Tuesday, 26 November 1985 Mr SPEAKER (Hon. Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members will have become aware of an incident in the chamber last night when a person dressed as a chicken entered the chamber and sat on the ministerial bench. Although a number of honourable members have been approached by officers of the House in an attempt to identify the offender, there has been a universal denial of any direct knowledge of the incident. I wish to indicate to the House my disgust that any honourable member would show so little respect for the institution that the honourable member would behave in this way. In addition, one of the chamber officers was spoken to by an honourable member in an extremely abusive manner in the course of his inquiries. This is deplorable conduct on the part of the honourable member. Those concerned in the incident are guilty of bringing the House into disrepute. I hope that my views on this matter have the support of the majority of honourable members and will help to prevent any similar outrageous behaviour in the future. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. Will the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal apply in any way to the one-third of the Australian work force employed in the public sector? Mr WILLIS —The agreement between the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions in respect of the productivity case was to support a claim for a 3 per cent increase and for that 3 per cent to apply after 1 July and be implemented over a two-year period. Of course, a productivity case outcome would normally apply, if taken as a wage increase, to the whole of the work force-- Mr Sinclair —Including the public sector? Mr WILLIS —With the inclusion of the public sector. Therefore, the fact that it is taken as superannuation rather than as a wage increase would not exclude the public sector. The situation is that about 45 per cent of the work force is currently covered by some form of superannuation. There is a considerable variation in the extent of the superannuation which applies to that sector of the work force which has it. With the outcome of the productivity case there would be an expectation that for those who have superannuation at present there would be some improvement in their superannuation. That improvement may not necessarily take the form of an increase or improvement in end benefits. It can, for instance, take the form of an improvement in vesting, that is, the ability of the employee to have some right to the employer's contribution to the scheme at an earlier stage than is currently the case. In respect of the public sector, it may well be that that would be the way in which any productivity case outcome would apply. Mr SPEAKER —Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Peter Tapsell, M.P., Minister for the Arts in the Government of New Zealand. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr O'NEIL —Is the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs aware of comments made by the Leader of the South Australian Opposition, Mr Olsen, regarding the Pitjantjatjara Land Rights Act? Do these views accord with those of the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, and contrast with those recently expressed by the Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council? Mr HOLDING —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yes, I am aware of the comments made by the Leader of the South Australian Opposition, Mr Olsen, on the Sunday program of 17 November. Mr Olsen said of the Pitjantjatjara land rights Act that it is fair and workable land rights. He said that the Act does not lock up the land for exploration. By any view of these remarks, they represent a very strong endorsement of the Pitjanjatjara Land Rights Act. Mr Olsen's comments came very soon after the announcement of the South Australian Government of a $32.5m exploration venture covering some 20,000 square kilometres of Pitjantjatjara land. As I have previously pointed out to the House, that agreement represents, I think, a landmark in mining and Aboriginal land rights issues. Mr Olsen's comments are also in accord with the comments made by the South Australian Premier, Mr Bannon, that the exploration agreement demonstrated that with goodwill and a common-sense approach the Pitjantjatjara Act can operate not merely for the benefit of the Pitjantjatjara people but also for the exploration industry and for all Australians. However, Mr Olsen's comments contrast sharply with those of the spokesman and Executive Director of the Australian Mining Industry Council, Mr Strong, who indicated that in his view the Pitjantjatjara Act creates delays and costs that will lead companies to decide against proceeding with development and exploration. The views of Mr Strong also seem to be at odds with those of the Amoco, Crusader and Quadrant energy companies which were able quickly to reach a satisfactory arrangement in conjunction with the Pitjantjatjara people for mining on their land. With Mr Olsen's endorsement of the Pitjantjatjara Act following soon after that of the three major resource developers, Mr Strong and AMIC seem to be oddly out of step. However, I would also use this opportunity to emphasise that not only was it the provisions of the Act but also it was the sensitivity and the skills shown by the Minister for Mines and Energy in South Australia and the resolution and goodwill shown by the Government of South Australia which brought this very positive development to fruition. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer to the answer given by the honourable gentleman to my last question. Does the application of the Government-Australian Council of Trade Unions superannuation productivity deal mean that the Public Services superannuation could become more generous for participants? Mr WILLIS —I have nothing to add to my previous answer. Mr GEAR —Is the Attorney-General aware that in the Western Australian Legislative Council the North East Metropolitan Province has 95,000 voters and returns two members whilst the Lower North Province has only 8,500 voters and also returns two members? This is an imbalance of 11:1. Can the Minister inform the House of provisions in the Bill of Rights that will bring the principle of one vote, one value to gerrymandered parliaments in Australia? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It has been well known for a long time that the upper House in Western Australia fails to give democratic rights to the citizens of Western Australia because of the imbalance that has been outlined in the honourable member's question. Likewise, the electoral distribution in Queensland gives a tolerance of 3 : 1 or 4 : 1 against people in the city. The whole idea of international covenants is to guarantee that countries at least practice what they profess, that is, democracy in every sense of the word. Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is fairly specific about this matter. It talks about every citizen having rights which include this right: To take part in the conduct of public affairs . . . through freely chosen representatives; A further provision in that Article states: To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be-- I emphasise this- by universal and equal suffrage . . . Universal and equal suffrage really means that there should be some parity between the rights of electors, not an imbalance of 11 : 1. I also notice in Press reports that the Liberal Leader in Western Australia has already said that he would oppose any proposal, certainly to have a redistribution but, more to the point, to have a referendum of Western Australians as to whether they want electoral reform. One must ask what the honourable gentleman is frightened of. He can be afraid only of the people in Western Australia having the right to decide democratically what sort of electoral provisions they want. I make the point that the recent legislation passed by this House ratifying the ambit of the Bill of Rights and the International Covenant by bringing it into Australian law makes provision for the Human Rights Commission to report on various acts and practices, whether they be Federal or State. Once that Bill has been passed by this Parliament I would be very anxious for the Human Rights Commission to report on proposals for redistribution in places such as Queensland or for the upper House in Western Australia. I am very confident that an impartial Human Rights Commission would bring down a report which says that those provisions fail to comply with the International Covenant on the basis of equal universal and adult suffrage. Why should the Commission not so report? To give a tolerance of 11 : 1 certainly denies democratic rights. If the Human Rights Commission were to so report, as I think there might be justification so to do, it would be appropriate for this Parliament to pass legislation pursuant to the International Covenant recommending that future distributions, whether they be Federal or State, be on a universal and equal adult suffrage basis. I hope that the Australian Democrats in the Senate understand the position too. They seem to think that there is some weakness in the present Bill. There is no weakness in that Bill from the point of view of clearly indicating to the Australian people that there are international rights which governments in Australia have an obligation to abide by because they relate to civil and political rights in the international sense. To deny people in Australia equal adult suffrage is to deny democratic and political rights. Accordingly, it would be appropriate, pursuant to the International Covenant, to legislate for those rights. If any State wants to challenge that legislation, of course we can debate it in the High Court of Australia. Mr SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Fisher. Government members-Oh! Mr SLIPPER —As always, I thank my friends opposite for their encouragement and support. Is the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations aware that small employers in the building industry are being forced by physical and other intimidation to join the building unions' superannuation scheme, irrespective of whether they contribute to existing genuine schemes that are not controlled by the building unions? What does the Government intend to do to prevent this new form of industrial thuggery? Mr WILLIS —There has been an extension of the building industry superannuation scheme throughout the industry on a gradual basis for some time. This development has meant that many building industry employees are getting superannuation entitlements for the first time. It is not an industry in which a widespread level of superannuation previously applied. I do not have time in Question Time to go into the background of that development, but let me say that the extension of that is occurring gradually. The major employers conceded that superannuation quite some time ago and it is gradually spreading to other employers throughout the industry. The term `industrial thuggery' has been used by the honourable member. I doubt that the circumstances in which superannuation is being extended justify that kind of language. However, I am not saying that there is a lack of industrial thuggery in the building industry, but to my knowledge most of that is occurring on matters which are unrelated to superannuation and related rather to the actions of a particular union and its pursuit of other objectives which are not superannuation at this stage, because that was conceded in the industry some time ago. Mr CAMPBELL —I address my question to the Minister for Defence. I ask Brother Beazley whether he is aware of the Stackhouse article in the Bulletin on 26 November which says categorically that the British and Americans are not prepared to share with us their hard-won technology because of our decision to opt for a German or Swedish submarine which they consider to be `not in the front line of submarine operation and too susceptible to Soviet espionage'. Will the Minister assure the House that Mr Stackhouse is absolutely wrong and that he is merely mouthing British pique? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank Comrade Campbell for his perceptive question on this matter. It gives me an opportunity to clarify one or two matters which are fairly important. Before I get to the specific detail of the question, may I first say generally that there were features of the article which I thought particularly helpful and useful to the submarine debate. One feature was the author's characterisation, entirely accurately, of the sterility of the argument surrounding nuclear submarines for the Australian forces up against conventional submarines. We can demonstrate, and have demonstrated quite clearly, for the specific Australian requirement as opposed to anybody else's that the road we are going down is correct. He also quite usefully talked about the developments taking place in the Stirling engine and its independent propulsion. While that was not a factor in our selection of the successful hull designers for the project definition study, it is nevertheless a technology that we want to keep a very close eye on and of course it is a technology in which the Swedes and the Germans are substantially well in advance of other competitors in the program. The Government's decision to select two European design houses to undertake the study phase was based on a wide range of factors, including the development status of competing designs, performance, cost and the ability to apply technology applicable to the 1990s and beyond. New technology is not the province alone of the United States and the United Kingdom. Both Sweden and Germany have been in the forefront of conventional submarine technology for many years. For example, Sweden has long been engaged in passive suppression technology, including anechoic coatings-in other words, noise reduction and active sonar absorption. Of course, the British are in competition with the German and Swedish submarine industries and naturally they would not wish to pass on information which could damage their commercial position. This is a position we completely understand. It is also not a new problem for us. This problem can arise whenever we choose one company or country as a source of equipment over another, and it is of course one of the factors taken into account when making such choices. The fact is that in all areas of acquisition of equipment we have been moving away from the United Kingdom for years. That is not to say that we undervalue the relationship with the Royal Navy. We will continue to co-operate with the Royal Navy in a wide variety of areas and expect to receive access to areas of technology in which the British are in advance on the one hand and to give access to areas in which we are in advance of them on the other. That process will continue. Access to United States technology was carefully considered before we let the project definition studies to the two contenders. We received assurances from the United States Government that the technology required would be available to us. The transfer of technology is a very complex process and some of the background needs to be understood. Some of the information, including some of the most sensitive, is transferred on a navy to navy basis and does not involve the provision of all information to the contractors themselves. That has been the situation with the submarines that we have in service at the moment, and it will be the situation with the submarines that we will be obtaining. It is a perfectly understandable and perfectly appropriate relationship between our navies, and one that we value. The front line of Russian submarine operations is not necessarily confined to the Atlantic. Their operation in the Baltic, Pacific and Indian Ocean regions has been widely publicised. The decision to construct all submarines in Australia underlines our determination to maximise Australian industry involvement and to develop self-reliance in the future support of the new submarines to the maximum extent possible. The final point that I want to make on this question-I think it is an important one-is associated with the fact that three of the four successful tenderers for the project definition study happen to be North Atlantic Treaty Organisation powers and the fourth, Sweden, has a very close co-operation with NATO. One of those tenderers, in the most sensitive area of all-the design of the combat system-happens to be an American-led consortium. Against that background, there is a very strong sense of co-operation among navies in particular in the Western alliance. They wish to ensure in each other a good performance for the ultimate co-operative objective. Any co-operation on technology exchange is conducted against that background and not against the background of mutual suspicion. Mr N. A. BROWN —My question is directed to the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations. I refer him to the latest triumph of the wages-prices accord, namely, a two-week long strike by 13 clerks on the Melbourne waterfront holding up $20m worth of goods and resulting in 133 workers being stood down. I ask: Is this strike for an extra week's annual leave a clear breach of the `no extra claims' clause of the accord? What is the Minister proposing to do to resolve this dispute and to ensure that the accord is complied with? Finally, will the Minister make the clearest possible statement that this claim should be abandoned and that the industrial action should cease? Mr WILLIS —Yes, I am aware of this dispute which has led to the stand-downs referred to by the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party and the fact that the claim being sought is for an extra week's leave and some other matters to which he has not referred, including the upgrading of clerks and participation in profit sharing. This matter came about because of an action by the employer of these clerks to provide all of those benefits to other employees in return for increased productivity and shift work. That action, obviously, has led to those who missed out on that deal asking: `Why should we be the ones who miss out?'. I think it is a very good example of the stupidity of employers who take action which, on the face of it at least, is clearly outside the guidelines and which then leads to action by other employees to receive the same benefits, which accordingly has its flow-on effects. Mr Howard —To try to get some increased productivity is stupid, is it? Mr WILLIS —I hear prattle from the Opposition suggesting that I am saying that it is bad that the employers are seeking increased product-ivity. Of course, I am not saying that the employers should be against increased productivity. Let us just look at the situation under a wages policy such as the Opposition would apply. If the Opposition were in government at present and were encouraging employers to do such deals as this all over the place to increase the flexibility of the work force, there would presumably be many such deals occurring all over the country as employers sought to get a perceived advantage by doing some sort of a deal with their employees above the existing level of wages and conditions. I know that the Leader of the Opposition does not like the logic of it as his position in this area is absolutely hopeless. The position then would be that other employees would ask `Why should we miss out on those benefits?' and would seek them as well. It demonstrates the fact that in a society such as we have in Australia, particularly with a high level of unionism, it is absolutely unreal to argue that we can have a deregulated wages system which has great flexibility and under which we will be able to move wages up and down with some sort of freedom. The fact is it would be very difficult to move them down. It would be easy to move them up and bring everyone else up with them. To do so would bring about high levels of inflation, the inevitable concomitant being another economic recession at which the Opposition was a specialist when it was in office. We saw this happen time and again under the Opposition when it was in office, although it did not pursue such a blatant deregulation policy then. However, with any deregulation policy applying in the future, if the Opposition were in government, we could be absolutely sure-there could be absolutely no doubt about the facts-that we would have a rampant wages explosion and there would be no capacity to overcome it, apart from massively deflating the economy by budgetary and monetary policy action. Mr N. A. Brown —But it is happening under your system. Mr WILLIS —I can hear the interjection that we now have widespread wage claims. That is an absolute nonsense. This House knows that we have seen under the prices and incomes accord a period of extraordinary wage stability and strong economic growth. We have not seen the like of that for many years in this country. We have seen in the last year an increase of 4 per cent in average weekly earnings. According to today's national account figures the economy grew at 5.7 per cent over that period. Therefore, in a period of extraordinary growth in the economy we had a wage increase of 4 per cent. From the history of this country prior to our getting into office no one would have believed that that was possible. It has been made possible by the accord which has given us the basis for unparalleled economic growth. We will continue to do so. We will deal with the problem at freight bases. It will not destroy the accord, despite the best wishes of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition or the rest of the Opposition. I assure the House that the accord is in good shape and will remain so. Dr CHARLESWORTH —I direct my question to the Minister for Defence. What is his response to the recent suggestion by the Opposition spokesman on defence that Australia should bring commercial pressure to bear on New Zealand on its ship visit policy? Further, is the Minister aware of Mr Sinclair's claim that Antarctica should be the focus of Australia's strategic policy? Mr BEAZLEY —It seems that when members of the coalition come from or go to Tasmania they somehow wind up more than usually excitable. Mr Goodluck —A point of order-- Mr BEAZLEY —Was the honourable member interjecting on that point? Mr Goodluck —No, I just laughed at you. Mr BEAZLEY —That is fine. I have in fact seen Press reports of the right honourable gentleman's speech to which the honourable member for Perth referred. As usual, the Press reports indicate that the suggestions range from the unwarranted to the semi-demented. In the case of the unwarranted, that is the notion of commercial pressure, I have been advised that the right honourable member subsequently withdrew that, saying it did not mean economic sanctions. I am not completely certain just what the right honourable gentleman means by commercial pressure but not economic sanctions. As usual, with most of his statements, we are left in a situation of absolute confusion. Our policy in that regard was more than adequately dealt with by the Minister for Trade when he was asked a question on it last week. Of course, it needs to be said that the policy advocated by the right honourable member would not be pursued by this Government. We have made quite clear our views on nuclear ship visits and American warship visits to Australia; we find them acceptable. We are in a situation of some considerable delicacy and we find interventions such as that of the right honourable member pretty unhelpful. I will move on to the broader strategic perspectives entailed in the right honourable gentleman's speech. They led him quite mysteriously but not surprisingly, given the area he was in, to the conclusion that `Tasmania could well be in the front line of Australia's defence concerns.' The problem that emerges with this piece of analysis for Australian defence planners is, indeed, vast. This is a very different orientation from that which we are used to. I might say that, historically, it is a very different orientation from that of our opponents. I think that those of us who cut our teeth in our youth on defence debates in the 1960s were introduced to the Newtonian theory of international relations on which the Liberal and National parties used to operate. That was the view, basically, that in international affairs, as in the laws of physics, what is up must come down. As honourable members will recollect, pamphlets were produced which depicted a stream of red arrows coming out of China. If one was on the east coast the arrows descended on Sydney and if one was on the west coast they descended on Perth. It now appears that, unsatisfied with these procedures, the Opposition now has a new theory. We are confronted with a penguin peril and we are going to stand Newtonian physics on its head; we are going to operate on the theory that what is down must come up. I must concede that if there is any validity in that claim not only Tasmania but also Melbourne, Adelaide and one or two other points will be at the forefront of our defence concerns. It does, of course, ignore the thrust of the policy the Liberal Party was educated by in the 1970s, but it is newly emerging. It is, of course, quite ridiculous. The first point I want to make on this, and I would have thought the right honourable gentleman would be aware of it, is that Antarctica enjoys what is widely regarded as the most effective disarmament regime in the world. This is not to say that we do not have any concerns at all in the Antarctic or that we would not be interested in sending some of our ships down there and involving our defence forces in useful activity there; indeed, at the moment HMAS Stalwart is providing some considerable assistance to some of the people of my colleague the Minister for Science. Under the Antarctic Treaty the continent is totally demililtarised. The super-powers, as well as other nations, co-operate in a way which should be a model for international relations the world over. The fact of the matter is that Australia's advantageous position in the group of nations that constitute the administrative authority of the Antarctic area is very much under question. A number of nations would like to see us moved out of that area. I would have thought that any systematic pursuit by any Australian government of some notion that it has a major defence interest in that area and the suggestion that it would pursue policies which require a strong defence interest to maintain was likely to very severely damage our capacity to conduct sensible diplomacy in that region. One can go so far in trying to patronisingly treat the people of Tasmania in this absurd fashion; but one cannot go that far. One certainly cannot sustain that position when one gets into office. The Tasmanian people will find, on this issue as in so many others, that there will be big promises from the Liberal Party in opposition but, when it gets into government, there will be nothing. Mr N. A. Brown —When is that? Mr BEAZLEY —I do not think the Liberal Party will get into government for a very considerable period. I conclude on this point: The defence strategy of this Government is that all Australian citizens are equally entitled to protection. Our forces will be deployed in a fashion that will ensure that that occurs. We are not going to find ourselves distracted by bogus political considerations which are flung about liberally but which, when analysed in detailed terms, amount to a very substantial retreat from some quite important foreign policy positions of this Government. Mr SMITH —Did the Minister for Aviation state at a Press conference held at Launceston in August that East-West Airlines Ltd could operate a Sydney-Launceston flight if the company decided that commercial considerations justified such a service? Did the Minister or his office subsequently back down from this statement by verbally informing East-West's Managing Director, Mr Howe, that because of the Minister's misrepresentation of the two-airline agreement East-West could not operate this route? Furthermore, has the Minister yet provided a written response to East-West's request for clarification of his comments? Will he apologise to the people of Launceston for misleading them about the reasons for the absence of a Sydney-Launceston route operated by East-West? Mr Tuckey —Tell us it is all in our legislation. Mr PETER MORRIS —That is correct; it is all in the Opposition's two-airline legislation, as the honourable member who interjected said. Under the provisions of the Opposition's two-airline legislation-- Mt Tuckey-Why didn't you know that when you were in Launceston? Mr PETER MORRIS —The honourable member may remember that on 3 June 1981 on behalf of our Party I moved an amendment to the legislation to the effect that the agreement would terminate in five years. All of those members of the previous Government who are now present defeated that amendment. Had that amendment been carried, the agreement would terminate in 13 months time. For the Opposition to raise with me the problems that it created- Mr Sinclair —You are wrong. You can't even read the agreement. Mr PETER MORRIS —No, I think if the right honourable member looks at Hansard of 3 June 1981 he will see that what I have just said is absolutely correct. It is all on the record, including the division. The point raised by the honourable member for Bass was in relation to a statement I made in Launceston some weeks ago. The response I gave was that the provision of aircraft on that route was a commercial decision for the airline and a matter of redeployment of the aircraft. The airline was fully aware of the position. It had had a number of contacts with officers of the Department. It knew that it held a licence to operate on that route. But it knew also that that licence applies only to the safety and operational factors, and under those conditions we are virtually required to issue a licence. But it knew also that, were it to operate that service, it would be in breach of the provisions of the Opposition's two-airline legislation. It knew very well that that was the case. For the benefit of the Opposition, the line that the company had been running in Tasmania was that it needed some decision from me. It knew that it did not need that decision from me. But it still ran the line that the only reason why it was not operating the service was that it had to get a decision from me in regard to capacity. Capacity had nothing to do with it, except in this respect: It knew that if it operated the service it would breach the provisions of the Opposition's two-airline legislation and that that could have an impact later on the determination of its overall capacity. All of that information had been known to the airline for some months. It deliberately pursued a course of misinformation and of deliberately misleading the people of Tasmania on the issue. The answer that I gave was precisely correct in the context of the issues raised by the airline. It can go back to the agreement and back to the Opposition's two-airline legislation and it will find that what it proposed would have breached the provisions. It knew that, but it did not want to endanger its position in respect of its capacity determination. I stand by the comments I made. I have no knowledge of Mr Howe speaking to someone in my office. As I said, there has been no misleading. The legislation is in place as a result of the actions of those who now sit opposite who were here in June 1981. We as a government are bound to uphold the provisions of the agreement. It imposes upon government a contractual obligation. I say in respect of East-West that East-West is a major corporation, It has major and strong financial backing. It is not a weakling. It went into a commercial deal with its eyes wide open, knowing full well the provisions of the Opposition's two-airline legislation. It was a business decision that it made on its own behalf. Mr Lloyd —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The real reason why East-West cannot fly between Sydney and Launceston-- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. Mr Lloyd —It is an administrative decision made by this Labor Government in 1983. Mr SPEAKER —I warn the honourable member for Murray. Mr SPEAKER —I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Peter Nixon, a former Minister and member of long standing, and Mr Marshall Bailleau, the former member for La Trobe. As is my custom, I welcome these former members. Honourable members-Hear, hear! Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Treasurer and refer to the conflict, confusion and contradiction that exist in the stated positions of the Liberal Party and National Party in relation to this Government's tax legislation. Is the Treasurer aware that the National Party member for Groom has now stated that the National Party is totally opposed to the proposed tax charges and therefore will vote against pensioners being able to earn more and against the provisional tax limit for pensioners being lifted to $2,000? Mr KEATING —Not a shred of principle obtains on the other side of the Parliament in respect of taxation matters any more. Today we heard the Leader of the Opposition fuming and fulminating at the front of Parliament House, giving free lunches a free launch, on the tax reform package. There are no principles left in the Liberal Party on taxation. The Leader of the Opposition said that he will not oppose the whole package; he will take reductions in marginal tax rates but he will oppose every measure which the Government introduces to pay for those reductions. Those are the depths to which he has descended in recent times. The National Party has said that it will oppose the lot; it will oppose the reductions in marginal rates for taxpayers, it will oppose the eradication of all the tax shelters in the system and it will oppose making the tax system more fair and more reasonable. There is now no policy continuity or any policy framework of any substance on the other side of the House in the Liberal Party, with the National Party or between the parties. They are bereft of principle and policy. The Leader of the Opposition is now struggling for his political livelihood and political life. He is trying to maintain some semblance of being an effective opportunist. If he is not effect-ive on some principle basis, he is now trying to be effective at least at being an opportunist and today was at the front of Parliament House going through a litany of opportunism with people in the catering industry. I hope that people in the countryside and throughout the nation understand that the National Party wants to deny people cuts in taxation and wants to deny them cuts in marginal rates of tax, and that the Liberal Party wants to leave entrenched in the tax system all of the tax shelters and ramps which have lain untouched for 30 years. Mr HOWARD —The Prime Minister will be aware that on 28 February the Flags Act Amendment Bill was first presented in this House, having been passed by the Senate. Since that date the Bill, which provides for a referendum before the Australian flag can be changed, has not been brought on for debate. As nine months have now passed and there are only three more sitting days, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that the Bill will be debated and voted on in the House this week? Mr HAWKE —I am led to preface my answer to this devastating question by observing that unfortunately, referring to the matter that you, Mr Speaker, raised at the beginning of Question Time about the chook that was in the House, I do not think that it was an Opposition member because it was not headless. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! I suggest that the Prime Minister resume his seat. Mr N. A. Brown —Yes, sit down. Mr SPEAKER —I suggest that that is a rather bad joke on the part of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. It certainly shows no respect for the Chair. I suggest that the House come to order so that the Prime Minister can continue with his answer. Mr HAWKE —On this side of the House, day after day we have been battered by this penetrating questioning by the Opposition! Yesterday, it was why the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism had not bought a rowing boat. We have recovered in the last 24 hours from that penetrating question! We have gathered ourselves together now to face up to this latest onslaught, which is: Will this Government guarantee to bring on for consideration and debate in this House a Bill brought in by the Opposition? Let me say two things: As far as this Government is concerned the business in this House will be the business of the Government, because that business is concerned with bringing about those things which are for the welfare of the people of this country. As far as the question of the flag is concerned, let me relieve the enormous tension that exists on the other side of the House by repeating for the benefit of those opposite what I have said on many occasions in Australia on the issue of the flag: This Government has no intention of changing the existing Australian flag. Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! When I listen to the behaviour that is going on on both sides of the House at the moment, I am not sure that a chicken in the House is not preferable. I suggest that the House come to order. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Minister for Primary Industry advise the House of the Government's policy decision in relation to the takeovers in the egg and chicken industries? Honourable members interjecting- Mr SPEAKER —Order! There are obviously occasions when my remarks are taken as encouragement, not admonition. Mr CUNNINGHAM —Will the Minister agree that investors need a certain amount of good luck to survive in the industry? Mr KERIN —Mr Speaker, I do not quite know how to answer this question. When you made your announcement at the start of today's proceedings, you made a very serious comment and there has been some flippancy about the fact that an honourable member dressed up as a chook and came into the chamber. I will endorse your remarks by not making some obvious comments that I could make and I will address the honourable member's question seriously. There have been some takeovers in the poultry industry and there are now only two or three hatching combines. The number of people engaged in both broiler production and egg production is a matter that quite a few people have been commenting on. It is part of the phenomenon known as agro-business. By and large the Government takes the view that this is a commercial matter. The economies of scale in both the broiler production and the egg production part of the industry leave themselves open to a large degree of control. In handling the broiler industry, I am constantly approached by some broiler producers asking for a uniform contract system to be applied and reinforced by the Commonwealth. By and large, this is a matter for the States as are all agricultural production matters. I simply leave my answer at that and will not make some obvious quips. Mr SPEAKER —I present the reports of the Auditor-General, dated 25 November 1985, upon efficiency audits of: Administration of Quarantine Services; Australian Wool Corporation Property Operations; and Department of Territories-ACT Internal Omnibus Network (ACTION). Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: (1) That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the reports of the Auditor-General, dated 25 November 1985, upon efficiency audits: Administration of Quarantine Services; Australian Wool Corporation Property Operations; and Department of Territories-ACT Internal Omnibus Network (ACTION). (2) That the reports be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 50 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903, I present the Judiciary Act annual report for 1984-85. Mr KEATING(Blaxland-Treasurer) —Pursuant to section 10 of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1949, I present the annual report on the operation of the Act for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 47 of the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation Act 1978, I present the Australian Overseas Projects Corporation annual report for 1984-85. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade) —Pursuant to section 12 of the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, I present the Child Migrant Education report for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —Pursuant to section 102 of the Postal Services Act 1975, I present the Australian Postal Commission annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment annual report for 1984-85. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Pursuant to sub-section 68 (4) of the Archives Act 1983, I present the Australian Archives annual report for 1984-85. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the final report on the evaluation of the Vietnam Veterans Counselling Service. