise that intelligent criminals were able to get that information because of the former Government's failure to perform and, therefore, seek refuge. These are matters to which the former Government could have addressed its mind, but it did not do so. I have established a task force to deal with this matter. The task force is making great progress. This is the sort of thing that the previous Government could have done. We established the position of Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director has 150 lawyers working for him now. When the Opposition was in government there was virtually no one working in that area of prosecution. We have given the Director of Public Prosecutions the resources to go ahead. Hundreds of people are now facing prosecution. Many complex cases are involved, all of which relate to the equivalent of bottom of the harbour prosecutions. No prosecutions were ever launched before. The prosecutions involve large scale tax evasion and major narcotics offences. These are prosecutions of this Government. I will accept all the personal abuse. That might have been the best way to raise this matter of public importance today. There was no matter of importance in the Opposition's subject for discussion. Certainly the Opposition cannot deny the fact that I have conflicting advice. I do not want the Opposition to argue any more on that issue. The Government was anxious to establish the National Crime Authority. We did so. We got the Authority under way. Mr Sinclair —But it took ages. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that it took ages. There are reasons for it. Mr N. A. Brown —It doesn't have any teeth. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —That would be a matter of recommendation by Mr Justice Stewart. We are also anxious to pursue the question of civil remedies. We are anxious to get to the question of- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The Attorney-General's time has expired. The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(4.12) —I am honoured to inform the House of my appointment as the shadow Minister representing the shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs in the Senate, Senator Collard. It gives me very great pleasure to announce this appointment because I will now have the opportunity of speaking in this House on matters involving the welfare of Australia's ex-service men and women. In recent days there has been considerable discussion in this House about the treatment of social security pensioners, but very little has been said about the wicked, disgraceful and thoroughly shameless treatment of Australia's ex-service men and women. The rotten action of this Government in applying the assets test to service pensioners is, in my humble opinion, one of the most shameful actions of a government in the treatment of men and women who have been prepared to fight for this country and for the freedoms which we treasure. Might I say in passing that I wish to congratulate the Federal Minister for Veterans' Affairs, Senator Gietzelt, for at least having the candour and honour to call upon ex-service organisations throughout the nation to fight for the rights of Australian ex-service men and women. I believe Senator Gietzelt is to be congratulated because he broke the conspiracy of silence as to what the Hawke socialist Government had in mind with respect to the welfare of Australia's ex-service men and women. It is a day of shame for Australia when any Minister announces, as Senator Gietzelt was obliged to announce earlier this week, that 13,387 service pensions had been affected by the assets test. This represents 3.4 per cent of the service pensioner population. Honourable members will recall that in this House yesterday the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said that the number of social security pensioners affected was 2 per cent. What does that show? It shows that the impact of the assets test has fallen more heavily on the ex-servicemen and women of Australia than on social security pensioners. I repeat that 3.4 per cent of Australia's service pensioners have had their pensions either cancelled or reduced. Mr Lloyd —A lot of them in my electorate, because of the soldier settlers. Mr HODGMAN —A lot in every electorate. This is the way gallant Australian men and women who fought for this country are being treated by this heartless and cruel Hawke socialist Government. Let me cite the figures. As of Thursday of last week 6,893 service pensions had been reduced. As of Thursday of last week, 6,494 had been cancelled. This represents approximately 45 service pensioners in each Federal electorate. The savings in service pensions will be of the order of $29.5m a year. It is a pity the figure did not come out at $30m because it would then come very close to the 30 pieces of silver upon which treachery and disloyalty are encompassed in another occasion in history. I protest on behalf of Australia's ex-service men and women, men and women who were prepared to go to battle to fight for Australia. I protest as the son of an ex-serviceman, a life member of the Returned Services League. I protest, having had in my own right an involvement in the Royal Australian Naval Reserve. I know that the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay), for whom I do have a regard, intends to speak in the adjournment debate. I hope that he, with his commitment for the defence of Australia, which is well recognised in this chamber, will say something about the way the ex-service men and women of Australia have been treated by this rotten, shameless Hawke socialist Government. If the Standing Orders had permitted it, I would have proposed the use of two minutes of my five minutes in silence in this chamber in memory of the treatment handed out to the ex-service men and women of Australia by the Hawke socialist Government. As we approach Anzac Day, 13,387 ex-service men and women of Australia will realise how little the words 'Lest we forget' mean to the Hawke socialist Government. I can assure the Government that the ex-service men and women of Australia will never forget it for what it has done and it will be thrown out of office at the next election. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(4.18) —Mr Speaker, I congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker. It is a pity that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) did not record in his speech the criminal conspiracy of the previous Government in its failure to provide veterans' benefits to the many thousands of Torres Strait Islanders and Aboriginals who served this country in its time of peril. I came to the chamber this evening to talk about the high increase in demand for places in Australian universities over the last few years, which is the result of a number of factors, including programs that have encouraged secondary students to stay longer at school. Another reason is the growing recognition that tertiary qualifications are an advantage for people seeking jobs in Australia's changing and increasingly competitive labour market. Universities and colleges of advanced education claim that, as a result of the increased demand and the limited growth in tertiary funding, they have had to lift entry standards, particularly for the more highly technical courses. Others claim that there is still room in the tertiary system for institutions to take in more students without additional funds. However, many applicants have missed out on courses for which their marks would have qualified them in earlier years, and others have missed out on tertiary places altogether. In Queensland the participation rate in tertiary education is lower than the national average, placing school leavers at a special disadvantage. Many students who achieved high tertiary entrance scores have been turned away from universities in Queensland because places cannot be found for them. As a result many of our young people and their parents are bitterly disappointed. Prospects for increased tertiary admissions in Queensland are somewhat limited, to put it mildly. I understand that this year the University of Queensland received about 11,000 applications for approximately 3,500 places. Last year 60 per cent of the original 9,534 applicants who had nominated the University of Queensland as their first preference failed to gain admission. The competition is fierce. In 1980 a student with a tertiary entrance score of 880 would have qualified for admission as an architecture student within the University of Queensland. In 1984 the minimum tertiary entrance scorce at the University of Queensland for an architecture student was 945. Students who achieved tertiary entrance scores in the mid-700s and the mid-800s range seem most seriously affected as they now have been excluded almost totally from higher education. As a result many able students do not get the chance to receive a tertiary education. Not long ago students with similar school academic results would have entered tertiary institutions. At one high school in north Queensland only 35 per cent of the students who completed grade 12 in 1984 are continuing their studies. Of those students who are continuing their studies, only one-fifth of their number are attempting an associated diploma course. It seems that tertiary institutions in Queensland are persisting with a staff-student ratio of 1:11. The national staff-student ratio is 1:13. If Queensland institutions were to increase the student ratio it is possible an extra few hundred young Queenslanders would enter tertiary institutions who might otherwise be excluded. The Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, has provided an extra $65m for tertiary education in 1985 compared with 1984-the largest annual increase since 1977. Unquestionably the rundown in the tertiary education system has occurred because of curbs on funding imposed by the last Liberal-National Party Government. It is clear that the Liberal-National Party has no real policy on tertiary education and its performance in government from 1975 to 1983 indicates that tertiary education would not be a priority for a future Liberal-National Party government. Young people are the greatest resource of this nation. Only a Labor government can fulfil the hopes of the Australian people in providing access to tertiary institutions and thereby enable them to acquire the skills and knowledge necessary for a productive working life and for full participation in an increasingly complex society. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(4.22) —I wish to support the comments made by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) concerning the assets test. I refer particularly to the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The area that I represent contains probably one of the largest soldier settler districts in Australia. Many soldier settlers are now becoming eligible to receive the age pension and are hopefully looking to transfer their farm from one generation to the next. I can easily understand the figure that was given by the honourable member for Denison which showed that a higher percentage of veterans than social security pensioners were affected by the assets test. That is certainly the case in my electorate where the number of veterans receiving the pension would be double the national average. A figure released by the Department of Social Security office in Shepparton indicates the very high percentage of people affected. Unlike the honourable member for Denison, I am very critical of Veterans' Affairs, because it has been using Australian Taxation Office valuers much more frequently than has the Department of Social Security. Valuations are terribly important; they are the critical factor in whether or not a person is excluded from receiving a pension. Remember, one is out once a family's assets are equivalent to $176,000. Most of the properties in northern Victoria are being revalued, as is required under State legislation. Nearly all of them were revalued, about 12 to 18 months ago when farm and land prices were higher then they are now. As a result it would now be impossible to sell any