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N. A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the right honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr SINCLAIR —On two counts, Mr Speaker; the first by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his response to a question today in suggesting that in some way Australia's strategic situation had been inverted and that in comments about Tasmania I put the threat situation as being paramount in the southern end of Australia instead of in other parts of this country. In order to remove the uncertainty that followed the presentation of his argument I would like to quote from the speech to which the honourable gentleman's answer referred. In the first part of that speech I said: That aside, the point is that Tasmania is at the top of the map of the region to our south, which will be increasingly important to Australia for a number of reasons. I continued: Further ahead-and of particular importance to Tasmania-we can expect the resources of Antarctica to become the focus of international rivalry and the future of that continent to become one of the major pressure points of the first part of the next century. It is worth noting, even today, that the Soviet Union has four well-established bases in Antarctica, three of them in Australian Antarctic Territory. Australia has a total of three bases, and with the leased supply ship Nella Dan still stuck in pack ice off Enderby Land, no air strip and a minimal budget for scientific research, our territorial claim is staked on a shoestring. Mr Speaker, I, of course, was not suggesting that our strategic priorities are necessarily henceforth to be in Tasmania. But I did put the geographic position as I see it and the future developments of Antarctica into perspective. On the second count I have been misrepresented by the magazine Inside Canberra and by comments of the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) with respect to my participation in the decision by the then Government on the two-airline agreement. In order to remove the uncertainty about the terms of that agreement I refer to a minute distributed under the hand of the then Minister for Transport on 3 June 1981 to all members and senators. It states that the definition of prescribed routes which is arrived at after consultation with East-West Airlines on the role of regional operators provides a good opportunity for East-West to expand in future, especially given the revised clause 12 of the agreement. A Department of Transport briefing note of May 1981 stated: In re-negotiating the airlines agreement, any uncertainty about the ability of operators such as East-West to combine two prescribed routes to provide a service between two trunk centres has been removed. Thus, although for example, East-West could not operate Sydney-Melbourne direct, it would be able to operate Sydney-Albury-Melbourne. The product of the decisions relating to East-West lies purely in the discretion of the Minister and the head of his Department, not in the provisions of the amended two-airlines agreement. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser) —Mr Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation. Mr SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented. Mr LANGMORE —I do, Mr Speaker. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr LANGMORE —Thank you. The lunch time Australian Broadcasting Corporation news in the Australian Capital Territory today reported Alan Nelson of the Referendum First Party as saying that I believed that the people of the Australian Capital Territory would be prepared to accept increased rates and taxes if self-government were introduced in Canberra. Mr Speaker, you will appreciate how unlikely it is that I ever said anything of the kind. In fact, of course, I did not. Mr Nelson is probably basing his implausible comments on a speech I made in this House last Thursday in the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 1985 and other related Bills. These Bills included five minor changes to Australian Capital Territory stamp duties and transfer taxes and were implementing changes announced in the Budget. In my speech I said that there has been no significant opposition to these minor measures. This suggests that the changes are so small as not to warrant most people's attention and that those who are aware of them recognise the reasonableness of the changes. The Commonwealth Grants Commission drew attention to the small differences between stamp duties and other minor taxes in the Australian Capital Territory and the States in its report last year. The Bills simply bring the Australian Capital Territory into line with the rest of Australia and therefore remove any basis for the charge that the people of the Australian Capital Territory are not making a fair revenue effort. They are certainly changes which would have been introduced whichever party was in power. I did not say, nor did I imply, that Australian Capital Territory residents would accept any other tax increase, nor, of course, do I believe that to be the case. I did not say, nor did I imply, that the introduction of self-government would lead to tax increases of any kind, nor do I believe that self-government would lead to any tax increases which would not otherwise occur. Mr Nelson is obviously on weak ground as he has to distort so severely and misrepresent in order to try to support his hollow arguments. I hope that following this correction Mr Nelson will stop misquoting me and the media will stop reporting his wild and baseless assertions. Mr HODGMAN(Denison) —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Child) —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr HODGMAN —Yes, I do, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr HODGMAN —I have been misrepresented by both the honourable member for Macarthur (Mr Martin) in this House and the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) in the Senate. I refer specifically to Hansard of 21 November, page 3388, where the honourable member for Macarthur was talking about various estimates of jobs which would be lost in the restaurant industry as the result of the taxation package. I read verbatim what the honourable member for Macarthur said: A survey by the group BIS-Shrapnel in the Australian on 31 October said that 18,000 jobs would be lost. The pinnacle of all these estimates, the one that really took the cake, came from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) who said that 80,000 jobs would be lost. That is fantastic. As our colleague in the Senate, the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh), rightly pointed out, total employment in the restaurant industry has been estimated at only 76,000, so in fact we are putting people out of jobs who have not even got them. Let us face it, this is absolute nonsense. These estimates are just that-estimates. The claim made by the honourable member for Macarthur that I said that 80,000 jobs would be lost in the restaurant industry is simply completely untrue. I seek leave to table a Press statement dated 7 October this year in which I said that the number of jobs which would be lost in the Australian restaurant industry would be at least 10,000 in 1985-86. In conclusion, for the benefit of the honourable member I also seek leave to table a Press statement dated 21 October this year in which, talking about job losses in the motor industry, the tourism industry and the restaurant industry, I said: The Hawke/Keating Tax Package will wipe out one-quarter of the Motor Industry, one-third of the Tourism Industry and one-half of the Restaurants in Australia . . . on a conservative estimate, 80,000 Australian jobs are now at stake. I was misrepresented and I demand a public apology from the honourable member and the Minister for their not telling the truth. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable gentleman has made his personal explanation. Is he now seeking leave to table both documents? Mr HODGMAN —I seek leave to table both Press releases. Leave not granted. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —by leave-The Australian Government has two paramount objectives in its conduct of foreign policy. One is to protect and promote the national interest in a highly volatile world. By the national interest I mean that we hold as our primary obligation the security of Australia and the promotion of the social and economic well-being of the Australian people. Our second paramount objective is to pursue a determined and independent role as a middle-ranking nation in the search for a better world order. Gough Whitlam-one of the outstanding Foreign Ministers in our 85 years of independence-has described the essence of a sound foreign policy as the intelligent anticipation of change. This rule is the Australian Government's sighting device as it manages foreign policy in a time of unprecedented fluidity and change in international relationships. When alliances were rigid and static, smaller nations could tolerate or survive change by keeping out of it. They could even evade it through the kind of escapist dependency in which all necessary protection was provided by great and powerful friends. This dependency was a distinguishing characteristic of several Australian governments in our immediate history-a flair only for a kind of purposeful mediocrity. We are now in an era in which great excesses of poverty coincide with-indeed are often the result of-great excesses of affluence. It is a period of unprecedented world peace, in the sense that we have been free of world war for the last 40 years. But it is also a time of great hostility and violence between individual nations. So-called small wars have been fought all over the world: In northern, central and southern Africa, in Central and South America and in northern, southern and South East Asia. In fact, it has been estimated that, in the past four decades, the world has suffered an aggregate of something like 200 years of war. The distribution of power and the use of power to maintain systems of world order have been complicated by change in the nature of war: Guerrilla war, terrorist war and economic war, as well as war as we have more conventionally known it. The certainties about `super' power have been challenged, if not changed, by the growth of centres of rival power. I mean by this the development of the non-aligned movement, for instance; the newly industrialising nations and the oil-producing nations; the European Community; Japan; China. The result is that the super-powers' capacity to manage a basically unruly world or impose world order has been eroded. Let me cite other examples of unexpected change, whose consequences are far from clear at present. The growth of religious extremism in political affairs, for instance; the destabilising consequences of outside intrusion and inter- ference in the internal affairs of Lebanon; modernisation in China; the coming to power in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of Mr Gorbachev; the birth and death of detente; the theory of strategic defence. Who can confidently predict the result for the health of democracy in the Third World of the cost of capital in the First World, for example, or of trade barriers between the advanced economies? The facts are that we cannot resist change. We must instead accept it as inevitable, trying objectively to anticipate its good and bad effects and turning it where possible into constructive ways. Those who react to change with only high-flown hopes or utopian formulas will be judged as no more than blowhards. Those who treat change only as the chance to extract short term advantage from it will be seen as no more than opportunists. The Australian Government rejects such attitudes as inimical to its paramount foreign policy objectives. Instead, in reaching for these objectives, it holds strongly to two guiding strategies. The first is that the moral and material strength of the principles of democratic socialism should be applied to the conduct of foreign policy. The kind of moral sensibility which has been brought to such issues as the abolition of starvation and disease, establishment of the welfare system and universal education should also be brought to policies for foreign affairs, disarmament and peace. Australia is part of a global consensus which rejects colonialism and supports the view that peaceful and advanced nations should indeed be their brothers' keepers. The Australian Government's commitment to this moral global consensus obliges us to take an informed, active interest in what is happening in southern Africa or Central America, for instance, or in human rights, the international economy and other great social issues. It gives Australia a global reach into matters once considered to be outside the scope of our immediate short term interest, though the primary focus of our interest is our own region. Good intentions, of course, are not enough in the conduct of foreign policy. The second guiding strategy in the Government's foreign policy, therefore, is to maintain a level-headed appreciation of the limits of the power and influence which it has. Power is not the sole determining factor in policy, but it is a reality which sets the parameters within which moral criteria can operate. A foreign policy which ignores this fact will be no more than words. A central issue in the conduct of our foreign policy concerns the connection between our national interest and the objectives and conduct of what is now known as `super' power. Let there be no ambiguity about the Government's attitude on this point. Our commitment to Australia's alliance with the United States of America is strong and deep. In reaffirming this commitment, we have the support of the Australian people, for there is a profound and widespread feeling for the United States in this country which goes beyond the normal calculations of common interest. We are not pacifists. We are sober realists who have chosen to throw Australia's support behind the capacity and willingness of the United States to play the major role in maintaining international security. But we are not mindless camp-followers either. Like any other independent nation with definite interests to protect, we reserve the right to disagree with our friends if disagreement is called for. Our relationship with the United States, however, is such that we can differ without falling out terminally. Secretary of State Shultz emphasised this point during our discussions in Washington last month. Our two governments differed on some issues from time to time, Mr Shultz said, but the relationship nevertheless was excellent. This is demonstrably so, despite attempts to deny it in some quarters in Australia. Proof of this is the continuing strength of our security arrangements under ANZUS. It is true that the Treaty has had its difficulties as the result of the New Zealand policy on nuclear ships, with serious consequences for United States-New Zealand relations. To infer from this that our security commitments under ANZUS have consequently `unravelled' or have become useless, however, is as illogical as saying that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation collapsed when France walked out of its military structure. The Government carried out a thorough review of the ANZUS Treaty after it assumed office in 1983. The outcome, as I announced in the Parliament in September 1983, was an unequivocal reaffirmation of the alliance as fundamental to Australia's security. Nothing has happened since which alters that judgment. The Treaty continues to receive the Government's full support. All the rights and obligations of the Treaty as they affect Australia and the United States remain solid and active. I do not intend to review the course of events in the United States-New Zealand relations over the past 18 months. I do wish to make some points about the ramifications of these events, however. The Australian Government recognises the serious implications for the United States and New Zealand of their disagreement. It disagrees with the policy of New Zealand. The suggestion, however, that we should or could force New Zealand to change this policy is stupid and primitive. It trivialises a serious matter. It ignores the fact that New Zealand is a sovereign nation, proud and independent, whose prompt response at any attempt to use this bully-boy tactic would prove how mindless and counter-productive it was. Australia has worked successfully to safeguard its own defence relationships with both the United States and New Zealand. ANZUS security commitments remain fully in force, in every way vital to us, despite the fact that because of New Zealand policy and United States reaction, trilateral co-operation under the Treaty is at present not fully operative. We continue to hope that the United States and New Zealand can find a way out of the problems that have arisen between them and that full trilateral co-operation under ANZUS will be restored at an early date. We will continue to make whatever constructive contribution we can to encourage this result, and at any and every event to ensure that our two-way commitments to and with the United States remain fully operable and in force. It would be wrong to infer that our membership of the Western alliance disqualifies Australia from rational contact with the other centre of super-power. Given the fundamental and worldwide concerns deriving from the tension between the super-powers, Australia would be wrong to preclude itself from dialogue with the USSR simply because it is an active member of the Western association of nations. The Australian Government, therefore, is working towards a more positive and a more constructive relationship with the USSR. Australia has made it clear-at the time it happened and subsequently-that we condemn the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and other actions by the USSR which we consider unacceptable. But we have still attempted to establish a sound basis for promoting Australia's interests in the relationship. The USSR, after all, is a powerful state with legitimate interests which have to be considered and negotiated-to use the words of Dr Kissinger. However unpleasant some people might find the USSR, it is so powerful that there are few international problems that can be solved without its participation. My visit to the USSR last year-the first visit by an Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs in nearly 20 years-put the bilateral dialogue on to a new footing. We have found a new Soviet readiness to discuss positively various important international and regional issues such as disarmament and Indo-China. We have brought up in our discussions our concern over the condition of human rights in the Soviet Union. We have registered our concern with the USSR as we have with the US over the deterioration in super-power relations since the closing years of the last decade. The resumption of arms control negotiations and the growing number of high-level contacts between them are encouraging. The basic terms on which they would try to build a more durable relationship remain to be agreed, however. Until this is accomplished, the prospects for significant improvement in their relationship remain limited. The Australian Government has been encouraged by the outcome of the Reagan-Gorbachev summit in Geneva. The years since the last United States-Soviet summit in 1979 have been times of significant tension in superpower relationships and this has had an effect on us all. In their meeting, the leaders appeared conscious of the longing by all peoples around the world for a bridge across the gulf between these two nations which have the capacity to destroy us all. No one would deny that there are serious differences between the two nations; differences that do not admit of easy solutions, but we applaud the fact that the two leaders chose to acknowledge and face up to those differences rather than attempt to paper them over. The Australian Government wishes them well in what President Reagan described as the `fresh start' in US/Soviet relations. Australia's views were sought in the preparations for the summit. The Prime Minister wrote to President Reagan and I had discussions with Secretary of State Shultz during my visit to Washington in October. President Reagan sent one of his Geneva team, Mr Allen Holmes of the State Department, to brief personally the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and me on 25 November. These are clear indications of the closeness of our ties with the United States and evidence that the United States treats seriously our reasoned and independent foreign policy, particularly on issues of arms control. This has been, in large part, the underlying concentration in our dialogue with both super-powers; trying to help reduce their rivalry as, for instance, expressed in the nuclear arms race. The Government has made the point on many occasions: It has no higher or more urgent priority among its policies than the resolution of this issue. The ultimate objective of this policy is the elimination of nuclear weapons and general and complete disarmament. As the first step towards this goal, we are actively seeking a verifiable freeze on the further production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons. In the meantime-and only as a temporary expedient-the Government maintains that a state of stable mutual deterrence is essential both to prevent nuclear war and to provide the confidence needed to reach effective arms control agreements. The joint facilities in this country play an important role in both respects. They contribute to a significant degree to stable deterrence through their capacity to provide early warning of weapons activity and to monitor adherence to arms agreements. In a state of stable deterrence, the super-powers must be secure and insecure together. This means that no forces or technology can be allowed to threaten the deterrent of an opponent. In aggregate terms, there is rough parity between the nuclear forces of the super-powers. A disaggregated evaluation of these forces at any given time, however, will reveal a host of imbalances. This asymmetry, resulting from a number of factors, bedevils arms control negotiations. Difficult as it may be, the super-powers have to try to agree on a balance of asymmetries in their resumed dialogue. They must resist the pressure to solve one unfavourable asymmetry by trying to create another. This leap-frogging risks the prospect of durable stability and complicates the task of arms control. It causes the Australian Government to have reservations about the active interest of the super-powers in strategic defence, however well-intentioned, and the effect on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. We believe particularly that verification of compliance with agreements is a prerequisite to effective, durable arms control and disarmament. In this complicated and contentious area, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons stands out as a model, with 131 members and a unique verification system in place. The NPT, in fact, is the single most effective arms control agreement in existence. The third review conference of the treaty in August-September was, unlike the second five years earlier, an outstanding success. Among other things, it called for effective steps towards full scope safeguards on the nuclear activities of non-nuclear weapon states which have so far not become parties to the NPT. It agreed that those states which had not yet done so should make an internationally legally binding agreement not to become nuclear weapon states. It expressed the commitment of non-nuclear weapon state members of the NPT to achieve the cessation of all nuclear testing by all states in all environments for all time. It called on all the nuclear weapon states to respond to the appeal of these member states for a comprehensive test ban as a matter of urgency. I am proud to say that the efforts of Mr Butler, Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament, and his departmental colleagues, have been widely recognised as a significant ingredient in this success. In our own region, an Australian Government initiative has culminated in the South Pacific Forum endorsing a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty-an initiative which was welcomed by the NPT Review Conference. Nine countries, including Australia, have signed the treaty, which contains substantive proscriptions on the stationing, storing and testing of nuclear devices and weapons and dumping of waste materials. It establishes only the second nuclear free zone in a permanently inhabited region. The Government views the treaty as an important contribution to the maintenance of world peace. The single most effective step that nuclear weapon states could take in order to alight from the nuclear treadmill, of course, would be agreement on, and genuine steps towards, a comprehensive test ban treaty. Because it is so crucial and urgent an issue, the Government has given its work on a treaty the highest possible priority. Australia has pursued this objective on both political and technical fronts, in the United Nations General Assembly's First Committee and at the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. It has to be said, however, that progress towards a comprehensive ban on testing has been slow and often painful. This, of course, is a reflection of the crucial nature of what is being proposed. Another increasingly urgent matter of priority for the Australian Government is a chemical weapons convention. We have used every opportunity available to express our concerns on this matter in bilateral contacts and in multilateral organisations. These activities have been supplemented, in response to requests from the United Nations Secretary-General, by practical steps to improve our capacity to investigate instances of the alleged use of chemical weapons. The Government in all of these endeavours consults closely with a wide and representative number of countries and with all groups. It can claim with justification that it has consistently provided leadership in such consultations. They are essential because the issues are global and the concerns universal. We therefore take, and will continue to take, every opportunity to serve as a bridge between groups of countries in efforts to achieve our crucial and urgent disarmament objectives. From the outset of its time in office, the Government has invested the highest possible energy and resources to the development of Australia's relations with all its neighbours. There are obvious, often-repeated reasons for this, concerning the prospects for our security and material prosperity. But the longer-range reasons for it are, if anything, even more significant. We are part of a region emerging with enormous energy from post-colonialism, rivalling all the old traditional centres of economic power. The Association of South East Asian Nations, as a most successful regional organisation, pursues the aims of general harmonisation of policy. Australian governments have watched its progress with sympathy and good will. Indeed we are proud that we have been actively involved in helping the process. This Government is especially proud that under the Whitlam Government our relations with ASEAN were formalised in a system of regular consultations between Ministers and officials. My own first visits overseas as Minister for Foreign Affairs were to the ASEAN countries and Papua New Guinea. The Prime Minister and I have since made several visits there and the Australian Government has derived benefit from the formal consultations conducted in conjunction with the annual ASEAN Foreign Ministers' Conference. There are two developments with particular relevance to ASEAN which cause us concern. The first concerns the Philippines, where the situation has been deteriorating. The Marcos Government faces severe economic dislocation and widespread and understandable dissatisfaction with its political and economic record. Human rights abuses by some organs of the Government and extensive economic injustice resulting from the Government's resolute inaction against the privileges and political power of its wealthy oligarchic patrons have provided fertile ground for the growth of insurgency, which now constitutes a serious challenge. The decision to withdraw Australians from the rural development project in Northern Samar was taken because of the deteriorating security in that province. The project contributed significantly to the livelihood of farmers in the area and it has not been terminated. It will be continued as far as is possible with Australian supervision based in Manila. The Philippines will continue to engage our active attention. It is a member of our immediate region, of considerable importance to us for various strategic, foreign policy and economic reasons. Australia has made a substantial commitment to the people of the Philippines in terms of aid. The Government hopes that the Philippines will be able, through broad and urgent political, economic and military reform, to meet the legitimate aspirations of its people. It is gratifying that the United States and other countries are also urging reform on the Philippines Government. Much will depend on the will and capability of the winner of the presidential elections proposed for early next year. The second development in the immediate region which is causing us particular concern is what could be called the Cambodian problem. The Australian Government has condemned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and we continue to do so. We do so because of the tension it is creating and the wider regional instability it threatens. The Government's concern has led to its actively seeking to help solve the problem. We have consistently advocated that a solution will come only through consultation among all the nations involved. We have striven to dispel the notion that any benefit could possibly flow from prolonging a conflict causing suffering to hundreds of thousands of people, in Cambodia itself and across the Thai border. We have emphasised the risk of greater superpower involvement in the region which would ensue from any failure to seize the opportunity to solve the problem. Such a solution must take into account the legitimate interests of Vietnam. We are encouraged by signs of positive movement in this matter. The Government appreciates the efforts towards a settlement by the governments particularly of Indonesia and Malaysia, and reiterates its preparedness to help these efforts in any way possible. In dealing with our immediate region, it is necessary to mention our relationship with our near neighbour Indonesia. The Government will continue to work towards furthering our relations with Indonesia on the basis of mutual respect and of acceptance of our respective differences. The Government welcomes the consideration of joint development as an option for furthering exploration and exploitation of the hydrocarbon resources in the Timor Sea. The Government hopes that success in this joint development will encourage economic co-operation between us in a variety of fields. We look forward to the forthcoming visit of the Indonesian Foreign Minister Dr Mochtar as a means of consolidating and furthering this spirit of constructive co-operation. Naturally, between such close neighbours, there will from time to time be some disagreement. There is a wide cultural and historical gap between our respective societies. Indeed, this can be said of the relationship between us and most of our neighbours. We are an open, pluralistic liberal democracy and becoming more so over time. The potential for misunderstanding is always great and will not lessen. The task will be for both of us to recognise and respect these differences and manage them successfully. The situations in the Indonesian provinces of East Timor and Irian Jaya remain of concern to the Australian Government, although Australia has recognised Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor since 1979, a fact reiterated by the Prime Minister on 22 August. We have naturally continued to put to the Indonesian Government our concern over the human rights situation in East Timor and our support for greater international access to the province. We remain concerned to do all that we appropriately can to help the people there. The provision of significant levels of humanitarian assistance through the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations Children's Fund specifically for East Timor reflect this concern. Similarly, the Government has expressed to the Indonesian Government its interest in developments in Irian Jaya. In particular, we hope that careful attention will be paid to the complex and fragile pattern of local society and culture there. I note that Dr Mochtar has said that governmental authorities `would respect the traditions, customs and land rights of Irian Jayans'. The Government also stands ready to assist where it can Indonesian efforts in bringing such balanced development to Irian Jaya. It is through development that the Government hopes to see the situation on the Papua New Guinea-Indonesia border resolved. It has been encouraged over recent months by the dialogue between the Papua New Guinean and Indonesian Governments on the management of their border. Responsibility for resolving any border problems, of course, lies primarily with the Papua New Guinean and Indonesian governments. Papua New Guinea Ministers spoke to me earlier this month of their appreciation for what Australia had done to meet the humanitarian needs in the border camps, reflected in our total contribution of $1.9m to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for its relief efforts there. The main purpose of my visit to Papua New Guinea, like that which the Prime Minister made in September, was to demonstrate the importance Australia places on the relationship. Papua New Guinea has just entered its second decade of independence and is facing up to new challenges and responsibilities. As two sovereign independent nations, fully aware of the impact that the policies of one can have on the other, we both need to continue to develop the relationship and keep it in good health. Neither should take the other for granted. One indicator of a new maturity in the relationship is the development in our aid arrangements. The Prime Minister and Mr Somare signed a new aid agreement in September which commits Australia to providing $1.4 billion in development assistance to Papua New Guinea over the next five years. Under the new agreement overall aid dependence on Australia will gradually decline. At the same time, however, Papua New Guinea will gain access to the wide range of programs available to other recipients of Australian aid, and this component of our aid, although still the minor component, will progressively increase. The Government has sent messages of congratulations to the new Papua New Guinea Government. The Prime Minister, when writing to Mr Paias Wingti after the change of government on 21 November, extended an invitation to make an early visit to Australia. He and I have met Mr Wingti on a number of occasions this year and look forward to working closely with him and his colleagues. In making these observations I recall with gratitude the valuable services of Mr Michael Somare whose place in his country's history is assured as the father of his country's independence, who largely oversighted the maturing bilateral relations between our two countries, and who helped give his nation a voice internationally. The Government has actively and successfully pursued a close, co-operative relationship with our neighbours in the South Pacific, bilaterally and in such regional organisations as the South Pacific Forum and the South Pacific Commission. The importance we attach to these relationships is shown by the consistent, active interest of the Prime Minister in Pacific regional matters, particularly in the events leading to the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. I intend to continue this active interest next year by visiting the region. This will be the first systematic and comprehensive visit to the independent nations of the South Pacific by an Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs for at least the last 15 years, if not the first such visit ever. We have significant strategic, political and economic interests in the Pacific. We have had to respond to new elements of uncertainty there recently: The situation in New Caledonia, for example; the differences within ANZUS; sensitivities aroused by the activities of American tuna boats; the fisheries agreement between Kiribati and the USSR; and the Libyan connection with some parts of the region. The Government naturally pays particular attention to events in New Caledonia, which is a significant point of tension in our neighbourhood. We have made it clear that we favour the peaceful evolution of New Caledonia to independence; determined in accordance with the principle of self-determination. We would like to see New Caledonia join the community of independent Pacific nations as soon as it is realistically possible. The Prime Minister, our representatives in Noumea and I have had frequent discussions with representatives of key groups in New Caledonia, including the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front. Earlier this year the Government approved the opening of an FLNKS information office in Australia. Other aspects of French policies in the Pacific have been of very serious concern to the Australian Government. We have frequently made clear out total opposition to French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, which continues in disregard of very deeply felt opposition in the region. At the very least, we have a right to expect that pending a comprehensive test ban, the location of tests will be limited to the home territory of a nuclear weapon state rather than in nuclear-free regions. Aware of mounting feeling among the Pacific Island states over the activities of American tuna boats, the Government has actively encouraged Washington to negotiate more equitable fisheries access arrangements with the island countries. The United States Administration has now entered into serious negotiations. There are good prospects that this will result in an agreement satisfactory to all parties. Most Pacific island countries look to Australia as a major source of aid, investment, tourism, export income and assistance with such matters as transport, communications and defence. Our aid to the region, excluding Papua New Guinea, totals about $56m a year. At the Forum meeting in August, Australia announced its willingness to respond in innovative ways to the special economic needs of the smaller island countries. After a major Australian review of the South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Co-operation Agreement, we decided that major changes would be made under that agreement in order to liberalise island country access to Australian markets. These measures demonstrate this Government's strong commitment to support and assist our neighbours in the South Pacific. They are our close friends, we feel a strong sense of community with them and we are sensitive to their special needs. The Government has developed greater interest in Pacific Basin economic co-operation, recognising that this co-operation will be a long term process, for many reasons, and one for which there is no single, agreed blueprint for action. The 33 littoral states of the Pacific generate no less than 60 per cent of world gross national product. Their growth rate is double that of the Atlantic nations. Late last year, the Government announced the formation of a national Pacific co-operative committee which draws together senior representatives of government and industry with academics to develop Australian thinking and approaches on the issue. Our continuing good relations with Japan and our burgeoning relationships with China and the Republic of Korea are significant factors in our regional policies. Japan is our largest trading partner. While we continue to emphasise the fundamental importance of Australia's resources trade, we are seeking to explore new areas for growth in the economic relationship in our region. We have also made clear our concern that Japan adopt a multilateral-as distinct from bilateral and discriminatory-response to pressure from any of its key trading partners. Australia welcomes Japan's increasing willingness to play an active role in maintaining political stability in the region and the world. As Japan has taken up this active role, we have developed a broader range of consultation on political issues. We judge that the Japan-United States Security Treaty is a force for stability in North Asia. We welcome Japan's continuing adherence to its non-nuclear principles and to its self-defence policies. We accept Japan's sovereign right to develop its self-defence capability but we have stressed to the Japanese Government that this be done in a way that does not disturb regional stability. Relations with China are an important focus of the Government's foreign policy. The profound changes in China's economic policies and its approach to international affairs since 1978 should allow it the opportunity to emerge as a co-operative partner in promoting regional stability and prosperity. Trade with China last year exceeded $1 billion for the first time. This is a gratifying result of efforts by the Government to involve more closely our two economies-a policy which promises even more economic benefit in the long term. But our relationship is broader and more diverse than mutual economic interest. Politically, there is a new maturity in the relationship as we talk with Chinese leaders seriously, and regularly, on a range of regional and global issues of importance. The Korean Peninsula has been a focus of tension in North-East Asia throughout the post-war period. We note the efforts of the Republic of Korea and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to establish dialogue. We trust that maintenance of the dialogue will lead to an effective and lasting reduction of tension. The Republic of Korea has in the last few years become a major trading partner with Australia. We shall make every effort to promote this aspect of the relationship. We note the commitment to a peaceful transfer of presidential power in 1988 and we hope that the political liberalisation to which the Republic of Korea Government is also committed will have been achieved by then. The objective of my visit to India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka in May was to arrest a drift over the past 10 years in our contracts with countries in the South Asian part of our region. My visit sought to demonstrate to an important part of our region that we are keenly interested in developing closer relations with South Asia. India is the major regional power and a country of considerable international influence. It is also one of the world's leading industrialised countries. It is our hope that closer economic as well as political relations can be established between us. We are pleased that the Indian Prime Minister will be visiting Australia early next year and look forward to the development of a more substantial relationship. It is important for Australia that South Asia should be a peaceful and secure region, free from a nuclear arms race and from outside interference. The destabilising effect of foreign interference in the region is most vividly illustrated by the adverse impact of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, not only on Afghanistan itself but also on Pakistan, which carries a considerable burden as host to more than two million Afghan refugees. The Soviet presence in Afghanistan provoked a good deal of discussion during my visit about security in the Indian Ocean area. The prospects were also discussed for the United Nations declaring the ocean a zone of peace, the principal aim of which would be the elimination of tension in the Indian Ocean. The more notorious of the causes of that tension at present, of course, flow from the Arab-Israeli dispute and the Iran-Iraq war. The bitter turbulence engulfing Israel, Lebanon and the other nations caught up in the Palestinian issue is a matter of profound concern to Australia for economic as well as broader reasons. Recent events have unfortunately helped to inhibit the encouraging process towards settlement initiated by King Hussein and Yasser Arafat in February. I offer as examples the attack of headquarters in Tunisia, the seizure of the Achille Lauro and the cancellation of talks between the British Government and a Jordanian-Palestinian delegation. The possibility of some form of international conference on this issue is now being explored. The Government hopes that a commitment may be growing to a civilised solution to a tragic problem. By that I mean peace by negotiation, not settlement by the gun. The war between Iran and Iraq has taken a dreadful toll of civilian as well as military lives. It also has the potential to disrupt world trade and security. As the current President of the Security Council, we are doing what we can to encourage a settlement. It is our earnest hope that both sides will work with the Council for a comprehensive settlement. The hijacking on Sunday of Egyptian Airlines flight 648 and the subsequent tragic loss of innocent life-including that of a young Australian woman-are the latest grim reminder of the unresolved tensions which plague the Middle East. The incident brings home painfully to all Australians the fact that we are not immune from this global problem which jeopardises not only individual lives and liberties but also the civilised conduct of relations between states. As on numerous occasions in the past, the Australian Government condemns such acts of violence. I repeat what I said in this place yesterday, that the Australian Government firmly believes that terrorism and violence are unacceptable means by which to pursue political objectives. A major issue in our foreign policy, and one which is of direct concern to Australia, is the health and stability of the international economic environment in which we have to live. To a large extent the factors which affect this environment are beyond the control of a country such as Australia. Nevertheless our ultimate strength and prosperity depend heavily on the way in which, as a nation for which international trade is important, we react to the changes taking place in that environment. In order to make the best of our comparative advantage as an efficient producer, we depend heavily on an open, healthy and non discriminatory economic system. At the same time we cannot deny that there are certain deficiencies in that system. The slow-down in growth in the early 1980s, the problems of international debt, the depressed commodity markets and high unemployment in the industrialised countries are all symptoms of those problems with particular significance for Australia, given its heavy dependence on exports of commodities. It is true that there has been some improvement in the past two years. World growth rates are up. Trade, which actually declined in the early 1980s, increased by 8.5 per cent in 1984 and growth has continued, albeit at a slower rate, during this year. The rescheduling of the debts of some of the major debtors and the difficult structural adjustments that some of them have made give some hope for further improvement. In the medium and longer term, however, continuing care and sensitivity will be required. Australia can play an important role in helping to ensure that constructive policies are pursued. We have been particularly concerned about the impact on other countries of the relationships between the major world economies. Protectionist pressure in the United States directed at Japan and other Asian countries can affect the demand for Australian commodities. Subsidised competition between the United States and the European Community runs the risk of jeopardising traditional and commercially-won markets which we have developed and nurtured over many years. Australia has been an active and concerned participant in the various international activities designed to strengthen the international economic system which became known simplistically as the North-South debate and was expressed in terms, most recently, of so-called global negotiations. Because those negotiations were not successful it may be thought that the North-South debate is no longer relevant. The fact is that, while the nature of the debate has changed, the basic issues involved-protection, trade and financial policies, the international financial system and exchange rate disequilibriums, market instability, investment and resource flows, indebtedness and the problems of the very poor countries, particularly in Africa-are now being addressed in a more specific and hopefully more practical manner in a variety of forums. I said earlier that Australia-as part of a global moral consensus-was closely interested in such social issues as human rights. The condition of human rights must be part of any objective assessment of world affairs. Violations of human rights, for example, are symptomatic of societies in flux or even upheaval and they carry repercussions which cannot be ignored, such as outflows of refugees. The Government, therefore, has actively pursued issues of human rights at home and overseas-particularly in multilateral bodies. Australia was re-elected to a three-year term of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights starting from this year. Representations or inquiries on human rights concerns are made by our representatives without fear or favour, in our region and beyond it, in eastern Europe, in the Americas and wherever it is necessary to convey the concern of a decent peaceful community. Human rights in South Africa has naturally been a prominent issue before the Australian community. A system whose laws and institutions discriminate between races is an abomination. A system which does so primarily for economic reasons-which depends on a kind of slave trade-is beneath contempt. The Government's position on the Security Council and its strong, long-standing opposition to apartheid have supported the community's concerns about this tragic problem. Australia has voted in the Security Council for economic sanctions against South Africa. The Government has no patience with those who assert that they oppose apartheid but refuse to do anything to make their opposition meaningful. It is confident that Australian companies will adhere to a code of conduct in which corporations operating in South Africa undertake not to use apartheid laws to exploit black labour. A recent review of policy towards South Africa has resulted in a stronger stand against apartheid. On 19 August, the Government set selective measures in train in the area of investment, banking, sales of computers and petroleum products, sales of Kruger rands and military equipment, government contracts, export incentives and official commercial representation in South Africa. The recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting decided on important initiatives drawn up by the Prime Minister and other leaders to advance proposals for reform in South Africa. The group of eminent persons proposed at the CHOGM will include Mr Fraser, who has shown an active and progressive interest in the affairs of South Africa. It will be concerned to engage the South African Government and all sections of opinion in that country in exploring how a national discussion on reform might be instituted. The question of further measures concerning apartheid by Australia will depend on the extent to which the South African Government shows its readiness to move on reform. My description of Australia a moment ago as a middle-ranking nation was not made simply out of modesty, however becoming; it is a realistic appreciation of our position in the international spectrum of power and influence. We are part of a discernible community of nations with the flexibility and independence to refuse to be limited by what the super-powers and their conservative followers might insist is the iron logic of a purely bipolar world system. We line up behind generally accepted Western values but we would not be bound by actions or policies which deny these values. This is why we involve ourselves in the great international social issues. This is why we set ourselves the continuing task of building bridges between groups, particularly in the critical area of disarmament. This is why we sought membership of the Security Council and have offered our strong support for multilateral solutions to the urgent issues of our time. There are people in Australia who argue that our commitments in world affairs should extend only to limits set by our narrow, short-term national interest. The Government rejects this view as foolish and dangerous complacency in a time of great change. This is why the Government has gone to quiet but consistent and determined pains to inform the community about the extent and effect of the environment of change in which Australia lives. I wish particularly to thank the Australian Institute of International Affairs, which has provided me with the opportunity to explain the Government's attitudes and policies on such evolving issues as South Africa, Papua New Guinea, relations with the Soviet Union, human rights and the Indian Ocean in Canberra, Perth, Sydney and other centres. Forums have also been provided by other groups to explain the Government's position on international issues of interest and concern to the public. The Parliament naturally remains the key forum. Among some 14 major reports I have made to the House have been statements on the review of ANZUS, South Africa and the proposed business code of conduct for Australian companies operating in South Africa. Through Backgrounder, the Australian Foreign Affairs Record and various other departmental publications, the Government has examined such matters as arms control and nuclear disarmament, the future of Antarctica, aid and related economic issues, and international aspects of environmental issues. On assuming office, the Government commissioned a thorough and independent review of our foreign aid program by an eminent committee chaired by Sir Gordon Jackson. The community is still responding to the committee's report, which was tabled in the Parliament last year, though I hope to be able to make a statement to the Parliament about the Government's evaluation of the report and the ensuing community debate before the House recesses. The intererst shown by the community in these activities has been reassuring and encouraging. I wish to record my appreciation of the efforts made by the officers of my department in pursuit of the Government's foreign policy objectives. As I stated during an interview on the Special Broadcasting Service in June, `their responses to me have been magnificent, entirely loyal to the Government of the day'. The broad canvas I have provided today of international affairs as they affect Australia seeks to demonstrate the principles which support and inform the Government's policies. These policies are determined by the Government's democratic socialist values and goals, a concern for peace and security and a realistic appreciation both of power politics and the fact of economic and social diversity among the nations with which Australia co-exists. Above all, the Government is committed to strengthening our national interests by maintaining Australia's sovereignty in its foreign policies and its independence on the issues of war and peace. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong) —by leave-It is a welcome if belated development for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to give the House an account of the state of Australia's foreign policy. The statement is long overdue and I certainly hope that it is not to be regarded as valedictory. What is not welcome is the steady erosion of cohesion, stability and direction in Australia's foreign policy under the Hawke Government. This has come about principally for two reasons. The first reason has been repeatedly commented upon-the fact that the foreign policy decisions of the Australian Labor Party are not based on a realistic calculation of where the nation's interest lies and how to defend it, but increasingly on the need to predicate decisions on how the factions might line up against an undercurrent of creeping nuclear pacificism and anti-Americanism. The second contributing factor to this malaise is more subtle. What also concerns me about Labor's foreign policy is the lack of a broad vision of the values that underpin the Western alliance and the role that we should be playing. It is wrong to believe that regional initiatives can be taken without regard to their global consequences. We cannot in some way quarantine the region from great power influence and the conflict of ideas. The Foreign Minister crystallised this attitude in a recent speech to a Fabian Society conference on ANZUS when he stated: ANZUS as an element of regional stability must not mean that it should act as a cloak behind which great power influence is being or would be imposed upon purely regional affairs and issues. What the Minister said in effect is: Let us restrict the influence of both the United States of America and the Soviet Union in our region. What this forgets is that we are part of the Western alliance and that this is not just a grouping of powers but the embodiment of certain ideas and values which are distinctly part of the Australian character. The ideas of individualism, democracy and liberty are imbedded in Australia and, of course, in the Western alliance. They are ideas that we should be assertively proud to represent and that will be lost if totalitarian societies become the main repository of power. What this also forgets is that it is the United States presence that has underpinned growth and stability in our region. To put it bluntly, it is American power that guarantees the survival of freedom. Whilst the Government has given foreign policy priority to the region, it has nonetheless got it wrong. Whatever we do in the region must fit within our global perspective. We cannot separate them. Labor has tried. What are the consequences of Labor's actions? Quite simply, we have become a pale and reluctant partner in the Western alliance. We have a role to play and we are not playing it. Instead of supporting our friends and allies, we undercut them. Instead of assuming an activist and genuinely internationalist role, Labor has assumed a phoney independence; a so-called independence which, in reality, is increasingly isolationist and concerned with avoiding commitments; a so-called independence which postures as internationalist, and relies on the paralysis of the United Nations system as an excuse for inaction. The Hawke Government in giving priority to the region has concentrated on two areas: Cambodia and the formation of a South Pacific nuclear free zone. Neither initiative has been in Australia's national interest. Both bear testimony to the malaise in this Government's foreign policy. The Association of South East Asian Nations has been concerned about Australia's naive attitude to Vietnam's attempt to fulfil traditional Vietnamese imperial designs towards Cambodia. On a matter vital to its security we have consistently undermined its own diplomatic stand on the problem. The Foreign Minister actually paid court to the Vietnamese Government at the very time its troops were fighting inside Thailand. Our various diplomatic initiatives have achieved not one jot of progress towards a solution, and have rightly earned the ire of ASEAN, China, and the United States. We have been used by the Vietnamese as a dupe, or in the Chinese Government's words, `a cat's paw', for the diplomatic campaigns which have traditionally accompanied its annual dry season military offensives against the Cambodian resistance. In doing so we give legitimacy to Vietnam's actions. Nor can the Government's high sounding rhetoric obscure the fact that the Labor Government's actions are wrong in principle. It should not be forgotten that it was Vietnam which brutally invaded Cambodia six years ago and Vietnam which refuses to withdraw. It was Vietnam which did this, not for any reasons of humanity, but to install a puppet government consisting of former senior aids to Pol Pot. It is Vietnam which continues to impose massive changes on Cambodian society and its administration, which has settled 300,000 Vietnamese in Cambodia and gives them priority over Cambodians. It is Vietnam which, when it talks about withdrawal, means withdrawal on its terms, and only after the final consolidation of power. The best hope for the Cambodian people lies in countries such as Australia solidifying their support behind ASEAN, by our letting the Vietnamese know they will not gain international respectability and access to Western development funds until they take some positive steps in the direction of an independent Cambodia. While Hanoi prefers the imperial and strategic comfort of control, it should be denied these benefits. Labor, of course, has embarked on the opposite course. It has, by neglect and by design, pursued policies which undermine our regional friends and allies and run counter to our national interest. It is a policy that is founded in guilt and given momentum by the Left. It is rationalised by the illusion that it will reduce Soviet influence in Vietnam and correspondingly lead to less great power competition in the region. Let us now turn to look at the other feature of Labor's regional foreign policy-the South Pacific nuclear free zone. We neglect the continuing economic problems of the independent micro-states of the Pacific and fail to provide them with leadership. In 20 overseas visits, the Foreign Minister has not even bothered to visit the South Pacific with the exception of Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. Our aid to the South Pacific, including Papua New Guinea, has fallen in real terms. Instead, what the Government does is adopt, as the centrepiece of Australia's Pacific policy, the concept of a nuclear free zone. This is a dangerously flawed proposal, which will have absolutely no effect on French nuclear testing or the dumping of nuclear waste, both of which the Opposition has consistently opposed and which are major concerns of the South Pacific. However, what the nuclear free zone may well do, is throw up serious obstacles for the United States in preserving regional security. It also prohibits for all time-I underline the words `for all time'-United States or allied base facilities within the zone, including Australia. This is irrespective of how the strategic position might deteriorate. By ratifying this treaty, Labor will have undertaken to refuse to co-operate with our allies in this regard, irrespective of how urgent the need is for them, or indeed, for us. We are the ones who must execute the primary responsibility for the Western alliance in the South Pacific, but instead of stressing the importance of the United States presence in the Pacific, we sent out all the wrong messages. By doing so we fan anti-nuclear sentiment which cuts across our own interests and those of our friends. The Soviet Union has sought to take advantage of these circumstances, constantly probing for various forms of access to the South Pacific. Liberal governments had been successful in resisting this encroachment, yet in the space of two years the Labor Government has dismally failed in Kiribati and is about to fail in Vanuatu. Though we are, at this stage, talking only about fishing agreements, we must recognise that this can quickly give the Soviets considerable political leverage over these island states with their fragile economies. In Kiribati, for example, the Soviets will contribute some 15 per cent of all government revenue. What should be made crystal clear is that any weakening of the United States resolve or ability to perform a role in the Pacific is one of the events that could seriously undermine the stability and the economic prospects of the region, for what has underpinned both the stability of the South Pacific, and the transformation of the Pacific rim into an arc of power, knowledge and wealth has been the presence of the United States and the ANZUS alliance. There should be no illusions that the Pacific Ocean is some sort of sea of tranquillity. Five of the world's six largest armed forces converge upon the Pacific. Moreover, the Soviet Union has embarked on an extraordinary and dramatic military buildup in the Pacific. It now has the capability to threaten vitally important lines of communication and to transpose its dramatically increased military presence in the region into political gains. Soviet allies in Vietnam and North Korea continue to be sources of instability. These are not the only challenges that confront the region. There is the conflict and suffering in Indo-China which drains the resources and energies of many Pacific nations. There are the economic tensions, regional rivalries and potential territorial disputes which also impede the search for lasting security. There are the economic problems of Papua New Guinea coupled with its current difficulties in the maintenance of law and order and the Irian Jaya question. I endorse the Minister's congratulations to Mr Paias Wingti and his tribute to my old friend, the former Prime Minister, Mr Michael Somare. I refer again to these other challenges that confront the region. There are the significant problems besetting the decolonisation process in New Caledonia where the principle of self-determination must be permitted to proceed. There are the serious political, economic and security problems that beset the Philippines. Though this crisis directly threatens the long term stability of the whole region, all we get from this Government is an eerie silence. We should be working quietly and closely with the United States and ASEAN to develop ways to encourage the Philippines to make the necessary political and economic changes. But Labor has no policies on this crucial issue. Presumably, if the New People's Army does take over, ASEAN falls apart and the Americans are thrown out of Subic Bay and Clark, this Government will offer to extend the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. With the exception of Irian Jayan refugees and the decolonisation process in New Caledonia, Labor's response to these developments has been totally inadequate and nothing typifies this more than the Labor Government's handling of ANZUS. The Government stood by and did nothing while ANZUS slowly unravelled. The unravelling of ANZUS has caused great concern to our friends in South East Asia and the Pacific. Despite the attention Australia says it is paying to the region, they increasingly see us drifting into isolation and irrelevance-a country unwilling to play an active and supportive role in economic and political developments. As Paul Dibb, the Federal Government's defence adviser-bear in mind that this is not an Opposition spokesman; this is Paul Dibb who has been appointed by the Government to advise it on defence matters-stated recently: The Soviet Union would like to see the ANZUS Alliance system disrupted in its favour and the close relationship that has developed between Australia, New Zealand and the United States with the ASEAN countries and with the nations of Oceania destroyed. The importance of ANZUS to the USSR needs to be clearly understood . . . ANZUS is an integral part of the Western alliance. It is also fundamental to Australia's immediate security interests. On assuming office, the Labor Government reviewed the ANZUS Treaty and decided, in the Foreign Minister's own words: . . . to an unequivocal reaffirmation of the Alliance as fundamental to our foreign and defence policies. What is regrettable is that in having accepted these principles, the Government has implemented them in a half-hearted and dishonest way. Labor acknowledged that the ANZUS pact was central to Australia's security. Yet within two years we face a situation where ANZUS is, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), `no longer operative', and the treaty is subject to fundamental review should New Zealand proceed with its anti-nuclear legislation. The Government has stood by and done nothing while ANZUS has slowly fallen apart. No clear message has been sent to the New Zealand Government about where we stand. No attempt has been made to take a mediatory role and work for a solution, though a compromise might have been possible; we will never know because Labor never tried. Even now, no attempt is made to dissuade New Zealand from its anti-nuclear legislation, which it has been said will be implemented in the New Zealand Parliament next month. The Government has sought to justify its dereliction over ANZUS by saying that it will preserve the bilateral defence relationship between Australia and the United States. This misses the point. The ANZUS Treaty is now a hollow shell and we are left with something much less. The termination of defence co-operation between the United States and New Zealand had diminished Australia's and the region's security. The co-ordination, intelligence sharing and defence co-operation made possible by ANZUS, and the authority that alliance membership gave each of the three partners have been vital to effective regional responses to the Soviet Union's attempts to make strategic inroads into the Pacific. A bilateral relationship between Australia with the United States on the one hand and Australia and New Zealand on the other is a very poor substitute for the tripartite influence made possible by ANZUS. A three-columned structure has had one column knocked from under it. The fact that the Hawke Government allowed ANZUS to become inoperative will only encourage renewed Soviet attempts to make new strategic inroads into the Pacific while hampering our capacity to resist the erosion of regional integrity. Honourable members should just remember, if not my words, the words of Mr Dibb whom I quoted earlier. We should also be clear about the value of the treaty, as our ultimate guarantee, and just what Labor has put at risk. The Treaty provides very significant security commitments to Australia. The centrepiece is Article IV of the Treaty. Here, the Treaty states that an attack on any of the nations of ANZUS would be dangerous for the others and that each nation would act to meet the common danger, in accordance with its constitutional procedures. Realistically, one can never automatically expect assistance, for nations will interpret treaties in the light of the times and the standings of their relationship. Such a statement, however, does not impugn the value and integrity of the treaty, but rather underscores the point that nothing should be taken for granted and that any alliance needs constant work. The intention of the United States has always been that it would help Australia in the event of a serious military conflict. As recently as last year, Paul Wolfowitz, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, said: . . . let there be no doubt in the mind of any potential adversary that an armed attacked on an ally would require, and would receive from the allies, full and prompt fulfilment of the ANZUS security commitment, including, when necessary, military. There is a further compelling reason why the existence of a healthy ANZUS is important to our security, and that is its deterrent value. The fact is that the very existence of ANZUS means that any country seeking to take military action against Australia would also have to take into consideration Australia's relationship with the United States and the nature of the support the United States would extend under the Treaty. All this may now be lost. The United States proposal to review the ANZUS Treaty, should New Zealand go ahead next month or soon after with its anti-nuclear legislation, is an understandable but regrettable step in order to clarify the present situation where our ANZUS Treaty is in some form of operational and legal vacuum. But what is the Government's position? Once again it remains silent. I am told: `Let's not bully New Zealand. Let's not be primitive in our conduct.' My country's most basic defence treaty has been unravelled. Legislation is to be introduced into the New Zealand Parliament. The United States is going to review its obligations, and this Government says: `Do not abuse New Zealand'. When I criticise New Zealand I am not criticising its people, but I am bluntly and to the point criticising this current delinquent Government that is jeopardising my country's basic defence treaty. I happen to put my people's interests, my country's security interests, ahead of being `well regarded' by the current Labor Prime Minister. Both Prime Ministers might be members of the Socialist Internationale, but surely Labor's membership of the Socialist Internationale should not take precedence over its duty to our people; yet that is what has happened. Labor remains silent because it wants to put its factional interests ahead of our fundamental security interests. If there is any element in the current foreign policy for which this Government stands so soundly condemned, it is the default and delinquency in allowing our basic treaty to unravel without a murmur or complaint or an endeavour to seek a solution. I think that this will be brought home to the Australian people in the weeks ahead if, as I say, December is the due date on which Mr Lange or one of his Ministers introduces that legislation into the New Zealand Parliament and the United States then reacts. The United States said either today or yesterday that it will not even receive-and I do not blame it-the New Zealand politician who was coming to explain the legislation. Why after this time should the United States receive some politician coming across to tell it that its vessels cannot enter New Zealand ports? Today the thrust of my opponent, the Minister's views on the question of ANZUS was that we have been bully boys across the Pacific because we have sought to abuse New Zealand. All I want is my country's defence treaty working and in place. The Government certainly should have acted much earlier to prevent the situation deteriorating to the extent I have described today. It must now act to ensure that any United States review-and it is foreshadowed by the United States that it will review the ANZUS Treaty-does not reduce United States guarantees to Australia under the Treaty and that any United States Congressional intervention in the review process does not threaten Australian interests. We cannot just concern ourselves with the region's or our own immediate security, for Australia cannot turn its back on the importance of maintaining a stable global deterrence. A nuclear war, wherever it occurred, would have catastrophic consequences for Australia. There is no escape in nuclear free zones and in wishing that Australia could opt out. It is therefore vital to our security that we take practical measures to assist in avoiding nuclear war both through the maintenance of deterrence and by practical disarmament measures. Any debate on defence has to be conducted at a technical level, yet at the same time we must not be cowed by the complexity of nuclear issues. We must not lose sight of the fact that nuclear issues need to be managed and require a modulated response based on balance and reduction. Neither should we lose sight of where we stand, or be hesitant about asserting those values that we believe are worth defending, for they would be lost if totalitarian states, and the Soviet Union in particular, were to become the pre-eminent powers. There are no general prescriptions for understanding Soviet action-I have heard them put forward but they do not work-still less for dealing with its consequences. It acts as a state with clearly defined national interests and these interests are dictated by geography and by history. They do not deviate sharply from what has been inherited from the czars. What complicates matters is that the Soviet also acts as the centre of a revolutionary movement and allegedly in accordance with a fixed system of ideas, which it eventually expects to lead to the triumph of Marxist Leninism. One can question how seriously the Soviet leadership believes in the revolution's eventual triumph in the world; and, indeed, one has good cause to question what sacrifices of the national interest its leaders might actually make in pursuit of ideological orthodoxy. But one cannot question that Soviet policy in its more dangerous expressions represents a tradition of expansion and of a pursuit of security which makes everyone else insecure. For Australia and the West the challenge is posed at two levels. The real effect of the Soviet Union's nuclear power lies not in its military results but in the psychological impetus this can give to Soviet diplomacy. The Soviet purpose is to detach Western allies in Europe, but also in the Pacific, from strategic co-operation with the United States. Its purpose is to detach as many allies as possible within the Western alliance from strategic co-operation with the United States. In this it plays on public opinion and on the weakness of some Western governments. Then at another level it pursues an adversarial relationship which it attempts to keep under some form of control. For the Soviets it is a form of peaceful co-existence which will take advantage of weakness but will respond to resolve. The West in recent decades has increasingly assumed that military power has lost its utility in a nuclear age. The Soviet Union does not accept that. It declines to share that oft-assumed Western approach that military power has lost some utility today. In Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Kampuchea the Soviet Union or its allies have achieved considerable results through the use of military power. Enter the Gorbachev era. It is too new to draw responsible conclusions about its future course of action. It is prudent to assume, however, that despite the summitry and the additional public relations veneer, there will be little change from the central impulses that have governed Soviet policy and that these challenges will need to be met resolutely and with strength. Having put down that view of the Soviet Union, I do not say that a realistic accommodation between the super-powers is impossible. It is not. In fact, quite the reverse is true, and detente should never have become a dirty word. What I do say is that detente-that is, the reduction of international political tension-should be stripped of its illusions. Detente is not friendship as such; rather it should be designed to balance confrontation with co-operation, to control the adversarial relationship. Last week's summit was long overdue and it was welcome. It provided us with the hope that it will lead to a reduction in international tension, and it allowed the two leaders to size each other up and understand the other's interests and perceptions. Such a meeting can substantially reduce the risk of war by miscalculation or mistake. It had been unrealistic to expect any dramatic breakthrough at the summit, but the process of summitry now instituted may also prove a useful way of breaking bureaucratic log jams, and give a fresh impetus to negotiations over arms control. But we should not delude ourselves about summits or declarations of good intentions. At present nuclear war is avoided, and international stability is maintained, by effective deterrence and not simply arms control. There are two vital corrollaries to the objectives of maintaining effective deterrence: First, an approximate equivalence between the capabilities of the United States and the Soviet Union; and, secondly, the necessity of ensuring crisis stability. The problem was that when the Reagan Administration came to power there was a growing disparity between the two nuclear arsenals. The effect this had on the Soviet Union was not to make it relax its endeavours but, to the contrary, to lead to an increase in Soviet adverturism, first in Africa and the Middle East and then in Central America. When the Reagan Administration was elected, its overriding purpose was to prevent the balance of military power and what it called `the correlation of forces' from tilting irreversibly toward the Soviet Union. It was right to be so concerned. As President Carter's Secretary of Defence, Harold Brown, put it: When we build, they build; when we don't build, they build. In 1972, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks I interim agreement, which purported to freeze the balance at the then allegedly existing level. It did no such thing. What it did was to freeze the number of operational ballistic missile launches, and those the Soviet Union claimed were under construction. Those levels were grossly unequal, and the Soviet Union exploited those inequalities as it caught up to the United States in accuracy, mirving and other pertinent aspects of technology. What was the result? By 1976-77, the Soviets had begun major deployments of three types of new fourth generation intercontinental ballisticmissiles, the SS17, the SS18 and the SS19. Two new Soviet ICBMs, the SSX24 and the SSX25, are now being flight tested. Today, the number of Soviet strategic ballistic missiles is four times the number when SALT I was concluded, and their hard target capability has increased by a factor of 10. All that took place within the limitations of the SALT Treaty. At the same time the Soviet Union was modernising what was already the world's largest and most sophisticated air defence system. This presented a threat to the second leg of the United States triad, namely, the bomber leg. The Soviets were also hardening missile silos. They were proliferating, dispersing and hardening hundreds of command and control facilities. All this is acknowledged. It is all accepted. We went our merry way, thinking that everything was a sea of tranquility in an atmosphere of quiet because we signed SALT I. I am all in favour of arms control and strategic arms limitations talks and agreements, but I want people to understand that some realism has to be injected into this and the simple signing of a treaty does not prevent certain developments, as I have just demonstrated. It came down to a simple matter of credibility. If the United States failed to respond to these efforts, the Soviet Union might convince itself that the risk inherent in threatening or actually using military force against the United States or its military allies were reduced to an acceptable level. In that case deterrence would be jeopardised. Reagan's strategic modernisation plan was the crucial element in rebuilding the triad and restoring balance and credibility to the United States deterrence. The Labor Government-the mealy mouthed people opposite who talk in terms of deterrence but after 40 years cannot grapple with it or come to terms with it and do not comprehend its reality-produced its own open strategic basic paper, which was endorsed by Cabinet and leaked to the National Times published on 30 March 1984. That paper set all this out clearly and acknowledged the necessity, as did those opposite, of United States strategic modernisation. The Government would not tell us that in its statement, but it endorsed it in the privacy of the Cabinet room. Against this strategic backdrop, what has been our Government's public response? This Labor Government, quite simply, embarked, for both domestic and party reasons, on a disarmament crusade. Consistency, patience and credibility-forget them. They have been sacrificed by this Government as it has used disarmament policy as a propaganda exercise to placate the anti-nuclear groups in and on the fringes of the Australian Labor Party. We had the humiliating sight of the Prime Minister in Washington earlier this year backing out of an endorsement of the United States strategic modernisation plan contained in a joint communique. He had agreed to it. He thought that it was fine print and that no one would notice. As soon as the word came back, he ducked away from what he had entered into in a joint communique. He could not