of those places for anywhere near the valuation price. However, Veterans' Affairs more than Social Security is not accepting even that inflated shire valuation of these properties; it is sending up its own valuers who are valuing blind. One cannot value a property in the irrigation districts of my electorate unless one knows the details of the water right, the drainage situation, how much of the property has been laser graded and a whole variety of other things. One cannot do that by valuing blind. When property owners are asked 'Well, if you want to get the pension, why don't you sell?', they say, correctly: 'The only way we can sell is to accept a price that is about half of the valuation'. In fact, as a result of the announcement made today by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on the dairy plan they would probably get only about a third of the price. They should be eligible to receive the pension if they sell their property at half the price, which would be below the valuation price. However, they are in a catch-22 situation. To add to the problem, valuations are being made in respect of renting or leasing a place at 10 per cent of its capital value. This is completely absurd and shows the unrealistic criteria being applied by both Social Security and Veterans' Affairs because the going rate for agricultural land is 5 per cent. We have been told about the hardship criteria. The entry point for the hardship criteria for the assets test is no more than $5,000 in cash or in the bank. Older people in rural areas want to have $5,000 or so because of their concern about the problems of seasonal income variations. We all know that older self-employed people who are concerned about hospital costs and paying for funerals like regularly to put money into a little kitty. The despicably low figure of $5,000 is the cut-off point for these criteria. We are not talking about the wealthy people of Australia in respect of the assets test. The wealthy people of Australia do not receive a pension because they do not qualify under the income test, although some are so smart that nobody in any government department will catch them. We are not even talking about the wealthy farmers because the wealthy farmers have been able to generate enough income for two generations. We are talking about the people in the poorer structure of the self-employed farming community of this country who are trying to pass on incomes and farms from one generation to the next. We are talking about people who have not been able to transfer their farm through an ordinary sale arrangement to the next generation which has basically been working without income for years. The assets test is now being used against them. The Government has made a terrible error in failing to distinguish between those in the self-employed sector of this community who must generate their own investment and who must create capital-farming is the most capital intensive industry in this country; that is why it is the most efficient-and those who as a secondary form of investment are using capital to avoid the income test. That is where the Government is hitting the self-employed, and particularly people in the agricultural sector. The Government's policy is ideological. It is completely absurd that people in Sydney or Melbourne with a house worth half a million dollars are not affected at all by the assets test but people with a property worth less than $200,000 which is their sole means of income are excluded. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(4.27) —In the few moments left in the debate today, as a new member in this place, I want to make an observation on what I regard as an appalling set of double standards from members on the other side of the House. Honourable members opposite had their opportunity to do something in many years of government. They have had their opportunity and failed to produce a workable system for this nation in key areas such as taxation, pensions, a universal health scheme or the dairy industry. We on this side inherited a mess. However, we are now moving into constructive policies and finding constructive solutions to the problems that face this country. Day after day in this House we get drivel and nonsense from across the chamber. In the last 20 minutes or so we have been listening to speeches on the assets test. The Government recognises that some fine tuning is needed in this area. However, what has not been recognised is the process that is being undertaken. We have been prepared to take decisions. We have been prepared to set a motion a national ruling off line. Everybody in Australia now understands what planning for the future is all about. The assets test is now in place. It is now a case of planning, whether this be by way of superannuation schemes or building up a capital base. We on this side of the chamber will now set in motion steps to implement things such as a national superannuation scheme to supplement the assets test so that people in our community have a clear indication of where they are going. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) today had to take probably one of the hardest decisions that will face our Government. He and the Cabinet have taken a decision which effectively takes the dairy industry down the path of deregulation and makes it responsible to the market mechanism. For years we have heard claptrap from members on the other side of the House about deregulation and free enterprise. One simply has to look at the mess which exists in the dairy industry at the moment in terms of the production, marketing and dispensation of manufactured and liquid milk products to understand that something had to be done. This Government has taken the plunge. It has made the hard decision and it will make the dairy industry work. We should be receiving credit for this. Those on the other side of the House should acknowledge that this Government is prepared to take, implement and review decisions. Mr SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday next. House adjourned at 4.30 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 22 March 1985: Australian Antarctic Territory Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Heard Island and McDonald Islands Act-Ordinance-1985-No. 1-Migratory Birds (Amendment). Customs Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 26. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Regulations-1985-No. 7 (Motor Omnibus Services Ordinance). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 62) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 22 February 1985: (1) What are the details of grants from his Department to each of the following groups involved in the Roxby Downs Blockade during August 1984, Total Environment Centre NSW, Movement Against Uranium Mining (NSW), Friends of the Earth (NSW), People for Nuclear Disarmament (NSW), Friends of the Earth (Vic.), Friends of the Earth's Food Justice Centre, Chain Reaction (Friends of the Earth magazine), Friends of the Earth (National Office) and Northern Territory Environment Centre (a) between July 1983 and April 1984 and (b) since April 1984. (2) Is it anticipated that any of these organisations will receive further grants. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) From the Grants and Contributions to Conservation organisations: Grants between July 1983 Grants and since April 1984(a) April 1984(b) $ $ Total Environment Centre NSW 5,000 8,000 Friends of the Earth (National Office) 10,000 11,000 Environment Centre NT 20,000 37,000 None of the other groups has received grants from my Department. (2) No decisions have been made on the allocation of future grants and contributions to conservation organisations. In accordance with the usual practice this matter will be considered following the Budget announcement of the sum to be provided for such grants in 1985-86. (Question No. 22) Mr Jull asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: What are the present official fare levels agreed upon by (a) Qantas and (b) Japan Airlines for travel between Australian airports and Tokyo for (a) premium class or first class, (b) business or executive class, (c) full economy, (d) advance purchase, (e) tour basing fare and (f) other excursion fares. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Identical fare levels have been agreed upon by Qantas and Japan Airlines for travel between Australian airports and Tokyo for all fares except business class fares. Present fare levels are set out below: FARES AUSTRALIA-TOKYO (Australian dollars) From Code Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Darwin Faretype- (i) Premium/First Class P/F 1772 1905 1735 2061 1779 1535 (ii) Business Class (Qantas) J 1249 1328 1219 1249 1082 (ii) Executive Class (JAL) c 1135 1207 1108 1328 1136 983 (iii) Full Economy Class Y 1135 1207 1108 1328 1136 983 (iv) Advance Purchase-Peak YHAB RT 1233 1325 1210 1262 Advance Purchase-Shoulder YOAB RT 1040 1130 1015 1148 Advance Purchase-Off Peak YLAB RT 954 1045 930 1066 (v) Tour Basing (Individual) YIT35 RT 1575 1715 1538 1529 1325 Tour Basing (Individual) YIT40 RT 1450 1540 1420 1540 1450 Tour Basing (Group)-Peak YH35GN RT 1077 1168 1052 Tour Basing (Group)- Shoulder Y035GV RT 867 958 842 Tour Basing (Group)-Off Peak YL35GV RT 760 852 736 (Question No. 123) Mr Connolly asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 28 February 1985: (1) Has the Government received a formal request from the New South Wales Government seeking Commonwealth support from the listing of New South Wales rainforests on the World Heritage List; if so, (a) when was this request received and (b) what action has it taken in response to the request. (2) When does he expect the matter to be finalised. (3) When will the report by the National Rain Forests committee be completed. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) &(2) The Premier of New South Wales wrote to the Prime Minister on 13 December 1984 advising that his Government was preparing a nomination of the State's rainforests for inclusion on the World Heritage List. Copies of the final nomination papers prepared by the NSW Department of Environment and Planning were received by my Department on 27 December 1984. A thorough examination of the nomination is taking place at present by the Government and it is hoped that a decision will be made in the next few weeks. (3) I expect that the Working Group on Rainforest Conservation will report to me in May 1985. (Question No. 85) Mr Spender asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 25 February 1985: (1) Did the then Minister for Defence Support announce in Press Release 50/83, dated 16 December 1983, that award of contracts for project definition studies on the new submarine project would be made in August 1984. (2) Did the Minister announce recently that this deadline had not been met; if so, what are the specific reasons for the failure to meet the announced deadline. (3) What is the current planned date of the entry into service of each of the planned submarines. (4) What was the planned date for each submarine as at 16 December 1983. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) In a media release dated 9 January 1985, I said that more time was required before the Government would be in a position to announce the successful Project Definition Study Contractors. The tenderers provided very extensive and detailed information, requiring complex analysis. This analysis, and the subsequent consideration of the findings of the evaluators, has required a much longer time than was anticipated when the earlier announcement was made by the then Minister for Defence Support. In a project as large and important as this, it is proper for the Government to ensure that the money to be spent, will be well spent. (3) It is too early in the development of the project to formulate precise planning dates for the entry into service of the new submarines. Current tentative plans are that the first of the new vessels will enter service in 1991 or 1992, about the time the oldest boat of the existing Oberon Class is paid off. (4) the above tentative planning has not changed since December 1983.