stand up to the Left and endorse the United States strategic modernisation plan, which happens to be fundamental to the Reagan Administration's defence approach. One should ask: What sort of responsible government is it which mouths the words of deterrence yet is incapable of supporting the necessary decisions technologically to upgrade the nuclear arsenal to preserve it in a viable form? We have had the Labor Government's nuclear freeze vote at the United Nations, which cut right across the negotiating stance of the United States and the position of most of our Western allies. Then, as all Australians will remember, we had the panic stricken Prime Minister's behaviour over the MX, when he caved in to his party's anti-American elements and reneged on a commitment to provide United States planes with refueling rights to assist them in monitoring MX tests. Mr Ruddock —Disgraceful. Mr PEACOCK —It is absolutely disgraceful. When I was addressing a meeting the other day, I talked about the MX issue. Someone said: `I had forgotten what we had agreed to'. What was it that the Prime Minister said the United States could not do? I said: `I will tell you what he said it could not do'. Mr White —The United States could not use an airport. Mr PEACOCK —It could not use an airport to refuel. The United States planes could not land. That is what it asked. It did not ask the Prime Minister to go up in the missile! It simply asked whether its planes could land in New South Wales and refuel. I think there was the additional request as to whether the United States personnel could use a motel room or two for a day or two off for rest and recreation. Let us just imagine what it would be like if the United States asked us to do something significant under the terms of the alliance. He would not even let it use the airport to refuel. Why was that decision taken? Everyone in this Parliament remembers why. There was no assessment of what was in our best interests. The Prime Minister was advised that he did not have the numbers in the Caucus, so he dumped an agreement with our major ally. He ran away from a fight in the Caucus. Mrs Sullivan —Didn't even try. Mr PEACOCK —He did not even try. He dumped the agreement with the United States. Interestingly enough, in fairness to the Foreign Minister, honourable members will recall that at that time the Foreign Minister was properly defending the commitment against the lunatic Left which was whipping itself into a frenzy and a lather. Apart from what the Foreign Minister said, it is interesting to recall what the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said at that time. Let me repeat the words of the Defence Minister, the very day before the capitulation of the Prime Minister. He said that to deny United States aircraft the facilities to refuel `would not be the act of an ally'. There we have it-the Minister for Defence trying to persuade his Party to go ahead with co-operation, saying bluntly: `If you change on this your action will not be the action of an ally'. Forget it! His Leader was in Europe; he panicked on the numbers and of course dumped it on the Americans and broke the commitment. Over and above that of course we had the Foreign Minister-the Foreign Minister I referred to doing all the right things on the MX missile issue-threatening to close down the Australian-US joint facilities should they develop what he calls a first strike capability or, if he felt the United States had made insufficient progress on key disarmament matters. In addition, he caused the Americans to formally protest and accuse him of duplicity during last year's comprehensive test ban treaty negotiations at the United Nations. On the crucial issue of deterrence and disarm-ament the Government has been intellectually and morally dishonest-it has been infected by a creeping nuclear pacifism. It has affected the decisions it has taken, at some cost to our own stance. The Government has chosen to ignore the lessons of recent times, that is, that unilateral concessions are not reciprocated by the Soviet Union; that a bargain has to be struck from the basis of equality and with the maintenance of equality as the desired end. The Labor Government has rejected the very premise on which the Reagan Administration has acted in its first four years. Of course, it is now in the process of rejecting the strategic defence initiative, the main premise on which the Administration is to act in the nuclear arena in the next four years. Ironically, it is these two things which have brought the Soviet Union back to the disarmament negotiating table. In March 1983 President Reagan put forward a bold vision of a world in which nuclear weapons had been rendered obsolete. Let us be very clear what we are talking about: We are talking about research-research only-into the strategic defence initiative. It is research into a non-nuclear defence system. It is an attempt to see whether the technological advances that have been made in the field of missile defence are such that a more reliable basis for security and peace can now be found. It is a moral quest which has as its key element the redirection of both United States and Soviet attention away from offensive weapons to defensive weapons. What must be remembered is that SDI research is not only visionary, but a highly prudent exercise. The Soviet Union has been doing research for some considerable time. Since the 1972 ABM Treaty, only the United States has given up on active defences against aircraft as well as against ballistic missiles. The Soviet Union, in complete contrast, has spent more on active defences since the signing of the 1972 ABM Treaty than on its nuclear offensive forces. As Secretary of State Shultz said on the 28 March: The Soviets have their own version of an SDI program, and have had it for years, long before ours. Behind the propaganda of the alleged militarisation of space you will find the expenditures, the military research personnel, the laboratories and testing grounds of amibitious Soviet strategic defence programes. If the United States were unilaterally to restrain its research program, the Soviets would be left with a virtual monopoly in ballistic missile defence research which could be highly dangerous for the Western alliance and Australia. Is that what this Government wants? Moreover, this Government ignores other elements about SDI research which could prove vitally important. The buildup of offensive weapons and the pace of their technological advance have been so rapid that they could, over time, make obsolete the principles on which mutual assured destruction formerly rested and which underpinned the ABM Treaty. A leaky defence system could be important in preserving and enhancing deterrence. Such a defence system would substantially complicate and frustrate any plan for a first strike attack. It is also possible that deployment of SDI for the defence of missile sites may prove the ultimate bargaining chip in securing mutal reductions in offensive weapons. No one denies the enormous difficulties in devising a defensive system, or the problems involved in moving to a situation of deployment. The United States Administration has itself set extremely high standards. As Paul Nitze, the Special Assistant to the President on Arms Control, has said: If the new technologies cannot meet these standards we are not about to deploy them. What are these standards? The SDI must be feasible, survivable, and cost effective at the margins so as to ensure that it will not provoke a new arms race. More than that, if technology does prove defensive weaponry to be cost effective, it will make a continued defensive buildup futile. The United States and Western aim is not to achieve superiority but to maintain the strategic balance in a more defensive mode. Let us recall what President Reagan has promised: Firstly, to act in accordance with the ABM Treaty; secondly, to negotiate before any deployment; and thirdly, to share the technology both with allies and with the Soviet Union. I repeat: He has indicated a preparedness to share the technology both with allies and with the Soviet Union. The Hawke Administration has still yet to respond formally to the Weinberger invitation to participate in the SDI program-even though this invitation dates from 1 March, and the Minister for Defence and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have already made it clear they will not. What are the consequences of refusing to participate? At one level they are the following: Firstly, we cut ourselves off from vital high technology frontiers of both civilian and military technology; secondly, we deny ourselves a part of the $26 billion SDI research program, a third of which is anticipated to be spent overseas; and thirdly, we cause a brain drain amongst our qualified scientists to overseas organisations. At the other level, the consequences of not participating are equally unfortunate. We deny ourselves influence on the objectives and eventual outcome of the research. We become the dupes of the Soviet Union's determined propaganda campaign against the United States SDI, and we undermine the most important prerequisite for progress in the Geneva arms negotiations-Western unity. The Government's approach is negative, luddite and ill-informed. On the question of SDI, it is an absolute captive-once again-of the Left. Let me now turn briefly to the Middle East, where once again the malaise in Labor's foreign policy is clearly evident. Apart from rhetoric, there has been one recent concrete manifestation of our support for the Middle East peace process: Our contingent in the multinational peace keeping force in the Sinai. This force was formed outside the auspices of the United Nations and is a vital part of the implementation of the Camp David Peace Accord. There was no possibility of United Nations action because of the Soviet veto and, of course, because of opposition to the force from radical Arab states. Labor used the paralysis of the United Nations system as an excuse to do nothing. It severely criticised the Fraser Government's decision to take part. When Labor came to power it indulged in a typically shoddy compromise of principles. The Hawke Government decided to withdraw the force, but not, of course, until 1986. Both the Israeli and Egyptian governments have asked Labor to reconsider its decision. The Prime Minister has refused. Last year in the House the Foreign Minister stated: I found that the MFO is performing its task effectively and has contributed to stability in an otherwise turbulent region. He stated that both Israel and Egypt are committed to peace and that the MFO helped make this possible. I ask the Government: What changed? Mr Hunt —That would be the left wing that did that. Mr PEACOCK —One could ask the Government what changed, after the Foreign Minister passed these complimentary remarks on the MFO. Is either Egypt or Israel no longer committed to a settlement? No. Is the presence of this peace-keeping force no longer relevant? No. The answers to both questions are, of course, no. The point is not whether some other country could or has been found to replace Australia, but rather whether Australia should continue to assume a burden in the cause of peace-a commitment which we were prepared to make; a commitment from which the Government withdrew. Mr Hunt —Why did they do it? Mr PEACOCK —It is symptomatic of the Government's inability to support friends or to assume obligations if there is pressure from the Left. It is the factional element that overrides, not the assessment of the national interest. Finally, let me turn to South Africa, for here the Government's problems are of a different sort. Malcolm Fraser's appointment should be seen quite properly as a tribute to him and a tribute to the coalition's foreign policy. The Whitlams, the Haydens and the Willesees were all dismissed as inadequate by the Prime Minister, who felt obliged to turn to the man who destroyed Labor in 1975 and kept it in the wilderness until 1983. Less than 2 1/2 years later, Fraser's most bitter enemies have felt obligated to offer him one of their most prestigious foreign policy appointments. Let me say firmly that the coalition has not moved away from its policy in government of opposition to apartheid and of constructive pressure on the South African regime. Punitive economic sanctions have never been part of that policy. What has happened is that Labor, in its anxiety to be seen to be bringing pressure to bear on South Africa, has absolutely lost touch with its stated goal. This can be seen through the Government's South African policy. Labor's policy suffers from a fundamental confusion over means and ends, a lack of judgment and a lack of moderation. The Government has pushed the case of comprehensive mandatory economic sanctions. It has taken unilateral economic measures. It has resorted to the personal vilification of sportsmen. It has resorted to threats against civil liberties in Australia and to the denial of free speech. In its greatest gesture of all it even forbade Rotarians to come here on vacation to have a game of golf! Even at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting the Government's efforts were crude and confrontational. In the end, what was achieved was moderate and sensible. On behalf of the Opposition I have endorsed the obligations that the Government entered into at CHOGM-they were sensible, moderate and reasonable proposals-but they could have been achieved without rancour, without threatening to split the Commonwealth, without bucketing Mrs Thatcher and the British before the Prime Minister left Australia, and without the threat thereby to isolate the United Kingdom. This was a fatuous approach because the United Kingdom happens to be the only Commonwealth country with any real economic purchase and leverage over South Africa. Isolate Great Britain, isolate the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth, and one has isolated the only country with any real purchase and leverage. The Prime Minister did not think this through. He thought about it when he got there. Mrs Thatcher got the better of him. What turned out at the end of the day was a pretty reasonable agreement and I have no problems in endorsing the action that we have taken. The difficult challenge ahead is how to bring the South African Government to its senses; how to encourage genuine dialogue with the blacks and the development of workable political institutions within which power is shared. In pursuing the peaceful transformation of South African society, I do not believe that it is a sensible course at this time to take steps which will damage, destabilise or undermine the South African economy. How can one expect South Africa to reform peacefully when one throws it into economic crisis; when one damages the main engine of reform, which is the economy; when one throws black families with jobs and a stake in peaceful transition into unemployment; and when one destroys neighbouring black economies? Moreover, in the end, sanctions may well prove counterproductive, reinforcing the more conservative elements in their opposition to reform. Economic sanctions are an expression of moral outrage. That is both their principal strength and their principal weakness. The Opposition believes that their imposition at this time does not make a great deal of sense, and would be very much a matter of last resort. We have said it time and again. I do not need to go into the detail of that. In conclusion, we have to assist in the maintenance of political stability to ensure that our environment is conducive to economic growth and our own security. This requires an active foreign policy which is directed at assisting our friends and allies, encouraging regional collaboration and a sense of Pacific community amongst the region's diverse nations; strengthening the growth of economic and political ideas which portend a continuation of economic dynamism in the region, and assisting in the preservation of peace and stability. But, as I have stated, our role is much wider than just in the region. Labor's foreign policy has been a failure in policy implementation, and a failure in a broader sense because it has ignored the political and economic values that underpin the Western alliance. The Western alliance is not just a grouping of countries. It is a grouping of countries that fervently believe in particular values. That seems to me to be overlooked time and again by this Government. We should be playing our part in the Western alliance for the cause of peace and for the cause of liberty, and we are not. What we reject categorically is the growth in isolationism and pacifism under Labor's foreign policy-a growth which masquerades as a `new independence'. The reality, under Labor, is that what we are seeing is nothing less than a major transformation of Australia's foreign and defence policies-a transformation that is masked but a transformation it is. It is not the result, as I indicated earlier to the Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt), of a thoroughgoing reappraisal of assessing what is in Australia's best interests. Rather it is fuelled by an abject inability to put the national interest beyond the reach of Labor's factions and an inability to provide direction and cohesion. By default, it is a foreign policy adrift. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that `the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum'. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson,Mr Hawke,Mr McArthur and Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That whereas the Commonwealth of Australia ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1983, the Government of Victoria in passing the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 is in breach of Article 6 of the Convention which says that `States parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women. That the Victorian Planning (Brothels) Act 1984 provides legal authority to brothel operators to traffic in and exploit the prostitution of women and to live off the earnings of prostitutes. That whereas the Federal Minister for Health has counselled citizens to shun promiscuity (The Australian 26/1/85) because of the serious and sometimes fatal health hazards, the operations of legalised brothels encourages promiscuity and the spread of diseases, including AIDS. Your petitioners therefore pray: That the Government of Australia having ratified the UN Convention on Women remain consistent in its obligations to uphold the Articles of the Convention and request the Victorian Government to immediately repeal the Planning (Brothels) Act 1984. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Halverson and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully sayeth: That we the undersigned are totally opposed to any taxation change which involves a tax on Health Fund contributions, health charges or benefits; That we are already required to pay a 1 per cent levy to partly finance the Medicare scheme and that we would regard any further taxation of our health insurance arrangements as unfair and unreasonable; That therefore we urge the Government to ensure that there is no taxation on illness and no special taxation on those who seek to insure themselves against the cost of private health care. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ewen Cameron,Mr Ruddock and Mr Shipton. To the Hon. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled, the humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully show: As a part of the world wide campaign by women in the final year of the United Nations' Decade for Women for `Equality, Development and Peace' (1976-1985) and in view of the grave possibility of nuclear catastrophe, the union of Australian women calls on the Australian Government to: Intensify its efforts for nuclear disarmament; remove U.S. bases from Australian soil; keep the Pacific and Indian Oceans nuclear free. by Mr Hand and Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: Introduction of any additional capital gains taxes, wealth taxes or death duties is opposed on the grounds that: they adversely affect the small and medium size businesses in Australia, including farms, destroying incentive and discouraging investment in this important area of the economy; the Australian economy, and employment in particular, is heavily reliant on growth in small businesses; any capital gains that might result when owners of small enterprises finally sell these assets are not `windfall gains', but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business or farm by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business or farm to create growth and jobs; the owners of small businesses and farms often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell these assets to sustain them in retirement; Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, will protect the rights of private enterprise and reject any inequitable additional taxes. 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 certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that the current policies of the Community Arts Board of the Australia Council are disadvantaging rural residents with regard to access to the Arts. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Government will allocate sufficient funds to the Australia Council specifically to ensure ongoing funding to State Arts Councils to enable those organisations to maintain access to performing and other arts activities in country areas. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: (a) the ready availability of X-rated videos and other pornographic material; and (b) the increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and as a consequence, your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. Any your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. 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 Technical and Further Education Participation and Equity Program established as the centre-piece for national youth policy, addresses the educational, social and employment needs of twenty-two thousand unemployed Australian youth. The intended 50% funding cuts will directly affect at least ten thousand already disadvantaged young people, denying them access to further education and potential employment. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) That the decision to cut the Participation and Equity Program funding be reversed. (2) That the Participation and Equity Program be guaranteed funding for 1987, and beyond. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That we are completely dissatisfied with the frequent and substantial increase in the price of petrol and diesel fuel. 2. That we are aware that these price increases have an adverse effect on the living standards of the average Australian wage earner. 3. That increases in fuel prices add to farm costs and further reduce the average income per farmer which has already fallen to one-third of national earnings. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government will immediately reduce the price of petrol by three (3) cents per litre in line with the commitment given by the now Prime Minister of Australia during the 1983 election campaign and take all possible action to prevent further increases occurring. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: We are concerned that the closure of the Enterprise Migrant Hostel will be detrimental to the long-term settlement prospects of migrants in Victoria as well as detrimental to ethnic communities who have settled in the Springvale area. In addition, the long-term development of commerce and industry in the area will be adversely affected. We urge the Government to reverse this decision. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows: 1. That the functions of local government involve assessing local demand for services and either providing, or facilitating the provision of, those services; 2. That a transfer of responsibility for the provision of services from one level of government to another must be accompanied by a corresponding transfer of funds; 3. That local government in Victoria is becoming increasingly involved in the planning and provision of human services in particular; 4. That the level of services currently provided by or through local government cannot be maintained, and certainly cannot be increased, if the funds made available to local government through the personal income tax-sharing arrangement are not maintained at the present level; 5. That we are totally opposed to any reduction in the percentage of personal income tax allocated to local government. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the funding of local government without the consent of representatives of local government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr McGauran. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are strongly opposed to the removal of WIN 4 TV Station broadcasting throughout the Illawarra Region and south to Eden from VCF band transmission to UCF. We point out that many citizens who currently enjoy access to this regional station will be required to buy new sets and aerials adjustable to UCF in order to continue receiving WIN 4 transmission. The total costs to the community of this exercise has been estimated at over $15 million. We petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Commonwealth Government immediately refrain from removing the Illawarra Region's only locally-based television station from VCF to UCF and allow the station to retain transmission on VCF, saving much hardship and cost to the community and ensuring the continued viability of the station. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Martin. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your Honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established which will work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all, fulfilling employment, a sustainable society conserving natural resources and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover. By achieving these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world to follow. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Create an Australian Ministry for Peace specifically devoted to peace-building and the non-violent resolution of conflict; 2. Convene a national Summit for Survival to discuss the issues of world disarmament, security and national and international co-operation; 3. Support the United Nations World Disarmament Campaign by allocating the equivalent of at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund peace activities; 4. Actively assist the International Year of Peace in 1986 by initiating programs for peace education, self help development and environmental repair; 5. Develop National Employment Programs to give priority to the planting and growing of forests, food-producing trees and other crops to assist the greening of Australia. 6. Implement National Recycling Programs to reuse water and to compost all presently wasted domestic sewage-sludge and organic garbage with mineral-rich gravel dust, a by-product from rock quarries and mines, into hygienic humus, a natural fertiliser, for use in revitalising impoverished soils. 7. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Inititative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the World. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which will include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing National Employment Programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of South Australia showeth that: Your petitioners pray that your honourable House will reject the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 for the following reasons: (1) We believe as a matter of faith and judgment that the proposed legislation is anti-God and its implementation will result in attacks on the Christian church and the promotion of a State religion based on secular humanism; (2) That there is no need for legislation of this kind since the principles of freedom are already enshrined in Common Law and that it will cause more problems than it seeks to solve; (3) That there is a potential threat to our national security through making treaties of this kind with foreign nations, many of which do not share a common heritage and do not practice many of the principles that they have covenanted to uphold; (4) The methods being used to introduce this legislation are secretive and a blatant misuse of the external affairs powers under Section 51 of the Australian Constitution and that further more are contrary to the spirit of the Constitution; (5) That the implementation of the legislation through a process of new educational initiatives will result in the centralised control of education and this will inevitably lead to the destruction of States' rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer,Mr Duncan and Mr O'Neil. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler electorate showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's ban on negative gearing and restrictions on property depreciation will adversely affect thousands of disadvantaged people who rent their homes. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: End its ill-considered and discriminatory policy on rented property and allow depreciation on all buildings used to produce rental income. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's total disallowance of tax deductibility for entertainment and hospitality expenses will unfairly penalise Australian business and cost thousands of jobs for young and unskilled people. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Abandon its total ban on entertainment expenses and allow tax deductibility for legitimate and necessary expenses. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Hinkler Electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its illconsidered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they oppose the construction of any additional nuclear reactor at the Australian atomic energy establishment at Lucas Heights in N.S.W. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Government of Australia will not construct an additional Nuclear Reactor at Lucas Heights. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Tickner. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The damaging consequences for small business caused by the trade union domination of the Hawke Government. 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 TUCKEY(O'Connor)(5.03) —The damaging consequences for small business caused by the trade union domination of the Hawke Government are certainly not something to which the senior members of the Government are prepared to respond. We note that the honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) is running the show today. Obviously, members of the Ministry have bailed out in regard to the subject of this discussion. They do not want Bill and Simon ringing them up afterwards, saying that that is not the case. They are too frightened to come in here because they have received orders from their masters. On the night of Monday, 20 May 1985, there was reliable information in the corridors of this place that the Government had concluded its preferred option for presentation to the Tax Summit which was to be held in early July. Consequently, the Opposition entered the Parliament on Tuesday, the following day, ready to question the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on this matter. However, we were denied that opportunity. The Treasurer was not in the Parliament. He had gone to Melbourne to get permission for the proposal from the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The Parliament was denied his presence and thus his answers while he wore out the cloth from the knees of his trousers in order to see what Bill, Simon and old Mr Dolan-old Cliff-would say about it. Of course, history shows that that visit failed. However, it does not alter the fact that the Government was obliged to present its proposals to the ACTU before it presented them to the democratically elected Parliament. That goes on all the time. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) read to us a frighteningly accurate forecast of government policy which was delivered to the Socialist Forum by Bill Kelty as long ago as 3 February this year. Kelty accurately predicted the following government actions: A bumper year for wage and salary earners, including two national wage rises-Government members should tell me when I am wrong-additional money for low income earners; no tax increases; and superannuation for every worker. Have I been wrong yet? Did Bill have it right on 3 February? Of course he did. He predicted a government crackdown on perks, such as company cars, expense accounts and education fees and an expansion of the taxation pot into currently non-taxable areas. Have I been wrong yet? In regard to the two wage cases to be held this year he said: `We will win both cases'. We have seen the evidence of that. He said that no proposition that resulted in an increase in the tax burden would be acceptable to the ACTU. We well remember during the notorious Tax Summit how the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) travelled across Canberra-he did not ring up certain people and ask them to come to see him-to the International Hotel to receive his final instructions. He came back, pulled out the rug from under his Treasurer and gave in to Kelty and Crean. We know how that happened; we saw it happening. Bill said on 3 February that it would happen. He was not predicting what would happen; he knew what would happen. He knew that the Government would obey what Simon said. Of course, that evidence keeps creeping up every day. The results are as follows: We have had national wage rises of 2.6 per cent and 3.8 per cent at a cost to the employers of Australia of $6.3 billion. We have had a form of commitment for tax cuts to wage earners. I will touch on that further later. Of course, the reality of superannuation for every worker is with us. Who created the first initiative in regard to that policy? It was none other than the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis). He started the idea and planted the seed in the union movements mind. Of course, he did it all himself when he saw that the pressures on him were mounting. As a result we have had a massive attack on the business sector to achieve the expansion of the tax pot. The notorious RATS proposal-the reform of the Australian tax system-is being debated in this Parliament. It will go down in history as the RATS proposal. Let us look at the log of claims and its effect on the business sector. Mr Kelty can be confident about inflation and inflation-related increases because his deal with the Government guarantees them. He now has inflation-linked pay increases and he also has inflation. The Government guaranteed him both because that is what he wanted. There was a 2.2 per cent inflation rate in the last quarter. The honourable member for Canning (Mr Gear) has stated that that is not right. In fact, the Labor member for Canning told us that his price watch group says that the average inflation rate is 12 per cent, particularly at the grocery checkout counter, where it hurts most. So Bill has organised that. But from where will all the money originate to pay for those `vote yourself a wage increase' deals? The Government has been borrowing it. An amount of $20,000m has been borrowed in the last three years. In fact, the governments of Australia, nearly all Labor governments, have borrowed $30,000m in the last two years. There has been a capital inflow of $17.5 billion in that period and that has all gone as well, because we have voted ourselves wage increases because Simon said that we should do so. Where have they gone? They have gone in overseas expenditure. Our trade deficits have been running at $10,000m a year. In fact, the figure for last month was $1.6 billion, a record amount. Consequently, the Federal interest bill has risen from $3.4 billion in the last Fraser Budget to $6.7 billion this year. It is now the second highest one-line item. That is where the money has come from. Bill said: `We want wage increases'. Paul knew that he could not provide them without borrowing money. The Government has borrowed it. It has fed it into the community. But what we have is an ever-declining dollar-because the Government was told that that was the way in which the economy must be run. It was told that we must have inflation-related wage increases whatever the circumstances, and we all know that one breeds the other. The September indicators of the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd show us the situation in a way in which no person could. The indicators show that in the last two years governments have borrowed $30 billion, and we have had an inflow of overseas capital of $17.5 billion-almost all related to borrowing, the indicators tell us-totalling $47.5 billion. The dollar growth in gross domestic product-this is what the Government boasts about every day-over that same period was only $42 billion; $5.5 billion less than the lump of borrowings that has been injected into the economy. This is all because Simon said it should happen. Having a shortfall of $5.5 billion is like a small businessman whom I represent borrowing $100,000, putting it in his trading account and trying to tell his bank manager that business is looking up. His bank manager would laugh him out of the room. The international money markets are laughing the Treasurer out of the room. He went on an overseas trip. What happened when he came back? The Australian dollar was devalued while he was away and it was devalued further on his return. That was the message that they gave him. They will not accept that type of idiocy. Government borrowing is pushing Treasury notes as high as 19.5 per cent, in order to fund the demands of the ACTU. We see big business getting into a similar position. Australia is being put another $1,000m into debt to buy a brewery. Will that brewery produce any more beer or buy any more barley from farmers? No. All the money will be dissipated in a rash and ridiculous economic policy that produces the numbers but does not produce the growth. This situation is occurring all over the place. As a result of a decision on interest rates, interest rates to small business are now running at 20 per cent compared internationally with a rate of 8 to 12 per cent. We have something to look forward to judging from what has happened under a Labor government in New Zealand where interest rates are running at 30 per cent as a result of similar policies. That is what we are confronted with. Australian small businessmen are looking at a 44 per cent increase in interest rate charges in the last 12 months. This calendar year interest rates commenced at 13.5 per cent with the Treasurer and the Prime Minister telling small business people: `Go out and invest because interest rates will go down'. People committed themselves on the basis of that statement. I can tell honourable members that the pain is considerable. Many people are locked into this boom and bust philosophy. They have borrowed at lower interest rates and they cannot pay back their debts overnight. What did Premier Bannon tell us last night on the National program in Adelaide? He stated: I accept the fact that there are going to be a lot more people in trouble than are now. Those are his words, not mine. He has seen the problems resulting from the irresponsible policy of pumping up the economy with borrowed money, of not seeing it directed to anything but extravagant wage increases as dictated by the ACTU. He knows what this is doing to people in the small business field and home owners. Do not let us have any of the rubbish that if one took the ceiling off interest rates they would be worse. They probably would be worse, but let us go to the symptom and not the disease. Mr Hunt —Yes, let us go to the cause of the problem. Mr TUCKEY —The cause of the problem is that the Government has pushed the money market to an intolerable degree. Treasury is paying up to 19.5 per cent for money. That is why home owners are under great threat. Let honourable members remember that it is only those who have an established bank loan that the Government has saved. Everyone else is in trouble, including those with savings accounts. The ACTU has dictated the Government's policy. It wanted wage increases and the Government has given them. The reality now is that the last wage increase will not pay the average worker's interest rate increase. He has already had to give back the money to the bank. That is the good the Government has done! It has not even done him any good. I get back to the matter of no tax increases. The National Australia Bank has told us that although Bill predicted that tax increases may not occur, under the Government's new arrangement, its new you-beaut scheme, an average weekly earner who is paying 22.4 per cent of his salary in tax will pay 23.4 per cent when he gets his tax reduction. I bet that is what the Government has said. What about small business and this wonderful option ACTU? The only thing that survived the Tax Summit was option ACTU. We have stated how that occurred. One night the Prime Minister went around Canberra and sold his Treasurer to the ACTU. In the same notable address that Mr Kelty gave when he made all these wonderful predictions he gave another message which we have loud and clear. He stated: Small businesses that bleat about the taxation system don't pay tax in reality. What they are able to do is, by and large, avoid their responsibility. That is Mr Kelty's view; it is not my view. It is not the view of honourable members on this side of the House but that is what Mr Kelty said and that is why we got option ACTU. What is it all about? It is all aimed at business and small business in particular. We have a watershed, non-deductible penalty tax on employers for employee provided fringe benefits. It has never been heard of before. One pays and the other receives. We have the removal of tax deductibility for legitimate spending on entertainment to promote one's business. That attacks not only a person who has no other solution to promoting his business but also the provider of that service. The restaurant industry is in all sorts of problems all because Simon said, all because Bill wanted it that way. Mr Rocher —How about a capital gains tax? Mr TUCKEY —We will have a capital gains tax. It is the next on the list and it is already affecting business. Truck owners and other small businessmen are now confronted with capital gains tax bills because they are changing over equipment and have to pay $20,000 capital gains tax. The Government says that this will happen only in the future. I turn to the rationalisation of wholesale tax increases. The Government could not even keep its promise made to the small business community by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) on 13 February 1983 when he stated: . . . amending the Sales Tax Act to allow a full month for remittances of tax owing. What did the Government do? It brought in rationalisation and that gave it a $110m windfall and it still has not kept its promise when it had the money to do it. We have had the expansion of the prescribed payments deduction so that the Government could further get at small contractors. We know that the ACTU does not like small contractors. The Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia is telling us that under the proposals for quarterly deductions small businesses will be paying more tax before the present target date than after it which puts them in a worse position. The Council of Small Business Organisations has looked at the Government's wonderful policy. Imputation is the 49c fiddle; it is worse than the previous scheme. I have given just a few examples. What about the other wonderful measure which the Government has imposed on the small business sector-superannuation? Who will that hurt? No one denies a worker his right to that sort of retirement protection but there is considerable doubt that it is even a retirement proposal. This vesting situation is not aimed at retirement. The certainty is that business must be the loser. Employers will pay $3 billion a year and employees will not contribute. It will be run by outsiders and there will be the potential for a weapon to be used against small business. It is possible that small business will find itself having to go to the superannuation funds to borrow money to maintain its business. Do honourable members know what the condition will be? Small business will be asked: `Mr Smith, are all your workers union members?'. If the Government thinks that is a new idea, it already happens in America. What about the life underwriters, the small business people, who are already in the business of selling superannuation and doing it at the right price? What about the worker? He gets death cover of $17,500 and the small business life underwriter would sell him $65,000 worth of cover for $52. So, the Government is not even looking after the workers. The worker gets $17,500 cover whereas an underwriter would sell him $65,000 worth of cover. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BRUMBY(Bendigo)(5.18) —We have just listened to another of a series of enormous beat-ups from the Federal Opposition. It is the kind of ill-informed, ignorant nonsense that we are used to hearing, particularly from the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey). The person who had a reputation in this House for being the mud slinger of the Thirty-third Parliament has now become, in this debate, the union basher of the Thirty-fourth Parliament. All we get from this Opposition is the same old rubbish: We hear it time and again. We have hardly heard a word about small business in the discussion of this matter of public importance. It is no wonder that we hardly heard a word about small business because the Opposition is running scared from the release this morning of the September quarter 1985 national accounts figures. Those figures highlight the fact that the private sector-that includes small business, for the benefit of members of the Opposition-has definitely totally taken over the main engine of growth in the Australian economy. As expected, the figures that were released today confirm that this economy is growing very strongly indeed. The figures show that real gross non-farm product in Australia rose by 0.6 per cent in the September quarter. It follows upward revisions in the previous two quarters. Non-farm growth in the Australian economy is now running at 5.2 per cent which is well in excess of the Budget forecast. One could hardly call non-farm real gross domestic product growth at 5.2 per cent over the last 12 months bad for small business. I make a few other points about today's statistics from which the Opposition is running scared. The figures show that private consumption expenditure increased by 0.9 per cent over the quarter and by 4 1/2 per cent in real terms over the year. Private non-dwelling construction investment rose by 7 per cent in the September quarter; it is up 34 per cent over the year. We have growth in business investment in total to the six months to September running at an annual rate of 14 per cent. Most importantly, public sector investment has fallen sharply. This shows that the economy is doing everything that we believed it would do; that is, it is starting to run stronger and stronger in the private sector. That is not all. The other thing that today's national accounts show, and the reason that the Opposition put up this useless matter of public importance which those opposite did not speak to for one moment, is that business profits-that, of course, includes the small business sector-again improved markedly in this quarter, with the corporate share of non-farm product rising to 15.4 per cent in the six months to September. The other figures that were released today show that there is a very low level of wages drift in this economy. For the benefit of the honourable member for O'Connor, the index of real unit labour costs has fallen to around 97.5 per cent in the six months to September compared with a level as high as 108 per cent back in the bad old days of the Fraser Government. It would be stretching the truth in the extreme to say that those figures released today were in any way bad news for small business. They are the best news small business has had for many years, and it is certainly much better news for small business than it ever got out of this measly Opposition whose only achievement in government was to put a record number of small business people in this country out of business. Those opposite lost employment growth, lost job growth and left us with a $9.6 billion deficit, double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. That is their record and they are proud to stand on it. The honourable member for O'Connor today tried to do two things. He tried to attack the wages and prices accord which this Government has with the union movement and he also suggested that while he and other honourable members in this place have a right to a generous superannuation scheme, the Australian community and the taxpayer should not really be extending superannuation rights to workers throughout this country. Let us put a few facts straight about the wages and prices accord-this so-called domination, as he put it, of the Hawke Government by the union movement. What has this agreement produced? How does it compare with what those opposite did in government? What does it mean for small business? We might start with jobs, because jobs concern small business and the people of Australia. We have created 460,000 jobs in 2 1/2 years of this Government. That is more than the 340,000 jobs that Fraser took 7 1/2 years to create. So we have record job growth in this country. We have a record reduction in unemployment. It is down from 10.2 per cent to 7.8 per cent. These are some of the so-called disastrous results of the wages and prices accord. Let us look at wages growth, because wages growth is important to people in business. They need to be able to plan ahead with stability. In 1984-85 wages growth in this country was 3 1/2 per cent. I put it, for the benefit of Opposition members who are a bit ignorant and selectively amnesic on this sort of statistic, that that is the lowest rate of increase in wages in this country since 1962-63, and it has been produced because of the wages and prices accord. Let us look at real unit labor costs. They concern small businesses. They want to be able to plan ahead; they do not want to be paying higher and higher real unit labour costs. The index of real labour unit costs was 109 under the Government of those opposite in 1977-78. It is down in June 1985 to 97.8. It has fallen by 10 percentage points. It is back to the levels of the early 1960s. That is not a bad record for a government that is dominated by this malicious union movement! All those things are good for small business, in case those opposite did not know it. What about profitability? Small businesses need profit. I hope those on the Opposition benches agree with that. We have in this quarter a profit share which is up to 15.4 per cent, a record level. So businesses are making profits and they are reinvesting. That is why we are getting jobs, in case those opposite cannot see how all that works. What about international competitiveness? We have in this country three indexes of international competitiveness. All three of those indexes show dramatic improvements on when that hopeless lot were in government. What about inflation? We came to government in March 1983 with an inflation rate of more than 11 per cent. That affects small businesses. They do not like high inflation. What have we done with inflation? It has come down to 7 per cent. It was 11 per cent. It has come down to 7 per cent. What is more important is that, with the prices and incomes accord that we have in place, inflation will trend back to 5 per cent by 1987-88. The final thing I want to mention that is important to small business is industrial disputes. No one in this community likes excessive levels of industrial disputes. I point out for the benefit of the honourable member for O'Connor, because his memory is a little selective, that during the period of the Fraser Government- Honourable members interjecting- Mr BRUMBY —Mr Deputy Speaker, can I get some protection from these gibbering idiots? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! I must say that interjections are disorderly. Not only are they disorderly, but also they are quite incomprehensible when they are all shouted at once. Mr BRUMBY —The other matter of importance to business in this country is the level of industrial disputes. In the 7 1/2 years of the Fraser Government an average of three million working days were lost per annum in industrial disputes. In the year to July 1985, the latest month for which figures are available, 1.2 million days were lost through industrial disputes in Australia. That is one-third of the average in the Fraser years, which was more than three million per year, and it compares rather favourably with 1981-82 under the Fraser Government in which 4.2 million working days were lost. It does not matter what one looks at, whether it be wages growth, real unit labour costs, profitability, international competitiveness or the level of industrial disputes-all those things have improved enormously under this Government and they have all improved because of the co-operative relationship, the special relationship, this Government has with the union movement. It is bringing benefits to all Australians. It is bringing benefits to small business. It belies the hysterical gibberish of members of the Opposition. They stand on a record which is disgraceful. They have no policy for the future. They have no wages policy and no tax policy. Above all, they showed clearly today that they have no policy for small business. Let us get to the question of superannuation, because that was raised today in the debate. The second stage of the accord provides for a 3 per cent wage equivalent resulting from the next year's productivity case to be taken in the form of new or improved occupational superannuation. I point out that employers-and they, of course, include small business-have already benefited under this Government from productivity improvements. There have been no productivity improvements for employees in this country since December 1982. This productivity agreement, because it will not take effect until 1986, means that between 1986 and 1988, when it will conclude, employees in this country will be getting 3 1/2 per cent out of the economic and productivity growth that has occurred over 5 1/2 years. I point out that in 1983-84 we had 5 per cent economic growth in this country. We had 4.6 per cent in 1984-85 and we are scheduled for just under 5 per cent this year. That is 15 per cent in just three years. Yet those opposite are saying that employees cannot have a zack of it. That is what they are saying. They are saying that employees cannot have a cent of it. What does it cost an employer? The 3 per cent which will be paid under this agreement equates to a real cost to employers of 2 1/2 per cent because holiday loadings, payroll tax and workers compensation are not affected. The 3 per cent productivity outcome will operate from July 1986 to June 1988. It is a 2 1/2 per cent labour cost addition for productivity covering over 5 1/2 years. I repeat: The honourable member for O'Connor thinks it is good enough for parliamentarians and other people like that to get superannuation, but when it comes to giving Australian workers a 3 per cent productivity superannuation arrangement over five years it is too much. That is what he is saying. I want to make a couple of final points. This superannuation agreement is not a disguised pay rise, but it is a fundamental, imaginative and historic decision which enables employees in this country to improve and commence private provision for retirement income. It is a threshold of a new era in retirement arrangements and standards of living for people who work in this country. That is what it is. Ultimately, of course, it is going to reduce retirees' dependence on transfer payments and it is going to reduce the level of public expenditure. When one looks at what this Government is paying at the moment-$6 billion on age pensions-and when one realises that by 2001 we will have 2.7 million elderly pensioner recipients in this country, it is essential and crucial that employees make provision for superannuation and make provision for their retirement. This superannuation agreement is an historic and imaginative decision which will enable all employees in this country to improve their standards of living. I find it amazing that the only contribution of the Opposition has been the statement by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) last week that if he got back into government-of course, he never will-all he would do would be to cut pensions and dole payments. The Opposition is obviously concerned about the cost of them. However, we have a method here to put a 3 per cent cost on the community over 5 1/2 years to give everyone in Australia a guaranteed retirement income and all the Leader of the Opposition can talk about is cutting the real level of pensions and benefits for people who do not have jobs. It is a contorted sort of logic and a pathetic and pitiful attempt by the Opposition on this whole issue. In the last minute I would just like to reiterate some of the benefits to small business that have come from the prices and incomes accord. We have the fastest job growth in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Unemployment has come down to below 8 per cent. Wages growth is the lowest since 1962-63. Real labour unit costs are back to the levels of the mid-1960s. In this September quarter we have seen the biggest share in profits for many years-15.4 per cent of product going to profit. In terms of international competitiveness, all three indices by which one can measure the performance of small business in this country have shown dramatic improvements under this Government. Industrial disputes are at a third of the level they were under the Fraser Government. However, all this Opposition can do is come in here and say that its alternative, if it were in government, would be a deregulated economy, which would subject us to a substantial recession-the old Fraser tactic that left us with double digit unemployment, double digit inflation and failed small businesses. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(5.33) —The return of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam on 11 November showed up far more than an uncritical, even myopic media. It showed far, far more. Anyone who cut through the multiple layers of arrogance and pomposity of that apologist for the corrupt plunderers of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation would have discovered the same attitudes-- Mr Hand —I raise a point of order. My point of order is that I take offence at the honourable member making a speech with his foot on the furniture. I do not think that is an appropriate way to address the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am not sure that that is a point of order. Mr McGAURAN —That interjection from the honourable member for Melbourne-the so-called new intellectual leader of the Australian Left-should give some indication of the shallowness and vindictiveness of the leader of that small and increasingly irrelevant group of fools. I want to get back to the parallels between the Whitlam Government and this Government. The same attitudes which governed and dominated the Whitlam years are being reflected in the Hawke Government. Just as Whitlam sought to centralise power in the hands of the bureaucracy and the trade union movement, so too is the Hawke Government irrevocably committed to the expansion of bureaucratic and union power and to handing over all economic responsibility. In the process, the Hawke Government is surrendering a great many traditional values which have made Australia the great nation which it has been and which it should be again in the future. I refer to the values and traditions of individual effort and individual enterprise. We have, on the one extreme, big unions which have undue influence on this Government and at the other end big business, which for the most part has been able to take care of itself. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), in the guise of Lucifer, comes into this Parliament day after day to pour scorn-in language, I might add, that has to be excised from Hansard-on the aspirations of the real producers of wealth in this country. Tragically, we are seeing a reversal and a turning on the head of all those traditions of initiative and enterprise. It will take a great many years for us to hand back to the real wealth producers of this country responsibility and control over their own affairs. In other words, let those who are prepared to work and who are prepared to take rewards benefit. It is particularly important to be discussing as a matter of public importance the `damaging consequences for small business caused by the trade union domination of the Hawke Government' because in Question Time the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) admitted to this Parliament that thuggery-to use his words-occurs in the building industry. Every elected member of this Parliament, as would every elector, questions what he is doing about it. Sadly, under this regime the individual is unable to get started in business or, for that matter, to get ahead. How can one get started or how can one get ahead when interest rates are at the level they are? There is no running away from the fact that the high level of interest rates, at around 20 per cent-the prime rate might be slightly lower, but that is available only to big investors-is caused by the Government and the Reserve Bank of Australia manipulating the market so as to keep the value of the dollar up. Without this direct government intervention resulting in high interest rates, the value of the dollar would fall to 50c. Such is the low regard in which international markets hold the general economic management of this economy. It has to be remembered that there are almost as many Australians now dependent on either social security or a government salary as there are in the private sector. That means that for every person in the private sector there is somebody dependent on government income. Simple figures prove the importance and the contribution of small business to the economy. Sixty per cent of the work force in the private sector is employed by small business. Furthermore, there are more than 700,000 small businesses and there are 171,000 farmers who are in effect small businessmen. What is needed to assist these people? These are the people who create the wealth that government distributes. One should bear in mind that government does not create wealth; it only distributes it. Firstly, we need initiatives for those wishing to enter new areas of technology as well as those who want new and innovative financing methods. We need to introduce a new flexible wages policy. We need to increase the investment allowances and incentive to small business to invest and create jobs. We need a reduction in the burden of unnecessary red tape, paperwork and government regulations on small businesses. The recent tax regime, so heavily influenced-indeed, it could be fairly said, totally influenced by the Australian Council of Trade Unions-will do nothing for the private sector. We have a capital gains tax which does not just tax increases in profitability on bricks and mortar but also taxes the goodwill which a lot of small businessmen, including farmers, spend countless hours-and hard hours by them and their families-building up. One thing that is not easily realised is that the capital gains tax will apply to a family home passed on to a beneficiary in a will and then realised. I understand from lawyer friends that some 70 per cent of houses left in wills have to be realised because there is more than one beneficiary. For that reason, the capital gains tax extends far further than most people realise. Let us look at the conduct that militant trade unions are able to get away with under the auspices of the prices and incomes accord. I refer to the Builders Labourers Federation, the Hospital Employees Federation of Australia and the Australian Railways Union. The list goes on and on. All of them engage in selective bans as well as withdrawal of labour causing untold inconvenience and economic damage to small businesses throughout Australia and particularly in Victoria. There is no getting away from it: The prices and incomes accord is not worth the paper it is written on so far as a great many unions are concerned. We have not only a centralised wage fixing system which does not take into account anything to do with productivity or the capacity of a small business to pay but also a rigid labour market which works against the employee far more than it works against anyone else. We have deregulated the banking system, the currency and almost every primary industry. Yet we will not deregulate the labour market. There are a number of examples of the ACTU having undue influence on the Government. A classic example of this is the recently introduced Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985 which fortunately was rejected by the Senate through the efforts of the Opposition. That legislation highlights the influence of the ACTU because, as honourable members know, the proposed superannuation fund would involve some $2 billion. The ACTU sought to control the board of directors of that superannuation investment fund. The legislation would have allowed for one full time member to be appointed by the Minister after consultation with the ACTU and the other full time members to be appointed directly by the ACTU. Of the three part time members, two were to be directly appointed by the ACTU. So, even without the Minister's appointees, the biggest superannuation fund in Australia would have fallen into the hands of the ACTU even though at least 30 employer groups would have been represented in the fund. Moreover, the Public Service Board would not have had a position on that fund. That is an example of just how the ACTU is dictating its own program and agenda to this Government. The whole succession of trade union disputes that have occurred in the last few months-the Mudginberri dispute, the Electrical Trades Union workers dispute in Queensland, the Dollar Sweets dispute in Melbourne and the latest dispute at the Wagga abattoirs where the bloody-mindedness of the meat workers union is preventing several hundred workers from obtaining employment-is characterised by two things: The first is this Government's inaction and cowardice and the second is the economic effects on small business and primary producers. If this Government stands idly by and allows the accord to be the legal tool of the trade union movement to disadvantage all Australians, it will not hold office. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(5.43) —It is always a privilege to follow the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) and the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) because it gives me an opportunity to bring some rationality back to the discussion and to refute totally the nonsense that is pur- veyed in this place by those opposite. It was interesting to hear what was said by the so-called Opposition spokesman on small business, the honourable member for O'Connor. I was watching the clock because I was wondering when he was going to start to mention small business in his tirade against the Government. Interestingly enough, after five minutes he did mention something about an attack on the business sector by the tax system. However, he then went on to mention something else. He started to mention small business after having spoken for 10 minutes but he again got carried away and talked about some other things. He did not come back to that subject again. He is the Opposition spokesperson on small business. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said when he assumed office that if those on the front bench do not perform there are plenty on the back bench to take their place. The honourable member for O'Connor is numero uno; he is the bloke who should go first. Mr Price —Harry is looking good. Mr MARTIN —He is looking good; he is looking very good. The honourable member for Gippsland made some very interesting points and I commend him for that. He talked about things such as reducing red tape for business. He said that there should be no regulation. Of course, that is exactly the sort of view that we would expect from people who want to see employers exploiting the workers once again. They want to return us to the old times, pre-accord, when the employers had the opportunity to do what they liked, to kick to death the workers. Of course, no one in the economy benefited from that. People in this place have short memories. Coming from the Illawarra region, which has a fairly strong industrial system, I find that those people on the other side with short memories tend to forget what happens in a free for all. They tend to forget what happens when nothing like the accord is in place. Consultation has occurred. The Government has a working relationship and an understanding of the union and labour movement and it has the ability to negotiate and come up with appropriate policies. We can clearly demonstrate the benefits that that has for the economy. However, those on the other side, as typified by the honourable member for Gippsland, would not have such an arrangement. They would say: `No, let us get rid of all that sort of business. Let us not sit down and have consultation. Let us not keep a lid on wages. Let us see the parties go out into the jungle. Let us see the workers and the employers fight each other, tooth and nail, to establish who is going to be the bloodied victor at the end of the day'. That typifies the policy that has been put forward on the other side. Quite simply, it is a non-policy. The honourable member for Bendigo (Mr Brumby) referred to just what the Opposition has to say on the whole question of industrial relations and wages. We on this side of the House have been waiting for nearly 12 months to find out what its policy is. Have we heard it or seen it? No. I heard the honourable member for O'Connor say a while ago: `We have a policy; wait till you see it'. We are waiting to see it; and the people of Australia are waiting to see it, because they want to be able to compare what the Opposition has to say about deregulation of wages and deregulation of the labour market which would involve an old free for all. If we went down the road that the Leader of the Opposition is seeming to suggest and we had wage deregulation, we would be faced with the greatest free for all since the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) was ambushed by the honourable member for Bennelong. That would be putting it mildly. I would like to reiterate some of the points that were made about the effect of trade unions on small business because, after all, that is what the matter of public importance is supposed to be all about. Forget about domination by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, because that is not right. What we are talking about here is the ability of a government to work effectively with the union movement, with those people out there who represent the workers of this nation, and to come up with policies that are going to keep the economy going. For 2 1/2 years we have seen people berate this Government for its inability to do certain things. The honourable member for O'Connor ran through our inabilities. He referred to inabilities such as that the level of unemployment is down; that there have been no tax increases; that the only wage increases that have been granted have been as a result of the national wage case; and that a superannuation scheme is to be put in place. Is that not really terrible! Because of the accord this Government and the trade union movement have been able to achieve increases in wages in line with the national wage increase. We have not passed on any tax increases to the workers of Australia. That is a terrible record to have! If we are to be condemned for something like that, so be it. It is interesting to note something that was said by the honourable member for O'Connor about business. I am pleased that the honourable member is only the spokesman for small business because I think that big business would totally disown him after what he had to say about it. The honourable member talked about the inflow of capital to Australia and the effect that would have on Australia borrowing overseas and what that would mean to big business as far as investment opportunities were concerned. He berated some organisation from, I guess, Western Australia that wanted to borrow $1,000m from overseas in order to take over a brewery. He said what a terrible thing that was. Let us now kick to death big business as well! It is interesting he should say that. Members of major organisations in this country such as the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd have been along to some of the free lunches to which the Leader of the Opposition goes and they have listened to him talk about wage deregulation, deregulation of the labour market and so on. They have all shaken their heads because they know that over the last 2 1/2 years since this Government came to power they have had industrial peace, they have had the ability to contain wage growth and they have had the ability to see that their labour adjustments take place in a fair and reasonable way in the market-place. That has meant, quite obviously, economic growth for this country which has started to turn us around from the terrible conditions which, as the honourable member for Bendigo rightly pointed out, we inherited from those opposite. Yet they are now trying to say to the people: `We want to come back and we're going to protect all the rampers and the rorters of the system that have been here'. Mention was made of the taxation package that has come forward. I notice that the honourable member for Gippsland mouthed completely-to his credit I guess-the words of his Leader, the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), and said: `Oppose the lot'. Once again, that opens a total difference of opinion between those in that part of the House and those in the Liberal Party who want to come back to look after their mates with their business expenses, their American Express cards, their Diners Club cards and all the rest of it, and those people to whom I referred last Thursday in the debate in this place on the taxation legislation-people such as those who write the Small Business Letter. That document states: . . . if you subscribe to the Small Business Letter now, we'll show you how you don't have to pay any tax in Australia at all. They are the people honourable members opposite are trying to protect. Mr Chynoweth —Their supporters. Mr MARTIN —The supporters of the failed Treasurer are the people who are saying to him: `We are going to look after you because we don't want to pay our fair share'. We should look at this system realistically. The honourable member for Bendigo clearly demonstrated that this Government is not anti-business; it is certainly not anti-small business. To say that that is the case is absolute nonsense. We are looking at a fairer tax system, which this Government is going to bring in. We are talking about an accord which has guaranteed economic development in this country and which is returning us to the headier days of years gone by. A superannuation scheme has been mooted in this place. Why should we not have that? Why should we deny the people who have been working all their lives the opportunity to be participants in a scheme that will reduce the public expenditure of this Government and successive Labor governments? Why should we deny that to these people? Again, it was pointed out that we are talking about reducing the current massive expenditure on social security. We have heard that people who are entering the realms of elder citizens-such as those in the National Party-and who want to look for superannuation are able to get it, but those who are receiving pensions and so on do not. So why should we deny the workers the opportunity to become part and parcel of a superannuation scheme? I and other members on this side of the House do not believe that that should be the case. We on this side are talking about the fact that this Government has been able to deliver the goods in the economy for the past 2 1/2 years. We have seen growth in jobs and the lowest level of disputation in industry for 17 years. That affects small business. We have seen the opportunity for jobs to grow. There was some contradiction from those on the other side when the honourable member for Bendigo was talking about 460,000 jobs being created and someone said that the number was over 520,000. We will take 520,000 jobs as having been created by this Government. We will defer to the better judgment of honourable members opposite on that matter and we will accept that figure. Quite obviously, this Government has delivered everything we have been asked to deliver in this economy so far. The accord has worked simply because we on this side have the ability to liaise effectively, consult and go into the market-place to ask people what they want. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. The discussion of the matter of public importance is concluded. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore) —On behalf of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education, I present the report of the Committee, incorporating two dissenting reports, together with the transcript of evidence and a copy of the minutes of proceedings of the Select Committee and of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs relating to its inquiry on Aboriginal education during the Thirty-second and Thirty-third parliaments. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr BLANCHARD —I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr BLANCHARD —The report I have just tabled is the result of over four years work by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in the thirty-second and thirty-third parliaments and by the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education in this Parliament. At the outset, I thank my predecessors as chairman of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I start with a recognition of your work, sir, because you were the first chairman of this Committee. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) was followed by the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand). There is no doubt that both of them carried out their duties most excellently. I also thank the members of the Standing Committee in the last two parliaments and all those who contributed to the inquiry. In particular I thank Mr Phil Bergin and Mr Donald Nairn, the former secretaries of the Standing Committee, for their work on the inquiry. It fell to me as Chairman of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education, which was established at the commencement of this Parliament, to complete the Aboriginal education inquiry, to conclude the visits and evidence gathering on the inquiry and to write the final report. I thank my colleagues on the Select Committee for their generous co-operation in enabling this to be achieved in a period of about six months. I also thank Mr David Elder, the Secretary to the Committee, and the other members of the Committee secretariat, Mr Peter Stephens and Mrs Mollie Cranswick, for their work on the inquiry. Finally, I thank all those who made submissions and gave evidence to the inquiry and all those who assisted the Committee during its visits. I believe that this report is very important because education is vital to the future of the Aboriginal community. Unfortunately, the evidence available to the Committee indicates that Aboriginal educational attainments remain significantly below those of the remainder of the community. Equality of educational opportunties and outcomes is a central tenet of education in Australia, but such equality has been denied to Aboriginal people. The Committee is convinced of the need for a major effort to be made in Aboriginal education to achieve greater equality of educational opportunities and outcomes for Aboriginal people. However, equality of educational opportunities and outcomes for Aboriginal people will not be achieved by providing them with the same sort of education as that provided to the rest of the community. The Committee believes that Aboriginal people have different educational needs which will require different educational approaches if significant steps towards the achievement of greater equality of opportunities and outcomes are to be made. Because Aboriginal educational needs are different, the Committee considers that Aboriginal people are best placed to advise governments and educational authorities of their needs and the Committee has made recommendations for the consultation of Aboriginal people about their needs. The Committee was told by Aboriginal people and others involved in Aboriginal education that the basic aims of Aboriginal education should be to allow Aboriginal people to obtain the skills and knowledge necessary for them to function without disadvantage in the wider community while at the same time allowing them to retain their Aboriginal identity and lifestyle. The Committee endorses these as the fundamental objectives of Aboriginal education. The Committee considers that there are two broad approaches in Aboriginal education which will enable the objectives of Aboriginal education to be achieved. Both these approaches are to some extent being pursued by educational authorities and institutions. The Committee would like to see governments and educational authorities making a firm commitment to these approaches as they offer the best opportunity to improve significantly Aboriginal educational achievements. Firstly, the Committee considers that Aboriginal culture and values must be recognised and used within educational institutions to assist in the education of Aboriginal people. Progams in Aboriginal education then must take account of cultural differences of Aboriginals and hence the need for different educational methods. The Committee sees bilingual-bicultural education, Aboriginal independent schools, the incorporation of Aboriginal knowledge and values into the curriculum, the development of enclaves within educational institutions and the provision of educational services to Aboriginals in their own communities as some of the ways to take account of Aboriginal cultural differences. Programs of this sort need to be consolidated and extended. The Committee makes recommendations for the continuation and extension of these programs in pre-schooling, primary schooling, secondary schooling and post-schooling areas. Secondly, the Committee considers that there should be greater Aboriginal involvement in all aspects of the education of Aboriginal people. This is the most important way of increasing mutual understanding between educational institutions and authorities and the Aboriginal community. There is a need for greater Aboriginal involvement in educational decision making by formalising the existing mechanisms for the involvement of the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the State and Territory Aboriginal education consultative groups. The Committee makes recommendations to formalise the involvement of these consultative committees in Aboriginal education. To provide advice on educational needs at the local level, the Committee recommends the establishment of local and regional Aboriginal education committees which will have a significant say in local educational matters. Greater Aboriginal involvement can be achieved also through the employment of greater numbers of Aboriginal people within schools and other educational institutions as teachers, teaching assistants, administrators, liaison officers and so on. The Committee attaches particular importance to the provision of more teacher training programs for Aboriginal people, and particularly for people from traditional areas. Recommendations have been made for the establishment of more teacher training programs and the allocation by the Commonwealth Government of more Aboriginal teacher trainee scholarships. Recommendations are also made for the upgrading of the status of Aboriginal teaching assistants, for the appointment of more Aboriginal home-school liaison officers, and for the creation of understudy positions for Aboriginal educational administrators. The Committee has also emphasised the need for Aboriginal parents to be more closely involved in the schooling of their children. The Committee sees this being achieved by the establishment of Aboriginal school committees with significant powers and responsibilities over staffing policy, planning and curriculum development within their schools. These efforts to bring about greater Aboriginal involvement should amount, in the Committee's view, to Aboriginalisation of Aboriginal education. It is only through such a process of Aboriginalisation that it will be meaningful to talk of Aboriginal people having genuine self-determination in relation to their own education. The Committee regards the fulfilment of this process as central to improving Aboriginal educational achievements. While the Committee supports the Aboriginalisation of Aboriginal education, non-Aboriginal people have an important role to play as educators, administrators and policy makers. The Committee met many non-Aboriginal people involved in Aboriginal education who were sensitive to Aboriginal educational needs and committed to Aboriginal advancement. The Committee emphasises the importance of drawing many more such non-Aboriginal people into Aboriginal education. Recommendations are made for training and employing within schools with a significant Aboriginal population non-Aboriginal teachers with a specialised understanding of Aboriginal culture and society and of Aboriginal educational needs. To enable the effective achievement of the objectives and programs which the Committee has outlined in this report, there is a need significantly to improve the co-ordination and funding arrangements in Aboriginal education. The Committee sees this being achieved by a rationalisation of arrangements at the Commonwealth level prior to the Commonwealth assuming a major role in co-ordinating, setting overall objectives and funding programs in Aboriginal education. The Committee recommends the transfer of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs Aboriginal education funding to the education portfolio to be administered by agencies of the portfolio on the advice of the National Aboriginal Education Committee. The concentration of funding in the Commonwealth education portfolio will allow better co-ordination to be achieved through a significantly increased role for the National Aboriginal Education Committee and the network of Aboriginal education consultative groups. It will also greatly simplify the approach of institutions and organisations seeking educational funding if one agency at the Commonwealth level has primary responsibility. If Aboriginal education outcomes are to be greatly improved the additional programs and initiatives in pre-schooling, primary and secondary schooling and post-schooling recommended by the Committee in this report will need to be developed. This will require substantial funding support by governments. In keeping with the increased co-ordinating and policy role which the Committee sees the Commonwealth taking in Aboriginal education, the Committee also sees the Commonwealth Government assuming a significant funding responsibility for new and innovative programs. However, State and Territory governments should also be assuming responsibility out of their recurrent educational funding for continuing programs of proven worth. This will free up further Commonwealth funding which can be used to support the additional programs the committee has recommended be established. Finally, the Committee sees the provision of adequate education as central to the future of the Aboriginal community. It is only through receiving an adequate education that Aboriginal people can assume their rightful place in Australian society. However, it is also essential that education for Aboriginal people not destroy Aboriginal culture. It is the Committee's conclusion that the recognition and incorporation of Aboriginal culture and values within the education process will provide Aboriginal people with the best educational outcomes. Governments should recognise the centrality of education and positively support the recommendations made in this report. I commend the report to the House. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins) —by leave-I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to speak to the report of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education which has just been tabled by the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), the Chairman of the Committee. At the outset I would point out that on both sides of the Parliament, among members of the Government and the Opposition, there would be substantial agreement with not only large parts of the comments made by the Committee Chairman in presenting the report but also large parts of the report's contents. Although I am party to dissent in a number of recommendations, I point out to the House and to those people listening around Australia that we have in this report an example of members on both sides of the House agreeing on major issues that affect the nation. Far too little attention is given around the country to occasions such as this where in large part there is agreement by members on both sides of the House. I feel that the media is partly to blame for not publicising and reporting on this good news rather than being obsessed with the differences and the bad news. This inquiry into Aboriginal education has cut across many parliaments. It started in the Thirty-second Parliament, continued during the Thirty-third Parliament and has now concluded with the report being tabled in the Thirty-fourth Parliament. I pay tribute, as did the Committee Chairman, to the Committee members and staff who engaged in the work. The work that has been done and the evidence that has been taken constitute a magnum opus. I pay special tribute to the current Committee Secretary, Mr Elder, and his staff for tying the work together and presenting it to the Committee so that the report could be tabled as it has been. This Committee, like others, has exposed members of the Parliament-Government and Opposition-to Aboriginal communities all around Australia and to those who are interested not only in Aboriginal communities but in the subject of Aboriginal education. That can only be good, as the Committee is a vehicle that enables members of the Parliament to go out into the broader community, to take evidence and to see for themselves the problems and the needs; and to visit schools, homeland centres and Aboriginal communities in the remotest parts of the country. I thank the Government for making available Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to enable the Committee to visit those very remote areas, which we otherwise would not be able to do. I must say that wherever I went with the Committee, in talking to education authorities, education bureaucrats, public servants and particularly teachers around the country, I was inspired by those teachers who had devoted themselves to the education of Aboriginal people in remote communities and had dedicated themselves to their task at considerable sacrifice to themselves and often their families in living in very remote parts of Australia. I pay tribute to them. I hope that not only did we provide some vehicle for them to get off their chests the problems that they were facing-we certainly learned from them-but, as we brought them in touch with the bureaucracies that run their operations, we acted in a way as a catalyst for action in their particular State or Territory education bureaucracies. At the end of the day, this report having been tabled today, I believe that the great work that has been done provides us with a greater knowledge and understanding of the difficulties and problems involved in education for Aboriginal people, whether it is in urban communities or remote communities around Australia. The report is valuable for that. I wish to focus on a number of matters in the report from which the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) and I have dissented. The first concerns recommendations about pre-schools. I take the view that if there is a need for a pre-school, wherever it is in Australia and whether it is for Aboriginal children, a blend of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children or all non-Aboriginal children, the pre-school should be established. It should be established on the basis of need for all Australians. I do not think there is any particular need to say it in the way in which it is said in this report. I dissent on that basis, but I say it recognising that, if Aboriginal children are in need of a pre-school, a pre-school obviously should be established on that basis. I think there are dangers inherent in saying that a pre-school should be just for Aboriginal children and that non-Aboriginal children would be excluded. The report does not say that, but I think it is implied and that it could be read by some as saying it. For that reason, I disagree with that recommendation. Another recommendation in the Committee report with which I disagree concerns Aboriginal homeland centres. Quite a deal is said in chapter 8 of the report on the subject of homeland centres. There are great difficulties in relation to homeland centres-those communities or outstations to which mainly traditional Aboriginal people have moved from towns, settlements or missions. It is an important movement and, as the report says, it has had a significant impact in northern Australia in the last decade. One respects the desire of Aboriginal people, like non-Aboriginal people, to live wherever they wish in this country, if they are able to do that; but governments have great problems and difficulties in providing services to those very remote locations. In some parts of Australia, at certain times of the year, they are flooded and there is no access to them other than by aeroplane or helicopter. When Aboriginal communities and groups return to a more traditional way of life away from centres it creates problems for schooling and education. I was a member of the Committee when it visited one of these communities. I pay tribute to the Aboriginal leadership at the outstation at Nyirrpi and to the European teachers there. But it causes great problems for education departments in providing facilities and health and other services. They are problems that have to be met fairly and squarely by the total Australian community. Difficulties arise, if the homeland centre is established for only a brief period, if all these services are provided and suddenly the people leave it. I think some undertaking or long term commitment needs to be given. However, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs is currently undertaking an inquiry, with the permission of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, into the homeland movement. Whilst I do not shrink from the fact that existing homeland centres should have educational facilities, I think it is a little premature for the select committee to make far-reaching commitments in relation to education. I would have preferred the Select Committee to await the Standing Committee's report on homelands generally before making those recommendations. Another recommendation with which I disagree is that which states that tertiary institutions should implement a policy of positive discrimination in terms of student entry. I believe that positive discrimination is very dangerous in what ever field of endeavour it exists. I believe, as I said in relation to pre-schools, that if there is a need in relation to the training of Aboriginal people in tertiary institutions special efforts should be made to lift the standards of education available to those people or even to develop special courses, such as the tertiary orientation programs that exist in my State of Victoria. Education departments and teaching services ought to be flexible enough to develop special programs, as should the tertiary sector, to meet those needs rather than having a policy of positive discrimination. Another area of dissent concerns the Northern Territory. I believe that the report is unduly critical of the Northern Territory Government. I believe that that Government's Education Department does a good job under considerable difficulties, not the least of which is remoteness and the problems of attracting teachers to remote areas. I paid tribute to those teachers earlier. The final area in which I disagree concerns some recommendations in the report about the Queensland Government. I think the report is unduly critical of the Queensland Government and its Department of Education. It says that priority should be given to education in the Torres Strait Islands. I was impressed with evidence given to the Committee by the Queensland Department of Education in relation to the Torres Strait area, an area of Australia which I have visited on a number of occasions during my membership of this Parliament. I pay tribute to the Queensland Government, which transferred the responsibility from the old Department of Aboriginal and Islanders Advancement-the DAIA-to its Department of Education in May 1984. Included in that was the transfer by the Anglican Church of the responsibility for the St Paul's School on Moa Island to the Department of Education. The Queensland Department of Education said in its report that it had plans for the future. It stated: The primary concern of the Government- this is the Queensland Government talking about education in the Torres Strait- is for the quality of education which the schools and pre-schools provide and, with this in mind, the Education Department has commenced a program to staff the schools with appropriate numbers of qualified teachers. This approach has been sought by the local communities. The qualified teachers will be able to provide educational leadership for the existing staff. I think a change is occurring in relation to education in the Torres Strait communities. I congratulate the Queensland Government for the measures it has taken in transferring the responsibility for education out of DAIA to the Department of Education. Another matter I want to refer to in relation to the report is one which I do not think we had time to address thoroughly or properly. I refer to the area of technical and further education for Aboriginal people. I think it is a matter which came before the Committee and to our attention late in the taking of the evidence, when we had to finalise the report. I would not like to think that people interested in that subject, such as educationists and public servants who administer education, consider that we are not concerned about it. I think that technical and further education is an area of crying need for Aboriginal people in the north, not only in urban communities but also in remote communities. From travelling around communities one can see that there are many Aboriginal people who, if they had some form of tertiary training of a practical nature, could service and help those communities. When one goes to those communities it is appalling that there are no people with training and acquired skills to help in those communities. People could be taught plumbing in order to repair taps, pipes and mills; they could learn carpentry and elementary bricklaying to enable them to build schools; they could acquire mechancial skills to repair vehicles. I believe there are Aboriginal people in those communities who would welcome such training but who have not had the opportunity to receive such training. Whilst it is too late for those people who are already adults to go to tertiary institutions to receive that training I believe the failures of that generation should not be borne by the present generation. There is a great need to give young Aboriginal people a basic training in those sorts of skills, although that may mean breaking down traditional forms of apprenticeship. Unions and trades may have to rethink their attitudes in relation to that matter. I think there is a need for special programs to be developed for Aboriginal students to give them, for example in the mechanical area, a qualification which is not a complete apprenticeship. Such training would not produce completely qualified builders or plumbers but would give such people adequate skills to go out in the communities to use those skills both for the benefit of themselves and the communities at large. There is a crying need in northern Australia for that. I think there is also a need to give some form of training to those young adults, and not so young adults, willing to learn some of those skills and who are living in particularly remote Aboriginal communities. It is in these communities that the need is greatest. I can see some merit in the authorities establishing some sort of educational task force with qualified plumbers, builders and carpenters able to communicate their skills to adults in Aboriginal communities in order that those Aboriginal people can then use those skills to repair mills and taps and to build. As my wife would attest, I could not lay pipes. I would not attempt to. Although I am pretty good at changing a washer, that is about the level of my skill. I know the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) might disagree with that. However, there is a real need for trade skills to be taught both to younger Aboriginal people, as part of their educational process, and to those Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities who are not so young but who are willing to learn. Finally, in addressing the House on the report on Aboriginal education I must say education is one area of great need facing Aboriginal people in Australia today. There are other areas of great need, such as health, which are equally as important. As I have said in this House on other occasions, I am concerned that the Government's policy on and obsession with uniform land rights around Australia has diverted attention from the major needs facing Aboriginal people. Here today we have one of those needs being addressed by the Parliament. Although I have dissented in part from the report I think this report itself does add to the debate and to the state of understanding of the issue. Hopefully, the educational lot of Aboriginal people in Australia will be improved as a result of the report. I thank the House for its indulgence. Mr HAND(Melbourne) —by leave-I would like to address a few remarks on some sections of the report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education. However, firstly, I would like to pay my respects and thanks to the honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) who was Chairman of the House or Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs prior to myself, during the Thirty-second Parliament, and also to the current Chairman of the Select Committee and the Standing Committee, in the Thirty-fourth Parliament, the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard). I think it is important also for members who have been chairmen of committees to thank the staff who help the chairmen and the committees. I can assure honourable members that, given some of the places the Select Committee had to go to-and our ability to find our way around the country-it would have been highly unlikely that we would ever have returned if we had not had the assistance of the staff. I commence by thanking Phil Bergin, Donald Nairn, Jenny Goodger, David Elder, the current secretary, Peter Stephens, and Mrs Cranswick who assists behind the scenes in the secretariat. I also thank the newest recruit to the staff, Andrea Collins, who, I point out to the House, gave evidence to the Standing Committee-I think back in 1983-84-as a senior project officer of the Aboriginal community in Rockhampton. I think she has made quite a contribution to this report both as a witness to the Standing Committee and as a person who has assisted the Select Committee in the preparation of the report. I congratulate her and say that I am happy to be working with her on the current inquiry of the Standing Committee. I commend the rest of the Committee for her appointment. There are a couple of things which I would like to say. I think that if both members of the House and the general community read the report they will see that it covers every aspect of Aboriginal education. We travelled to every area of the country. No matter where a submission to the secretariat came from during the life of three parliaments the Committee travelled to that place and talked to the people who had made the submissions. As I said, we visited a wide range of communities, from those in the urban situation to those in very remote outback areas. From travelling about the country it is quite clear that Aboriginal people as a community face socio-economic problems; problems which I do not think non-Aboriginal people in Australia can begin to understand. I think that if one reads the report one will see how extraordinary it is that Aboriginal people have been denied for some couple of hundred years what other people in the community accept as the norm. These people, because of their economic position, are denied a wide range of services; they are denied health services that are taken for granted by non-Aboriginal people. Health conditions among Aboriginal people are appalling. Those conditions are brought about as a result of the socio-economic problems which Aboriginal people face. Again, their lack of education is brought about as a result of the socio-economic problems which they suffer. In 1984 46 per cent of Aboriginal people were unemployed. I ask honourable members to reflect on what sort of improvement Aboriginal people can make for their race if 46 per cent of their community is in fact dispatched to the unemployment queues. I think it is also worth mentioning that whilst we as Australians pay a lot of attention to what is going on in other countries in terms of problems which people there may be facing, a lot more attention is needed to be paid to the plight of Aboriginal people. Quite frankly, from travelling around the country, I am amazed, when sitting down with 23 children under the age of six years, that 19 of those children are suffering from chronic trachoma. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Mr HAND —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was addressing-(Quorum formed). Is it not interesting that there is now only one Liberal Party member, one National Party member and the Opposition spokesman, who is at the table, present in the chamber? Is it not fitting that there is no one from the Opposition present in the House to discuss Aboriginal Affairs? It is par for the course, when a report which we worked on for nearly four years-it is a bipartisan report-for the Opposition to pull a stunt like calling a quorum. It is outrageous in the extreme. We all know where most members of the Opposition are. They are over at one of the embassies filling themselves up with food and wine. They are not here. They are out having a good time while members of the Australian Labor Party are here in force. There must be hundreds of us on this side of the House here tonight, because we are concerned with the report put down by the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education. Mr Connolly —I take a point of order. The honourable member, as usual, is casting aspersions on members of the Opposition by suggesting that they are all at embassy functions. I assure the House that many honourable members are attending committee meetings in this building. Mr SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bradfield will resume his seat. I warn the honourable member for Bradfield. Mr HAND —Mr Speaker, I thank you for your protection. The fact is that the Opposition Whip is at the door telling members of the Opposition not to come into the chamber and take part in this debate. I think that is outrageous. Given the seriousness of this issue, I find it somewhat disturbing that the new shadow Minister-I think he is the third or fourth shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs since this Government came into office-has made probably his second contribution in that capacity by taking a point of order during the debate on this report. That is a pretty good achievement! Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner I was addressing the plight of Aboriginal people in Australia. I have been on this Committee, and its predecessor, since I became a member of parliament in 1983. I have found my work on this Committee to be one of the more rewarding aspects of work as a parliamentarian. I have been fortunate enough to travel widely throughout this country to visit a number of Aboriginal settlements. I have talked with many hundreds of Aboriginal people about the problems they face in terms of education and the general problems that they, as Aboriginals in communities, face. As I have said, the inquiry began in Melbourne in 1983. The last place we visited, having travelled through every State; sometimes on a number of occasions, was Kalkaringi, some 200 kilometres out of Lajamanu in the Northern Territory. Earlier I referred to the case of 23 young children under the age of six, 19 of whom were suffering with chronic trachoma. A teacher was sitting in the dirt in a desert-like atmosphere with 23 young children trying to help those children cope with their education. It was a very sad sight to see people in a society such as the one which we are all used to, particularly those of us who live in the metropolitan areas, trying to grapple with an education system under those conditions. My first trip to the Northern Territory, which was in 1983, was to Alice Springs. A number of honourable members were present on that occasion. The trip took place in the middle of winter and we talked to kids who had to work in a concrete building. The building had a concrete floor, concrete seats, concrete walls and no windows and doors. In zero temperatures children were sitting on concrete floors, again trying to grapple with their education and improve their lot. It is simply not good enough for a society such as ours to allow people of a race such as the Aboriginal community in these isolated areas to put up with this sort of education system. The report-I am particularly proud to be associated with it-has examined every aspect of education as Aboriginals use it currently or as we would like to make it easier for Aboriginal people to use it. One of the problems with which the report deals concerns Aboriginal teachers. Honourable members will recall that a commitment was made to train some hundreds of Aboriginal teachers. They will recall the promises made by both the major political parties to spend more money in this area. Quite frankly, we must admit that, as members of this House, we have failed in that task. We have not achieved the goals which we would have liked to achieve or which we talked about achieving; nor have we created opportunities for Aboriginal people who are currently teachers aids to go on to become teachers. We are dealing with people who live at the Top End of the Northern Territory being close by a teacher training facility. However, if a person lives in Alice Springs he or she is some thousands of kilometres away from that facility. Moving people from the south to the north places a tremendous burden on those people in terms of removing them from their families. When they are moved into an environment which they are not used to they have difficulty in handling that environment. There is also the difficulty of providing them with sufficient funds to enable them to take their families with them. Because we do not allow for those sorts of human aspects in training Aboriginal teachers, there is a tendency for those people to return home and not complete their education. There are some tremendous non-Aboriginal teachers working in the area of Aboriginal affairs. They do everything they can and spend years working with Aboriginal people. However, some people working in the field probably ought not to be working in Aboriginal education. Often it is clear, when one visits the schools, that a teacher does not quite fit into an Aboriginal school. It is not necessarily that person's fault. The fact is that under the system people are taken out of a teacher training facility, put on a plane, flown 500 or 600 miles up or down the track and dumped in an isolated area. They have no experience in dealing with Aboriginal culture or the isolation that teaching at that school may involve and therefore are unable to fit into the education system. That is something that we have addressed and the question of teacher training is also addressed. I reject the remarks made by the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) and by the honourable member for the Northern Territory (Mr Everingham) in their dissent from parts of the report. I think it is unfortunate that this dissent was included in the report, given the small time in which one of the members served on the Committee. That is not a criticism of him; he just was not involved in that area of responsibility. Had he travelled with the Committee during the period in which we were fortunate enough to travel with the Committee, he would not have been a party to the minority report; nor would the honourable member for Higgins. Had the honourable member for Higgins been with the Committee on its last trip when we visited the outstations in Central Australia, when we travelled some 2,000 kilometres, I feel sure that a number of points he makes would not have been made, because he would have perhaps better understood the homeland centres and the problems they face. Again, I reject the dissent by the honourable member for Maranoa (Mr Ian Cameron) and support the main thrust of the report handed down by the rest of the Committee. The honourable member for Higgins in his comments referred to technical education. I remind honourable members that on page 162 there is a substantial section of the report-in fact, an entire chapter, chapter 12-dealing with technical and further education. Perhaps he would do well to read the report and examine it. We visited a wide range of TAFE colleges and technical institutions during our tour. We looked at what Aboriginals are doing in those centres, what training is currently available and what are the needs of Aboriginal people in that area. We have examined that area. Perhaps more should be done, but we have addressed that question quite substantially. Questions have been asked as to why people stay in these isolated areas. Quite clearly, it is because they are most comfortable residing in isolated areas. It is their home, it is their land and it is what they relate to. If honourable members read another report brought down by this Committee, dealing with town camps-the Committee was chaired at that time by the honourable member for Dundas-they will see the problems that Aboriginal people have when they are herded into the outskirts of urban centres such as Alice Springs. The Committee was fortunate enough to look at some of the developments dealing with the implementation of the recommendations of the town camps report. I must say that the governments have done an excellent job in that regard but their is much more to be done. Again, there was a bipartisan approach by the House to this problem. A number of the recommendations in that report have been picked up. I hope that the same sort of bipartisan approach is adopted in regard to this report on education. I think that the criticism made by Mr Shipton that we were too- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne knows the conventions when referring to other members. Mr HAND —I apologise. He is referred to as Mr Shipton in the report. Mr SPEAKER —I know that it is easy to get caught that way. Mr HAND —I do not want to get caught by Mr Shipton-- Mr SPEAKER —Not by the Speaker, I trust. I suggest that `the honourable member for Higgins' is the correct term. Mr HAND —I know you, Mr Speaker, better than I know the honourable member for Higgins. I would prefer to be caught by you. I wind up by saying that a bipartisan approach to Aboriginal affairs is important for the Australian community as a whole but more important for Aboroginal people. It distresses me as an Australian to go to these places and find Aboriginal people trying to cope with our education system, trying to cope with our society, when they are denied everything that the rest of Australian society expects and takes for granted, such as water, health, facilities, shelter et cetera. In regard to all areas, Aboriginal people are denied or are unable to achieve those sorts of things. It is not their fault. It is the fault of our society that in some cases quite blatantly prevents these people from achieving those things. The television stations, which are constantly looking at the bad side of this area, would do well to allot some prime time space to special programs which show Aboriginal culture, the relationship Aborigines have to their land and one another and the concepts that their culture involves. If they did this they would do well for Aboriginal people and Australian society and help to improve the Aboriginal people's lot. At this point we stand condemned, I think, for the way in which we have neglected them. This report, if implemented, will help them as a people and will help the broader Australian society. I thank those members of the Committee with whom I have had the pleasure to work and I commend the report to the House. Mr IAN CAMERON(Maranoa) —by leave-I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is not present. I think that is a pity because the previous speaker, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), was very critical of the fact that not many members on this side of the House are speaking on this matter. It is disappointing that the Minister is not present. I think it is not good as far as the Aboriginal people are concerned. As far as the Australian Labor Party is concerned, seeing that three committees over a period of three to four years have been involved in this task of trying to do something to help the Aboriginal people, I would have thought that the Minister would have had the decency to be present tonight. I guess I am one of the few members of the Committee in the House who have actually been involved with Aborigines. I have lived with them, worked with them and happen to represent them in this House. I have always taken a great interest in them. I have always believed that education, more than anything, is needed for their well-being. I think that we cannot do enough to help to educate the Aboriginal people. But when one travels around, one sees that in one sense they are privileged because there is a Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and there are committees which travel around to look at their specific needs. While we are doing that, we are also passing by many other ordinary Australians who also need the same sort of help. They live in isolation and they need extra financial help to give themselves a proper education. I think that as a nation that is the least we can do. If we are to prosper and go forward we must be properly educated. Obviously, this report is enormous. It contains 231 pages. I do not know of any Aboriginal in the country who could possibly decipher it and read it all. Mr Milton —Charles Perkins could. Mr Hand —Come on! That is nonsense. Mr IAN CAMERON —All right, Charlie Perkins might be able to. But I say to the honourable member for Melbourne: Let us be practical. I will say it again: Very few Aborigines in the country could read and decipher the report. I notice that the Minister is now present. I would like to make what I would regard as a constructive proposition to the Minister, that is, that he provide a precis of the report which outlines the very pertinent things contained in it so that it can be circulated amongst Aboriginal people and particularly amongst people involved in the education of Aboriginals throughout Australia. They should be able to understand what we have been doing in the last three years. No one is going to read the entire report. Even I will not have time to do so and I am sure the honourable member for Melbourne will not have the time to read the whole report. Mr Hand —We read it when we passed the report. We read it line by line. Mr IAN CAMERON —We try to keep up with all of these things. I suggest to the Minister, now that he is present, that he provide a precis of the report to enable people who are interested in this field to have the opportunity at least to read and understand fairly quickly what is involved. One of the sad things about the handouts, et cetera that are available to Aboriginal people, in particular in regard to education, is that they have created a lot of friction amongst the communities involved. I have always believed that all handouts, even for education, ought to be means tested. Handouts ought to be available to all people, in country and city areas. Mr Cunningham —What about the farmers? Mr IAN CAMERON —The handouts should be available to everybody. If a person meets the requirements of the means test the handout should be available to him. Many benefits amount to a system of apartheid in reverse. If a person is an Aboriginal he is entitled to a particular type of education assistance; if he is not, he does not get it. The Minister shakes his head but if he went to Moree and some places in Western Australia where there have been race riots he would know that this matter causes a tremendous amount of dissension amongst people, white and black, at the very low socio-economic levels in country towns. It is important that special handouts are means tested. Until that happens we will not correct this problem. If honourable members talk to the middle run of Aboriginal people they will find that they are not the radicals, the people who are marching and waving flags, the people who want land rights. Most Aboriginals are not interested in those things. They just want a decent education. Like most Australians all the middle ground Aboriginal people are interested in is a decent education and a decent upbringing for their children. They are not raving and ranting but they feel tremendous resentment because, in the long run, actually this militates against them and against their progress. The Minister does not understand that because he does not live in an electorate which has Aboriginals in it. If he lived in a rural town such as Moree, Charleville, Cunnamulla or Windorah he would find that it affects those people. It is something that we ought to change. It is very difficult. I blame honourable members on my side of the House just as much as those on the other side because neither side has been prepared to take action. I assure the House that until the Government takes action we will not have a proper grasp of the situation. I have practically lived with and worked with Aboriginals. If one talks to a reasonable Aboriginal one finds that Aboriginals do not like the situation any more than I do. It really rebounds against them. As has been mentioned previously, the greatest need is for more practical education. An awful lot of the ABC is taught, but, as the honourable member for Higgins (Mr Shipton) said, not too much is taught about how to catch and ride a horse, how to fix a motor car, et cetera. I give as an example the Queensland system. Queensland is somewhat derided in this House but it has a wonderful system of agricultural colleges throughout the State. That is the sort of thing needed for Aboriginal people. Aboriginals are getting a sort of education at a boarding high school in Alice Springs but there is no follow-up. They are going back to outer areas, back to nothing, where there is no prospect of jobs. We have to have a better, more practical, training system. I agree with all honourable members on the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education that there is a great need for more teachers. Teachers of Aboriginals in these areas must have some understanding of what they are teaching. But raw recruits are flown straight from Adelaide to Oenpelli and such places and they have absolutely no grasp of what they are teaching. Some get on the next plane that leaves and others stick around and probably stay 12 months. It is important that we grant more scholarships to teachers and, in particular, Aboriginal teachers. I thank the staff who have helped the Committee. In particular, I thank Andrea Collins who has only just commenced working for the Committee. She is of Aboriginal descent from the Cherbourg mission which is not quite in my electorate but happens to be in the electorate of the Premier of Queensland. She is a very intelligent and articulate Aboriginal girl and is playing a most important part in Canberra to help her people and to help us participate in some of the committees with which we are involved. I will quickly run through some of the matters on which I dissent. The school advisory committees should not have powers over staffing. It is important to remember that the States, not any particular Aboriginal committee that might be set up, have the power in education. I believe that is where the power should remain. The Committee recommends that pre-schools should be established. This Labor Government has moved for and against pre-schools; I am not too sure where it stands right now. Pre-schools ought to be established to cater for the needs of all Australians and not for Aborigines in particular. We all have needs and finance should not be directed only towards Aboriginal people. Of course, education is compulsory to the age of 15. We should not have a situation where Aborigines in certain isolated areas believe they are exempted from education. It is a farce to think that- Mr Hand —There is no school in the area. Mr IAN CAMERON —There are no schools in many areas. There are no schools in many areas in my electorate of Maranoa. We have the School of the Air, correspondence courses and all sorts of things which help cater for not only Aboriginal children but also white children. Unfortunately, there are not enough people in many isolated areas in my electorate to establish a school. There must be a minimum of 15 pupils to establish a school; otherwise children learn from the School of the Air which operates through the flying doctor base at Charleville in my electorate or through other flying doctor bases in other electorates. There is a flying doctor base at Mt Isa and Broken Hill, which is in the electorate of the honourable member for Riverina-Darling (Mr Hicks). So kids-white, black or brindle-can get an education through the flying doctor services. Mr Hand —You wouldn't know what's in the report. Mr IAN CAMERON —I am telling the honourable member. Homeland centres cannot make all the important decisions establishing their responsibilities in education. Homeland centres are being set up as some sort of Gulag Archipelago. The Government has been very critical of South Africa. Yet, in my mind, the homelands have become a little too independent. They have to remember that they also have some responsibilities. They are being funded by the Commonwealth. They are responsible to State education departments and that is how it should be. The Committee recommends that tertiary institutions should implement a policy of positive discrimination in terms of the standard of student entry. We know that the universities have reduced their standards to allow Aborigines to enter them. I do not support that policy. Aborigines as people are good enough, given a proper education, to get into universities without being pandered to and denigrated. Mr Milton —You don't know what you're talking about. Mr IAN CAMERON —I do. I have a better knowledge of Aborigines than the honourable member. The honourable member would not have a damn clue. Discussions should be held with the Northern Territory Government about the remote area teacher program. I have enjoyed serving on the Committee. It has been very worth while. The report has taken us a long while to bring down but I hope that all Committee members on it have put forward something constructive to the Parliament and that the Minister will carry out some of our recommendations. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-I thank all members of the Select Committee on Aboriginal Education, which has sustained itself through the life of three parliaments, in order to produce finally this report. I assure the House that the Government regards this report as not only a bit overdue and long awaited but also one which will certainly be thought about very seriously by the Government when it formulates its response. A great deal of work has been done by members of all parties. It is important to point out that in an area which, unfortunately, has become an area of some controversy the spirit of consensus which operated in this House has not operated on the broader issues. However, it is important to note in terms of the Parliament that there is still a committee which can deal with an issue which is as important as this and produce a report, which, having regard to the fact that the controversy that surrounds Aboriginal affairs is a matter of general political attitude, has surprisingly few dissensions. I assure the House that in considering the report the views of the dissenters will also be taken into account. I hope to be in a position to produce a positive response to the House and the Committee on its recommendations perhaps in the next session. I genuinely thank all honourable members who have, I think, contributed to the tradition of this Committee in producing a balanced report which makes an important contribution to a very important area. The honourable members involved have done themselves and the Parliament proud. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee on New South Wales World Heritage Properties: Commonwealth/State administrative arrangements, together with copies of minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-The Committee was impressed by the competent manner in which the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service manages the Lord Howe Island group and Willandra Lakes region World Heritage properties. State Government authorities are offering a high degree of sympathetic management to these two World Heritage sites. During the inquiry the Committee received advice from the Attorney-General's Department which states that there is no doubt that the Commonwealth Government bears direct international responsibility for the management of World Heritage areas. The Department comments that given this ultimate responsibility it would be appropriate for the Commonwealth, as a matter of policy, actively to monitor compliance with the World Heritage convention. This is not the case at present. The Committee has recommended mechanisms which would ensure that the Commonwealth is informed of activities within these properties. A further concern of the Committee was that while the Commonwealth had provided $200,000 for assistance to New South Wales for its World Heritage properties this amount is insignificant compared to, say, the allocation of $2m in this year's Budget to South West Tasmania. One cannot be overly critical of the Commonwealth in this regard as evidence from Commonwealth instrumentalities indicated that there is no record of any request for special financial assistance being made by New South Wales. Notwithstanding these comments it is the Committee's view that the Commonwealth must recognise that the World Heritage status of properties will involve certain costs and these costs should not necessarily be met entirely by the States. We have recommended that the New South Wales Government submit, on an annual basis, its management program for the World Heritage areas and indicate proposals for which Commonwealth assistance is requested. The Committee notes with concern that certain development proposals are under consideration before the plan of management for Lord Howe Island has been finalised. While accepting that some proposals may be urgent, the Committee believes that the proposals should be deferred until such time as the management plan has been completed. There was some criticism of Commonwealth environmental assessment procedures as they relate to development proposals on Lord Howe Island. The Committee accepts that the Commonwealth has fulfilled the legal requirements of its environmental legislation but believes that for developments in World Heritage areas environmental impact assessment arrangements must be of the highest quality. We have accordingly recommended that the administrative procedures under Commonwealth environmental legislation be amended to require the preparation of environmental impact statements for all Commonwealth developments in World Heritage areas. Finally, I wish to thank the Committee secretariat for its assistance in enabling the report to be presented to the House in the short time available before the end of the present session. I commend the report to the House. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee) —by leave-The report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation has relevance far beyond the extent of our inquiries into the Willandra Lakes region and the Lord Howe Island group. I question the Government's preparedness to tie our nation to a United Nations convention and to use such convention to justify a change in direction often against public opinion and attitudes to some of our domestic policies. However, once having done so, as exampled by the application of the Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and National Heritage, it does carry to this Parliament and to the Government some responsibilities. I wish to refer to some of these responsibilities. In particular I refer to the need to ensure a full flow of information and co-operation between all levels of government and the public. It is obvious from reading our report that this situation must be improved. There is evidence in our report of some conflict and some misunderstanding between evidence from the New South Wales departments and the Commonwealth departments. Obviously, there have been attempts by the administration in New South Wales to carry out works, and even major proposals, on Lord Howe before the management plans are completed. This brings the object of environmental protection into disrespect. It upsets people affected by the decisions, and often turns a very simple operation into a controversy. As an example, I refer to the Willandra Lakes situation. In December 1980 the Willandra Lakes region was nominated by the Commonwealth Government for inclusion on the World Heritage List. In October 1981 the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation World Heritage Committee declared the region to be of outstanding universal value and registered it on the World Heritage List. The Willandra Lakes World Heritage Region is an area of approximately 3,600 square kilometres in a semi-arid south-west part of New South Wales in the electorate belonging to my colleague the honourable member for Farrer (Mr Tim Fischer). This region is centred on a chain of lake beds which have been dry for at least 15,000 years. Recent archeological discoveries from the `Wall of China' lunette of Lake Mungo, one of the lakes in the series-I should point out that it is a dry lake-has led to the region gaining international prominence. The archeological material, consisting of skeletal remains, stone tools, hearths and shell middens, provides evidence of human occupation of the region about 40,000 years ago. The material ranks amongst the oldest evidence of modern man, homo sapiens, in the world, and provides some of the earliest data on human exploitation of fresh water resources. I mention this because this is an excellent example of where, with total co-operation between a State government department and the local landowners, the successful nomination of an area to the World Heritage List has gone ahead without any difficulty whatsoever. But I point out to the Commonwealth Government that even here such a nomination carries responsibilities. The simple listing of this particular area will ensure an increase in tourism, which in turn brings enormous pressure on local government authorities. It means that the Commonwealth in the future will be responsible for ensuring the infrastructure in that particular area, which falls within the shires of Balranald and Wentworth, is supported so that local government can meet the obligations that will be necessary to sustain an area that is listed on the World Heritage List. I now come to the Lord Howe Island group and once again I would like to give some very brief information in regard to this listing. The Lord Howe Island group was nominated as a World Heritage property in 1981 as well. This nomination was considered and included on the World Heritage List in December 1982. The Lord Howe Island group is located in the South Pacific Ocean, 702 kilometres north-east of Sydney. The group includes the main island, outlying islands and the surrounding marine environment. The total area of all the islands in the group is approximately 1,540 hectares of which the main island has an area of 1,455 hectares. Settlement is confined to the lowlands of this island. Lord Howe Island has spectacular topographical relief with Mount Gower and Mount Lidgbird rising dramatically from sea level. The central low-lying part of the island provides a marked contrast to the adjacent mountains and northern hills. The island's sub-tropical climate with high rainfall has produced lush vegetation which is largely undisturbed. This group also contains habitats for a large population of sea birds and rare fauna and includes the southernmost fringing coral reef in the world. I mention this because here we have a completely different situation from the Willandra Lakes region. There we have a very small population, whereas Lord Howe has been a place for human habitation for many generations. It is a beautiful part of Australia. It is ecologically undisturbed because successive generations of islanders have been responsible for successfully maintaining the island's ecology while propagating the unique kentia palm around the world. In other words, what I am saying is that the islanders have ensured its world heritage listing and future enjoyment for generations of Australians. Yet, we find in remarks made and published in a very significant newspaper, the Lord Howe Island Signal, published by a Mr James Whistler, that the Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, has made a couple of statements in relation to the planning proposals on that island. For instance, the article says: The environmental study of the draft plan of management set out proposals to guide future development. The islanders have been fully consulted at every stage of the process, and providing for the needs of the people for whom the island is home forms a major part of the study. The article goes on: Mr Carr said the island's refuse dump was screened by lowland rainforest on the land side, but had for many years been visible from the lagoon. He also made a further point and suggested that as a way of stopping the further spread of foreign trees-in this case he was referring to the Norfolk Pine-action was going to have to be taken. I just make those very small and possibly rather insignificant points made by the Minister, Mr Carr, to point out that these are some of the areas where government action has upset and created controversy in what should have been a very simple situation. It was obvious, and the report points this out, that consultation on Lord Howe Island has not been widespread with the public. There has been a tremendous amount of misunderstanding on very small issues-issues that could well have been avoided had there been better co-operation and consultation. I strongly recommend to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) that he take particular notice of two recommendations made by this report, namely recommendations 4 and 5, which read as follows: 4. Commonwealth and State works proposals be deferred until such time as the Lord Howe Island Plan of Management has been completed. 5. the Commonwealth Government meet the additional costs of importing aggregates from the mainland or other sources. I believe that by meeting these two recommendations in particular the Commonwealth Government will ensure that the integrity of any action taken by this Parliament or by any other parliament to preserve our national heritage and our environment will not be undermined by small controversies that could well have been avoided. Mr NEHL(Cowper) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 239th report of the Committee, relating to expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1983-84), and I seek leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr NEHL —The 239th report of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts examines the expenditure from the Advance to the Minister for Finance (Appropriation Acts 1983-84). Honourable members will be aware that the Advance to the Minister for Finance is a provision in the annual appropriation Acts and made available to the Minister for issue in accordance with the terms of the appropriations and section 36A of the Audit Act 1901. The only amounts which should remain a charge to the appropriations for advance to the Minister for Finance at the end of the financial year are urgent and unforeseen expenditures which arise between the time of preparation of the additional appropriation Bills and the close of the financial year. The Minister for Finance is required, under the terms of the appropriations, to submit a statement of this expenditure to the Parliament after the end of the financial year. This statement is examined by the Joint Parliamentary Committee of Public Accounts. The Committee, in its examination of expenditure from the Advance, seeks to ascertain whether or not expenditure from the Advance has been confined to urgent and unforeseeable requirements for which provision could not have been made in the original or Additional Estimates. The Committee also seeks to ascertain whether or not the departments concerned have maintained efficient administration in the expenditure of funds under the items examined. The new AMF procedures introduced in 1982-83 require departments whose applications, if accepted, would remain a charge on the Advance at the end of the financial year, to provide sufficient supporting material to satisfy the Committee's requirements. Despite these clear instructions, some departments still did not offer sufficient explanation with their applications. The Committee would have expected the Department of Finance to have insisted upon sufficient documentary material for it to be satisfied that an urgent and unforeseeable requirement for funds from the Advance was warranted, prior to approval being finalised. It was necessary for the Committee to request additional information. The Committee is concerned about the attitude of some departments which have received the Advance, which implied that as long as offsetting savings were offered there should not be questions raised as to whether the application was `urgent' and `unforeseen'. With the government policy on expenditure restraint, offsetting savings are being offered with many applications for the Advance-over 45 in 1983-84. The Committee would like to remind departments that the offering of offsetting savings does not replace the `urgent' and `unforeseen' requirements. The Committee received 112 submissions on the use of the Advance and decided to examine three of those submissions by public inquiry on 13 May 1985. They were the Department of Defence, item 255-1-01-Salaries; the Department of Education and Youth Affairs, item 271-3-01-Independent Schools-Grants, Subsidies and Allowances; and the Department of Territories and Local Government, item 620-1-01-Salaries. The Committee, in its examination of the Department of Defence, was very concerned that the delays in processing taxation deductions for Garden Island Dockyard had been occurring for 12 to 18 months, without senior management being aware, until the Committee asked for a submission on the request for $330,000 from the Advance. This request does not appear to satisfy the criteria of `urgent' and `unforeseen' except that the backlog of taxation deductions had been eliminated. The Committee is also very concerned that a Commonwealth organisation was able to submit late taxation returns for such a long period without it being brought to the attention of senior management in the Australian Taxation Office. The Committee concludes that this request for the Advance reflects badly on the financial management of the Department of Defence. The Department of Education made an urgent application for the Advance, but the Committee is concerned that the Advance had to be used on this occasion, mainly because one State was late in submitting data on which the Australian Capital Territory grants are based. However, the Committee expects that the planned changes for 1986 will minimise the need to draw on the Advance in future. The Committee is extremely concerned that the then Department of Territories and Local Government did not appear to have appropriate mechanisms for forecasting peak period work loads. That resulted in insufficient time for the salaries of staff needed to perform routine departmental functions to be included in the normal appropriations. The Committee is concerned that many of the instances of funds requests included in the applications indicate inadequate management of discernible personal requirements. Items which should not have been unforeseen were those relating to the regular day-to-day functions of the department. The Committee urges departments to be careful in interpreting awards to ensure that temporary staff receive their full entitlements. The errors in payments to library staff should not have occurred and it is disturbing that they were perpetuated for so many years. The Committee is also disturbed that it required union intervention to alert the Department. The Committee is of the view that while the Department has taken appropriate action to improve its forecasting and management information systems in various areas influencing salaries administration, the information provided on the specific items covered in the Advance does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that similar problems will not occur in the future. The Committee noted particularly that for certain items the Department was unable to provide a detailed breakdown of the use of the AMF funds. This calls into question the Department's original application. The Advance to the Minister for Finance is intended to be confined to expenditure of an urgent and unforeseen nature. Urgency was not demonstrable in all the items considered and, in the majority of instances, the unforeseen nature of the item resulted from administrative deficiencies in the then Department of Territories and Local Government rather than an inherent characteristic of the expenditure item itself. I commend this report to honourable members. Mr FIFE(Hume) —by leave-I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the People's Republic of China and seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr FIFE —I present the report as the deputy leader of the parliamentary delegation which visited China in July 1985. The delegation was led by the President of the Senate. The delegation, which comprised members of all political parties represented in this Parliament, was warmly welcomed in China. We were privileged to have discussions with a number of China's leaders in Beijing, including Mr Peng Zhen, Chairman of the Sixth National People's Congress, Mr Wu Xueqian, Minister of Foreign Affairs; and Mr Hu Yaobang, General Secretary of the Communist Party. The discussions were detailed and frank, and concentrated on issues relating to global and regional peace, China's enterprising thrust toward modernisation and prospects for increased trade between our two countries. The Chinese emphasised that there were no fundamental conflicts of interest between China and Australia in the major issues. The call was made for our two countries to be concerned about, to work together and to take effective measures on, the sensitive issues in our region. All members of the delegation agree that the visit to China was most successful in fostering increased understanding between our two countries. The Chinese had prepared a most comprehensive and interesting program for the 10-day visit. While none of us would claim to be experts on China as a result, we did leave China with firm impressions of China's economic and social objectives. The Chinese were willing to speak openly and at length on all questions put to them. Our discussions covered a wide range of issues of mutual interest. China's foreign policy is intimately linked to its domestic drive toward a rapid modernisation of the economy, which had stagnated during the upheavals of the Cultural Revolution. To achieve its goal, China requires a stable international environment in which to develop productive economic and technical exchanges with the world's more advanced economies. Because of its policy of maintaining equal distances in its relationship with the super-powers, China is keen to establish close ties with other countries which have the technology and the raw materials that China requires to develop its economy. Australia is a source of both raw materials and the technical expertise which can assist in that development. There is potential for increased minerals exports and considerable opportunities in the fields of light and heavy industry, surface transport, communications and business management. The delegation is indebted to the National People's Congress for the invitation to visit China and for the organisation of a most comprehensive and interesting program for the visit. I take this opportunity to record our appreciation of the efforts of the then Australian Ambassador to China, Mr Dennis Argall, and the staff of the Embassy. The Ambassador, his wife and Mr Kevin Rudd accompanied the delegation throughout the visit. Their understanding of China and the Chinese people contributed greatly to the success of the visit. I would like to place on record the gratitude of all members of the delegation for the leadership provided by the President of the Senate, Senator the Hon. Douglas McClelland. The courtesies extended to us by Senator and Mrs McClelland during the visit were very much appreciated by us all. A number of the delegation, including myself, were accompanied by our wives. The positive contribution they made throughout the visit was appreciated not only by all members of the delegation but also by the Chinese, who had arranged to include the wives in all aspects of the visit. All members of the delegation benefited greatly from the efforts behind the scenes of the secretary to the delegation, Mr Robert Alison, and the secretary to the President of the Senate, Mr Ross Smith. The efficiency with which they discharged their many and varied duties materially contributed to the success of the visit and to our enjoyment of it. I wish to convey to both officers and place on record our warm thanks for their untiring efforts. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling) —by leave-I would like to take this opportunity to thank the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China for the invitation extended to the Australian Government to send a delegation to that country. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Parliament for allowing me the opportunity to be part of that delegation. Further, I thank Senator Douglas McClelland, the leader, and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife), the deputy leader of the delegation, for their leadership. According to the Press we received in China, the delegation was one of the most outstanding to go to that country and I think a lot of that success is due to the leadership of the delegation. I would also like to thank the officers who accompanied us. As has already been mentioned by the honourable member for Hume, those officers were Rob Alison, the Usher of the Black Rod in the Senate, and Ross Smith, the private secretary to the President of the Senate. Of course, I would also like to give a great thank you to the wives of members of the delegation for the contribution they made to the success of the visit. I will not repeat all that was said by the honourable member for Hume. However, I gained two major impressions from the visit to China. One is the importance Australia must place on the study of Asian languages. English and Russian are the second languages most commonly learned in China. I believe that most people try to learn English. As I have said, I think it is most important that Australians take a great interest in Asian languages, particularly Mandarin, Japanese, Indonesian and Korean, because our future lies in the countries in which those languages are spoken. I think that we will certainly learn more about the people of those countries if we study their languages. I am not too sure who made the statement that China was a sleeping giant-I think it was Napoleon. However, the second thing I learned was that China, which has one fifth of the world's population, is awakening. I think it is important that we in Australia realise what is going on in the rest of the world, particularly in Asia. I have been fortunate enough to visit Japan, China and Korea. I believe that only a few Australians are fortunate enough to travel overseas. However, I think if most Australians had the opportunity to see what happens in other countries we would not have one hour, much less weeks, of strikes. I am not casting aspersions at any section of the community; I am just saying that we have to become more competitive. We cannot afford to lose any competitiveness at all. Although these countries will become our great trading partners, they will also become our competitors. I had two messages forced on me. The first is the importance of Asian languages to our country. I think it is important that this Government and State governments should do something about that very soon. Secondly, there is a need for competitiveness and we in Australia need to get on with the job. Finally, I thank once again Senator Douglas McClelland and the honourable member for Hume for their leadership on this delegation. Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mr Lionel Bowen: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.01) —Over the last few hours we have had debates on subjects such as small business, Aboriginal affairs and visits to China, and I fear that I now bring the House to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) of 1985. This is not to say that it is not a fascinating Bill for some of us but I doubt that I will hold all members of the House or those in other parts riveted by the remarks I am now going to make. The contributions of those who speak after me-I say this without in any way suggesting that their contributions will not otherwise be excellent-will have no better effect. The subject is somewhat dry, although one or two matters coming up may provoke a bit more interest. The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) is, as the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) pointed out in his second reading speech, part of the continuing practice of introducing an omnibus Bill into each sitting of the Parliament as an expeditious way of making a large number of non-contentious amendments. The Bill is a housekeeping measure, although I think occasionally and no doubt inadvertently, Attorneys-General, in their desire to get the housekeeping straight, sometimes transgress slightly beyond what is entirely non-contentious. This Bill contains amendments to over 50 Acts. If one is going through it for the purposes of examining precisely what its effect will be, one does so with a certain amount of apprehension that here or there one might miss something. But so far as I can see, with the exception of one matter to which I will direct the Attorney-General's attention, there does not appear to be anything of a contentious nature in the Bill, although some important changes are made in certain areas of the law which may take it beyond a housekeeping measure. I turn now to some of the matters with which the Bill deals. I do not intend to go through them all because, if I did-assuming that I had about 15 extensions of time-the House would be here for a very long time. I do not think any good purpose would be served by going through the detail of all the amendments, but I will deal with a few. Firstly, I refer to the Bankruptcy Act. As the Attorney-General pointed out in his second reading speech, there is to be a new section 17AA for the purposes of contributing to the administrative efficiency of the Bankruptcy Act by allowing a registrar or a deputy registrar of the Federal Court of Australia to exercise the powers and perform the functions of a registrar in bankruptcy. As the Attorney-General pointed out, this new section could apply, for example, during the short term absence of the Registrar in Bankruptcy. As well, an amendment is brought in to section 41 so as to enable a bankruptcy notice on a foreign judgment to be well-founded. I do not know how many members of the House have had the great joy of practising in the bankruptcy jurisdiction, which was something I did from time to time. It is one of the most technical of jurisdictions. It may not surprise honourable members to know that people generally do not want to be made bankrupt, so one searches around for some technical defence. I am glad to see that some ingenious lawyer has thought of a good defence which is now to be overcome by this amendment in the Bill which is presently before the House. I move next to the Defence Act. The present position is that a board of inquiry may compel answers of an incriminating nature to be given when a serviceman is being questioned before such a board. The evidence so given is not admissible in civil or criminal proceedings or before a service tribunal except on a charge of giving false testimony. However, I add that the problems of answers produced by compulsion, even with that kind of protection, are well known since, as I have pointed out before, knowing the facts makes it very much easier to prove an offence by different means. This kind of provision which is now to be found in the Defence Act and in many other Acts-governments on both sides of the fence have been responsible for putting such provisions in these Acts-does go a very great distance to eroding the right to silence, which is one of the rights we enjoy in this country and have enjoyed for many years, but we enjoy it now less than we formerly did. The proposed amendment, however, extends the protection which is presently given to statements voluntarily made. That is very sensible and is an amendment which is obviously supported. The next measures on which I should like to comment are the amendments to the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act. These are the measures which have given me some concern. I will outline the reasons why I have some concern about these measures so that the Attorney- General can perhaps allay these concerns when he winds up the debate. The present position is that when an order is made under section 16 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 there is a right of appeal by the fugitive person who is the subject of the order. That order, of course, in effect grounds the process by which the fugitive is to be taken back to the country in which he is to be tried for an offence against the laws of that country. Presently there is a right in the appeal court to conduct a rehearing. That is a most important right because, as I think honourable members of this House would understand, a rehearing is a wider hearing than simply a detemination as to whether a decision is valid. As I understand it, those provisions are to be deleted and the new provision which is to replace those provisions will empower the court to have regard only to material that was before the magistrate, which is one limitation on its powers. It will also empower the court to determine whether the decision of the magistrate was valid, so the position of the person the subject of an order is somewhat more constrained than is the case under the legislation as it now stands. I understand that this is not an easy subject. On the one hand, there is the great desire to make sure that fugitives present in this country go back to countries where they are sought for trial. On the other hand, there is the need to balance up proper rights of appeal. One could easily imagine the circumstances in which fresh evidence could be relevant on an appeal but, under the amendment which is to be made, which will be section 17 of the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act and section 18 of the Extradition (Foreign States) Act, there is no right, as I see it, to adduce new evidence and the court's function is restricted to determining whether the decision of the magistrate was valid. I seek from the Attorney-General an answer to two questions. First, could he pehaps advise as to what is meant by the word `valid' in that context-that is, what is meant by the court having to determine whether the magistrate's decision was valid? Does it mean, for example, that the magistrate's decision was right? Does it mean that the magistrate's decision was one which was open to him? In short, there is a range of options and it would be useful if we could be told precisely what the legislative draftsman had in mind. I know that the Attorney- General is always sensible and fair about these things. The second question is that in the event that he finds difficulties and the court suggests that the system is too rigid-no doubt cases will come before the courts when they will have to determine whether a magistrate's decision was valid under section 17-I would be very glad if he would assure us that the relevant section in each of the two Acts will be reviewed in light of any deficiencies that may emerge. Next, I will say a few words about the amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. Problems in the family law area are well known to all of us, and I would think that every member of this House has had raised with him questions concerning how well the courts are operating. For obvious reasons, the Family Court of Australia is the jurisdiction which is most visited by Australians, save perhaps for those who commit traffic offences. It is the jurisdiction above all which most affects the lives of individuals and families. The issue at stake these days is not so much marriage because of the no-fault system. I must say that I would not want to go back to a system where one had to prove fault for the purposes of establishing a ground for divorce. The issues are mainly children, access to children, custody of children, and property. I suggest that the time has come when we need to reappraise the way in which the Family Court system is working. One possibility we could address is whether we should have a less adversarial process in the Family Court. Lawyers by nature are trained to contend; they are not the best of conciliators. I must say that is my own experience in all courts. I wonder whether we could move to a system which was in many respects far less adversarial in nature. It would not be easy, it may not be possible, but it is worth looking at. There is one matter which is of a controversial nature and which will be brought forward tonight in an amendment to be moved by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). I see he is not in the House at present, but no doubt he will be here when the time comes to move the amendment in the Committee stage. The purpose of the amendment, which is to be answered I understand by the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy), is to remove the monopoly of Australia Post over the delivery of letters when: . . . the Commission is unable to operate its postal services in such a manner as will meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the Australian people for postal services. Mr Hand —Rubbish! Mr SPENDER —I think I heard a whisper of `rubbish' coming from an area referred to by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) as Moscow corner. I thought that we all felt it a good thing and only fair that mail should be delivered, and that if we are to give a monopoly to an organisation, that organisation should deliver the mail. If mail cannot be delivered because the organisation cannot function because of industrial dispute the reason for its monopoly should vanish and the right to deliver mail should go to other people. Mr Hand —What nonsense! Mr SPENDER —The honourable member for Melbourne says `What nonsense'. Does he really understand the harm that postal service strikes can do? Pensioners do not get cheques, families do not hear from each other. Mr Hand —It just does not happen. The cheques are sent to a bank account. Mr SPENDER —It most certainly does happen. Businesses do not get paid. The honourable member may say that it does not matter a damn whether businesses are paid or not, but many small businesses operate on very narrow margins. They need the money. If they do not get the money promptly, they get into trouble. They cannot pay their own suppliers; they get into difficulties with the bank. Life out there in the real world, when the taxpayer is not paying for one's livelihood, is somewhat tougher than life is in here. Mr Hand —I know more about the real world than you do. Mr SPENDER —If the honourable member had spent 20 years practising at the Bar dealing with other people's problems, or anywhere in the law as a barrister or solicitor, that is where he would have learned what the world is like. Mr Hand —I spent 20 years working my guts out on the floor. You blokes with silver tongues who wear silk don't know anything about the real world. Mr SPENDER —The honourable member for Melbourne is an excitable person. If I gather from that interjection that he believes I have been a silk ever since I started practising in 1961, I can only say that he is paying me a compliment that has never before been paid to anybody practising as a barrister. That perhaps reveals some of his ignorance of how the Bar operates. It is a hard business getting ahead at the Bar, I assure him of that. One is dealing with a whole lot of clients who come through the door with a whole lot of problems. Mr Hand —I was going on looks. I apologise if I thought you had been there too long. Mr SPENDER —If the honourable member was going on looks, I will have to excuse him. The amendment which is to be moved is an important provision. It relates to the delivery of letters to people by the postal service-a basic right one might assume-which can be interrupted by industrial action. I do not care whether we are talking about the delivery of letters within this country or overseas. I take South Africa as an example. One does not have to be a supporter of apartheid to understand that it is nonsense to impose a ban on postal services to South Africa. It is as though we can somehow discriminate between those people in South Africa who should get letters and those who should not get letters, in the course of which we do a great deal of harm to a great number of innocent people. But we will have time to get back to that issue. Let me sum up the Opposition's views on the Bill which is now before the House. With the exception of the concern which I expressed to the Attorney-General, and which I am sure he will answer, on the two extradition Acts, the Opposition supports the Bill and, indeed, the amendments that it makes. The legislation does useful work. I think the Attorney-General has restrained himself from venturing too far into major amendments, even though there is a great temptation to do so. In short, the Opposition supports the Bill. I wait only to hear from the Attorney-General on those two matters. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(9.22) —Among the matters dealt with in this numbingly boring piece of legislation, the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), is an amendment to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1973. Administrative law issues have been one of the growth industries of the 1980s. Many of the people involved in these issues believe that a number of the cases that end up before the appeals tribunals, and ultimately the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, do so because of the problems at the primary decision-making level. Thus the appeal procedures are becoming bogged down with problems which might well be solved at a much earlier stage in the procedure. In this context I welcome some very positive initiatives by the Department of Social Security, in line with the wishes of the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), to improve the delivery of social security services and remove the problems which have caused aggression and distrust on the part of some clients of the Department and a good deal of resulting stress for staff, as well as adding this burden to the appeals procedures. In my own electorate I have two examples-the pilot project in which Petersham Regional Office is currently participating to restructure the delivery of service to make it more user friendly as well as more efficient, and a report entitled `Accessible to All?' prepared by the Petersham Regional Office. I came across a copy of this report in my capacity as the local member. The report was released last Friday. It was prepared by the staff of the Petersham Department of Social Security office under the direction of the Regional Director, Mr Michael Ramsey. The general objectives of the study were to look into the information needs of social security clients in the area and the general socio-economic characteristics of those clients and to make a number of recommendations as to how the Department of Social Security might improve its service delivery and the level of awareness amongst clients and potential clients. A random sample of 747 clients of the regional office were interviewed. That amounts to 2.8 per cent of the total. All completed a 14-page questionnaire. This was conducted by trained interviewing staff able to use a total of 11 community languages. A great deal of thought went into the methodology involved in this study and, as a result, some 36 recommendations were made after analysis of the data. I believe that the Department should be very pleased with this type of initiative having been taken, and I have every reason to believe that the Department will be very happy with the initiative coming from this office, with its very limited resources. I have made a copy of this report available to the Minister for Social Security. I have discussed it with him and with members of his staff, and I am able to say that the response to it has been very positive indeed. It is just the sort of input that is required from people who are actually at the pit face in terms of the delivery of social security services. A number of things emerged from this inquiry. One of those was the quite frightening level of ignorance of departmental services and available benefits on the part of clients and potential clients. The Department of Social Security makes 18 types of payments-pensions, benefits and allowances of various kinds. At least 70 per cent of respondents were unaware of some six of these categories. The existence of only one category, unemployment benefits, was known by more than 10 per cent. To give a couple of examples, almost half of the respondents had not heard of supplementary rental assistance. I might mention one other figure which is truly astonishing. Within the Petersham Department of Social Security region, only 42 families were in receipt of the family income supplement, which is the form of assistance for low income families in the work force. That represents 0.4 per cent of families with dependent children within the region, which is certainly a small proportion of those who are eligible. It is very obvious that, because of a lack of knowledge of that benefit, there is nothing like the take-up rate that ought to be occurring. Obviously, there are some very major deficiencies there. Another quite frightening set of statistics related to the views expressed by clients about the Department of Social Security offices. Of the clients surveyed, 8.4 per cent said that they would actively avoid seeking information from a regional office, and 31.3 per cent said that they would not visit a regional office unaccompanied. That is a truly astonishing statistic. Clearly, there is a need for some alterations to be made in the functioning of those offices in order to try to avoid that problem. The report identifies three main categories of people who seem to be suffering from a major information deficiency. The first relates to those in the age bracket of 51 to 60 years. They are the least informed of all. This has a special significance for certain categories of benefits such as the widow's pension. Non-English speaking clients, not surprisingly, are also among those with a very low knowledge, and recipients of widows and wives pensions are the third category. Some people obviously fall into two or three of those categories and are in a particularly bad situation. Interestingly enough, in terms of languages, only 63.1 per cent of respondents chose English as their preferred language, and the report made a number of recommendations arising from this. A matter that might be of some relevance to the current controversy about the New South Wales decision to cut off emergency cash assistance is that under the new guidelines 61.6 per cent of pensioners and beneficiaries in the area are ineligible for emergency assistance. As most honourable members from New South Wales will be aware, as things now stand people are eligible to receive emergency assistance only when there are children involved who face the possibility of institutionalisation or who for some reason are in some danger. It is interesting to note in that context that 70 per cent of unemployment beneficiaries within the Petersham DSS region are single. I could go on with a variety of bits of information that I have uncovered. I just make one final point. It concerns the sort of burden imposed by rent for those renting in the private rental market. It turns out that 22.8 per cent of the surveyed clients of the regional office are living on $40 or less after making rent payments and, furthermore, that 49.7 per cent of clients interviewed pay $100 or more in rent. That is again a clear indication of the terrible problem posed by meeting the costs of private rental accommodation. I might also mention that only 1.7 per cent of the population within the Petersham Department of Social Security region are in any form of public housing. To sum up, the survey provides an invaluable collection of data about the socio-economic characteristics of clients of the Petersham Regional Office. I understand that it is the most detailed survey of its kind to have been conducted, certainly in recent times. It is the recommendations and general points arising from that report which have a general applicability, not merely to the Petersham DSS region-although some of them do have a specific application. There are a range of recommendations in that report. I conclude by observing that this is a type of initiative which ought to be strongly encouraged. In some circumstances these sorts of studies and reports emanating from the lower echelons within the bureaucracy tend to be regarded as somewhat troublesome and do not really get the hearing they deserve. I believe this report, on which methodologically a lot of work has been done to ensure it is a sound study, ought to be enormously valuable to the Department. I think the people involved in its preparation are deserving of commendation. I know the Minister shares that point of view. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(9.31) —The Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) is a composite Bill which makes amendments to a whole series of Acts. An amendment on behalf of the Opposition has been circulated in my name. I now withdraw that amendment and offer the House an explanation for, firstly, the presentation of the amendment and, secondly, its withdrawal. The amendment which I proposed was a simple measure which sought to remove the words `in lieu of so amending the original certificates'. What is the reason for withdrawing those words? The saga started firstly with a naturalisation ceremony in Melbourne on 11 April 1985. This ceremony was attended by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). One of his constituents, a Mr Bernie Noone, found that his Australian citizenship certificate had a typographical error; his name had been spelt Moone and not Noone. The naturalisation certificate was sent off to be replaced by a new one. Instead the returned document was so poorly amended that it drew from the Citizens Services General Manager, Mr G. S. Morton, the following response in a letter dated 18 July to the honourable member for Menzies: I would have thought that a Certificate of Australian Citizenship would be something that a recipient would be proud to display, however the manner in which the Department has amended the Certificate I believe, is such that one would be rather ashamed to display it. I trust that your representatives to the Department will be successful in having a new Certificate issued that is more appropriate for the occasion. The process that produced these remarks from the General Manager was the addition to the original certificate of, in different type, an amendment which states: The correct surname of the grantee of this certificate is NOONE and not as shown. Dated 25 June 1985 at Melbourne. That was signed illegibly by a person with the authority of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). Mr Brown was dissatisfied and, as a good representative, he took action. Mr Bernie Noone was getting irritated. He had come to Australia 33 years ago from Britain and after that time he realised he liked the country; his children had grown up and settled here. He was full of expectation that he would become an Australian citizen. It was a big event, as are such events in the lives of people changing their nationality. The decision to become an Australian citizen is welcomed by all fellow Australians. That happy occasion was somewhat marred by the time Mr Noone received the amended certificate. In the Australian of 25 September Alan Fewster reported: `I thought it was a bit rude really.' Mr Noone said yesterday. `I was proud of becoming an Australian after all this time and I wanted to hang the certificate up. `I applied in good faith and look what I got back-not even a replacement.' On or about 9 September the honourable member for Menzies received the following response to his representations to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I quote in part from the Minister's letter: Thank you for your letter concerning an amendment on Mr Noone's certificate of Australian citizenship. Section 47A of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 provides that the Minister, may in his descretion, in lieu of amending the original certificate, issue a replacement certificate showing the grantee's correct personal particulars. My departmental officials apparently omitted to tell Mr Noone of this legislation and thus he has remained unaware that he could have opted for a replacement certificate. Unfortunately the legislation allows for either an amendment to the original certificate or the issue of a replacement certificate but not both and, in the circumstances, I am unable to authorise a new certificate for Mr Noone. However, I suggest that he consider applying for a declaratory certificate of Australian citizenship. This is a document similar in appearance to this certificate of Australian citizenship. I am attaching the necessary application form which Mr Noone may wish to complete and lodge with the Regional Director, Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, Melbourne. Please let Mr Noone know that from 1 October 1985 lodgment of this application will attract a fee of $30. I am sorry Mr Noone has been inconvenienced and I hope the above suggestion will be an acceptable solution to the problem. The honourable member for Menzies responded to the Minister and said that he was in receipt of the Minister's letter in regard to Mr Noone. He further stated: I was amazed at your letter. An error was made by your Departmental staff on Mr Noone's Certificate of Australian Citizenship. The effor was corrected on the same Certificate which distressed my constituents as they wished to display this Certificate. When the matter is referred to you, you advise that again through an error or your Departmental officials, Mr Noone was not advised that he could have opted for a replacement Certificate. And to receive a declaratory Certificate, he will be charged $30. In view of the carelessness of your Departmental officials, I would suggest that you now use your discretion as provided by Section 47A of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948. The Press ran the story. I considered the matter and raised it with an official of the Department on 9 October. That official repeated his concern that he did not want the Minister committing any illegal act and that the concern related to the words `in lieu of'. Hence the Opposition's proposal earlier today that the words `in lieu of so amending the original certificate' form part of amendments to the Australian Citizenship Act, which is in itself part of the omnibus Bill under consideration. The amendment was drafted and, as a courtesy, dropped in to the Minister's office. Today the Minister told me that he had been informed by the First Parliamentary Counsel that the interpretation of the Australian Citizenship Act was incorrect. He therefore advised the Minister that the Government should vote against my amendment. I spoke with the First Parliamentary Counsel who confirmed the Minister's words to me. Finally, the Minister was good enough to put his final thoughts in writing in regard to this matter. The situation is a real shambles. I know that the Minister agrees with me that in this instance everyone has been trapped by profound legal advisers who really caused great distress and concern to Mr Noone. I wonder whether it would be possible for the response to my comments from the First Parliamentary Counsel and the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs to be incorporated in Hansard because I think that will clear up the matter. Also, the Minister's reponse indicates that in future circumstances the situation will be as outlined by the First Parliamentary Counsel and that therefore this should resolve the matter for all time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —The procedure is for correspondence to be tabled. The Speaker has ruled that items of that sort cannot be incorporated in the Hansard. If the honourable member wishes to have them included they will have to be read into Hansard. Mr CADMAN —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think for all concerned it would be better if the letters were included in Hansard. I do not like delaying the House. However, I will read the relevant paragraphs. I will read firstly from the letter from the First Parliamentary Counsel which relates to his comments on my proposals for an amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), the Bill being debated tonight. He stated: I have been informed by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs that you are proposing to move an amendment to the above-mentioned Bill to include an amendment of section 47A of the Australian Citizenship Act. I understand that the reason for the proposed amendment is your belief that the section does not authorise the Minister to replace a replacement certificate issued under that section by a further replacement certificate. The Department also informed me that you had told them that you had received advice that the amendment was necessary. I am not aware of the source of your advice- I interpolate that the Minister would know- but in my view no amendment is needed. Where a replacement certificate is issued the section will operate on that certificate as though it were an original certificate and the section authorises the issue of an unlimited number of replacement certificates for the purpose of correcting errors in previous replacement certificates. The reference in the section to the original certificate is only a drafting device to indentify the certificate that was proposed to be amended. It is not a reference merely to the first certificate issued. I propose to recommend to the Government that, as the amendment is unnecessary, it should be opposed. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs agrees with this recommendation. I will read only the last two paragraphs of the Minister's letter of today's date because his introductory remarks repeat much of what I have said. He said: Instructions have been given to the Parliamentary Counsel for such a change, further study has been made to the Act- I am sorry but the Minister does refer to his proposals to change the Australian Citizenship Act next year- and I am now advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that an amendment is unnecessary. Accordingly I have issued instructions for replacement certificates to be provided forthwith for those affected. The matter is resolved. But an Australian citizen has been concerned for nine months under circumstances which I believe we would all regret. Acceptance of Australian citizenship is something that as members of parliament, we should be encouraging and not putting obstructions in the way of. I believe that the Government, in previous changes to the Australian Citizenship Act, has not given proper emphasis to the dig- nity or the value of Australian citizenship. I look forward to the amendments which the current Minister proposes to bring forward next year. If those amendments are in line with the concept of value of Australian citizenship, a real cherishing of a document and one's country, I can assure him that the Opposition will be in favour of those amendments. In conclusion, I refer to a recent survey, which I think is a significant survey, conducted in line with surveys in similar countries. It is the 1983 Australian value study which asked ordinary Australians, among other things, how they felt about their country. Respondents were given four choices-two expressing positive feelings and two expressing negative feelings. The survey showed that patriotism was alive and well in Australia. The study showed that nearly nine out of 10 Australians-in fact, 88 per cent-felt proud of their country. Of these, two-thirds felt very proud and one-third quite proud. By contrast, only one person in 50-an almost insignificant proportion statistically-was not proud of his country. How does this compare with the situation in other nations? It is above the attitudes that the British people have and slightly under the attitudes of the residents of the United States of America. Probably the most important thing is that only 2 per cent of Australians felt badly about their country, which was not matched by any other nation surveyed. Therefore, in the processes of achievement of citizenship those views, those attitudes, should be fostered and encouraged. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.44) —I wish to say just a few sentences in response to the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman). He said that we were trapped between conflicting legal advice. Let me explain that part of the Australian Citizenship Act-as advised to me and my Department-was allegedly at fault because the wording prevented me issuing a substitute certificate in the circumstances that the original one needed to be altered. That part of the Act was inherited by my predecessor, the previous Labor Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Particular amendments to the Act were already in the pipeline when he took over. It was not noted at the time that the amendments were likely to have such an effect. Indeed, arising from Mr Noone's case, which was brought to my attention by the present Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown), Cabinet had already allowed me to go ahead and make the necessary alteration to the Act. On this being brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Counsel, he had another look at that part of the Act. Then, when the honourable member for Mitchell came forward with his suggested amendment to the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2), Parliamentary Counsel was ready and able to say today that he did not think the Act needed changing. Therefore, as long as the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs is allowed to provide those substitute certificates, we are happy; we will do so immediately. I want to put publicly on record my distress that Mr Noone was put to all this trouble and others were put to trouble in the train of that. I know that he will believe me when I say that it was only due to other legal advice that we had received. I am glad that the matter has now been resolved. It is good that new citizens are not only proud of their citizenship but also proud of the certificate that is given to them. They have an advantage over born and bred Australians in as much as they have a certificate to show for their citizenship. However, it is good that they are proud of it and I am glad that we will be able to replace Mr Noone's certificate without having to charge him a fee. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(9.47) —As we all know, this type of legislation provides a very valuable device for saving the time of parliament, but it does impose a considerable research obligation on honourable members. It might be useful if copies of the Acts were made more readily accessible to members of the Parliament. There is no practice-I think that it is a weakness-of circulating copies of Acts to be amended with the amending legislation. I put it to the House that perhaps some process could be considered whereby copies of original Acts could be held for access on the table of the Parliamentary Library. The notice given to honourable members by the distribution of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2) towards the end of last week really means that there is no efficient and effective way for an honourable member to get across the detail of the effect of this legislation. In effect, the Parliament accepts, in admitting this legislation, the necessity and unavoidability for honourable members to be inadequately equipped. So I sincerely commend to the House some consideration of this aspect. There are a great number of Acts referred to in this legislation. I believe that the research time made available is simply insufficient for people to do an effective job of going through all the aspects of the Acts contained in this legislation. Given that the only person who understands the force of all the amendments is the parliamentary draftsman, I wish to make some comments on various pieces of legislation referred to in this Bill. Firstly, I refer to the Family Law Act. That legislation was rushed through this House by a majority of one and it has yet to deliver those positive and constructive results which were conceived for it. I refer to the aim of ensuring the repair of family breakdown rather than accepting it as a first step in the processes of divorce, because it is so easily obtainable under the Act. We have seen some terrible tragedies at the point of breakdown. The stringency of some of the rulings has sometimes had a devastating effect. We all remember the recent tragic case of a distressed father who killed his children. This shocked a great number of people into questioning the processes set up by this legislation. The general effect has been to create a trend which turns people away from marriage. I think that that in itself is a bad thing. Such a problem touches profoundly on fundamentals. I for one do not regard myself as having authority to engage in a discussion of remedies. But there is one problem we all must face; that is, the dismal failure of the court system to enforce maintenance arrangements. I ask honourable members how many cases we know of in which a mother or a father of our acquaintance accepts responsibility for custody and is left unprotected in the follow-up. So many feel that, custody having been passed to one partner, the bills associated with the children can also be passed over. I remind the House that it was a Labor government which brought in this legislation and there is a Labor government in power now. Is it too much to ask that this Government address itself more substantially to this question of enforcing maintenance? Failure to do so has placed a heavy burden on the taxpayer, who of course is the scapegoat for all Labor's quick fix social change policies which are souped up in the incestuous atmosphere of the Labor Party branches in Canberra and Melbourne. It is not often remembered that this legislation has already created an enormous institution- Mr Price —What about New South Wales? Mr MacKELLAR —I notice that my colleagues on the other side of the House scoff at the fact that the Sydney branches of the Labor Party do not seem to be doing too well in my remarks. I think that they have been superseded in certain instances in some of this legislation. But it gives them the opportunity to do something about it. I say again that it is not often remembered that this legislation has already created an enormous institution. I remind the House that Justice Evatt in her Robert Garran lecture said that it was the largest court in the country, with 38 judges and 335 staff. It is not proving, I believe, as successful as those people who so strenuously supported the institution believed it would and it may have to get a bit bigger. I believe that with modern technology it should be easy enough to record the obligations entered into by those required to pay maintenance. We have the ludicrous situation of people refusing to pay maintenance, yet claiming, presumably, taxation concessions for maintaining a family. In addition the maintenance ends up being met by a payment from the Treasury. I believe there is a need for a fundamental inquiry under the auspices of the court. The cost of this ineffective follow-up by the court is estimated to be in the tens of millions of dollars. I now mention the operation of the Member of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. I think it should be said that the Minister who is responsible for this Act is a dedicated parliamentarian who, despite his somewhat robust language from time to time, sincerely believes in the institution. I think that the fact that he is a somewhat rugged politician says a lot for the institution and for him because he is able to combine the qualities of a vigorous political personality with an enterprising parliamentary approach. He has done, I believe, a lot to improve the support members now get in their work. A lot more still needs to be done, but certainly there have been advances. He has produced a more predictable relationship between staff and the members as an employer of staff. I think that these things have greatly increased the capacity of all members to attend to the larger issues and at the same time maintain an effective representation of their constituents. I think from those points of view the Minister deserves some commendation. Yet I believe, when we look at the role of Parliament in the administration of the nation, there is still a great falling short. There are some powerful differences between the way in which we operate here and the way in which the House of Commons operates and the way in which Parliament relates to the Executive. I do not say for a moment that we should mirror the way in which the House of Commons operates in all its aspects. But there are some aspects of the operation of this Parliament which disturb me very greatly. One that has come under increasing criticism is, I believe, Question Time, the time at which questions without notice may be asked. The House of Commons, of course, has a Question Time for what it calls oral questions. Sadly, I believe the deficiencies in our process tell largely against the Australian procedure because the differences between the two systems are not just in the choice of title, but there are other differences which are, I believe, profound. I will illustrate that point. Our Question Time is built on the proposition that Question Time should cover the whole gamut of possibilities. Of course, we all know that the questions range from housing to interest rates, crime, foreign affairs, defence-the full range of interests. The House of Commons, let me remind this House, selects, largely on the initiative of the Opposition, a number of topics which are touched off by a written question followed by an oral answer. Supplementary questions follow on that topic and the result is that the Minister is put in the witness box, if one likes. He must stand up to the cross-questioning. He cannot escape through the goodness of a procedure which allows an irrelevant subject to be introduced to give the Minister time to think again. I know it would be a big admission on our part to look at the disadvantages in our system, dramatised in this Parliament more than in any other, largely by the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his technique of harangue and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who uses language which is totally misplaced in Parliament. I hope that some of his colleagues talk to him. Mr Hand —You are so pious! Mr MacKELLAR —The honourable member for Melbourne is a fairly recent addition to this House. I hope that when he has been here for some time he may take a more distinctive interest in the operation of the House rather than the petty political parodies that he goes on with in his Victorian branch. I think that language like `sleazebags' and `cretins' should not have any place in ministerial answers to questions. This Parliament would have a much greater respect throughout the nation if such language were cut out. This extraordinary performance comes about because of the Press, which now largely confines its attendance in the gallery to Question Time. It treats Question Time, not as a time of substance, but a time for theatrics. I pay particular tribute to Ministers-and there are a number of them at present-who avoid the caterwauling approach to Question Time and argue their position on the merits. So members of parliament are witness to a Question Time procedure of now eroding merit, relying wholly on the enterprise of debate for a contribution to the essence of their parliamentary role. This debating activity unfortunately is conducted in a largely empty House and is poorly reported in the Australian Press. If it were not for the broadcasting, the proceedings of the debate would go virtually unnoticed. I commend the humane arrangements which are made through these amendments which affect the staff of members. The next issue I would like to touch on is the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975, which caused many headaches in the early days of its effect. The process of zoning the reef in a way which facilitates public access and conservation has been, if at times controversial, a very successful exercise in Commonwealth-State co-operation. The old Act came into operation when the Whitlam approach was to centralise every piece of administration in Canberra. There was a suspicion on the part of conservationists that any movement towards a power and administrative sharing arrangement with Queensland would be bad for conservation. But this is not really so. Conservation can be effective only when it is supported by the local community. In Queensland, of course, the loyalty towards the State Administration is very strong, irrespective of politics, and the measure of zoning the reef by stages into different conservation regimes, administered jointly by the State and the Commonwealth, is a remarkable and original innovation deserving of the widest community support and understanding. There is an amendment, as we have already heard, to correct a typographical error in the National Crime Authority Act. The National Crime Authority has been given some stick by commentators throughout the nation. It is clear that there is a certain unease about the adequacy of the powers of the Authority. I am worried that the experimental phase-and such a phase is unavoidable-may be treated as one not subject to review by the Government. The temptation is there to justify all decisions made in this breaking-in period because to do otherwise would attract adverse political comment. I hope that the Government will resist the temptation not to scrutinise the performance closely. It is not possible for the public to get much of an understanding of the processes. The Authority is, I believe, entitled to public confidence. The time for withdrawing confidence would be evidence that reforms of its powers and procedures were needed and the Government, for political reasons, was rejecting changes. There are amendments to the extradition Acts which follow the attention given to the problems of extradition in the Trimbole case. The Attorney-General, who is at the table, will have a special feeling when I mention that case. It is a fact of life that the weakness of our legal system is one which enables money to buy favourable decisions. Trimbole used the court processes, not to demonstrate innocence, but to escape the courts of justice. The man in the street becomes more and more disillusioned in a system in which money can buy favourable legal results which are not otherwise available. It is one of the anomalies that only the poor and the rich-the extremes of the social system-can afford to be caught up in litigation. For others, unfortunately, it is a gamble of great significance. I understand that there is no provision whereby a small company set upon by a multinational can receive any support to defend itself. So we end up with a tragic and ludicrous situation in which a sophisticated legal firm with money to buy all the silk in the world can take a company to court on a flimsey basis with the intention of wrecking competition. This sort of thing is going on and the time must come when the processes of ordinary justice are more readily available to small men. Either the basis on which people can be confronted with heavy litigation has to change or the system of legal aid has to be reviewed. The Postal Services Act is now open for amendment. The separation of Telecom Australia from the postal service has, unfortunately, left the postal service as a poor relative. The service has been the subject of great industrial turmoil and this Government has not been alone in facing it. The postal service involves a great array of different officers meeting different functions. From my experience, most officers from the postie to the counter staff clearly participate with a sense of pride in a community service that is of vital importance. The strikes which have fundamentally interrupted mail services seem to have their focal point in the attitude of a small minority aiming at humiliating management, a management which is already under pressure. It is not my intention to give that pressure group any satisfaction by attacking the service in a general way. However, the public stands behind a fair-minded, firm management and it is up to the Australian Postal Commission to satisfy the public on that test. For the rest, I believe there is a need for people who accept employment in a public service facility to accept the principle that there are limits to the resort to strike action. That principle has also to be respected by management. We have seen some of the worst strikes in recent years in public service facilities. That is very sad indeed. As we know, the Queensland Government was greatly provoked by an irresponsible union and the victims were the unionists who failed to stand up to the irresponsible leadership. It is hard not to blame the Government in the nurses dispute in Canberra. It is a humanly sad situation and there can be no doubt that it illustrates that in public facilities management and unions share a deep responsibility. The postal workers need to take on those who seek to wreck their system. The nurses are the victim of Medicare and the remedy does not lie within the framework of the Capital Territory Health Commission but in the sadly misplaced policies of the present Government. This is not the case with the postal disputes which have afflicted us in recent times. I trust that the recent strike will have ended the wrecking strategies of a few irresponsible people and that the majority in the postal system will restrain the hotheads for the sake of the community they serve. The postal service is a vital facility for this country. Unfortunately, it has come under very great criticism because of the attitude of a few hotheads. I hope that both the management and the individual members of the union will accept the responsibilities they share. I repeat that in a Bill of this nature, which covers so many different Acts, it would be extremely useful to honourable members and would facilitate and encourage good debate if the original Acts could be provided at the same time as the amending legislation comes before this House. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.05) —I thank the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) for giving me the opportunity of passing a few remarks on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill (No. 2). A number of speakers have highlighted the rather diverse nature of the Bill currently before the Parliament. I will constrain my remarks to a number of particular matters. The first is the amendments to the Crimes Act. In 1982 amendments were made to the Crimes Act to enable Federal offenders to participate in non-custodial sentencing. Those amendments have not been proclaimed because agreement has not yet been reached with the States to allow their participation in the implementation and administration of non-custodial sentences. The amendments to the Crimes Act will enable reforms to proceed in respect of a State or Territory jurisdiction which has agreed to participate in the scheme. State governments have schemes under which people can be sentenced, upon the commission of a crime, to a non-custodial sentence, that is, they do not go to gaol; they are able to be involved in community service orders and other forms of punishment which allow them not only to learn from the error of their ways but also, and this is most important, to benefit from their sentence and subsequently take their place as active members of the community. It is absurd that we have a system whereby the States are able to avail themeselves of that situation and yet the Commonwealth is not. I call on the States to support the Commonwealth initiative. Importantly, the 1980 report of the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled `Sentencing of Federal Offenders' asserted in 1980 that the provision of alternatives to imprisonment in Federal cases was an urgent necessity. If it was an urgent necessity in 1980 it is doubly urgent now. The purpose of the legislation is to allow any participating State or Territory immediately to be involved in the scheme and we will not have to wait for all the States to agree before the system begins to operate. Such is the rather tortuous and painful path of law reform in this country. Non-custodial sentences, in the form of community service orders and other orders, are a recognition by the parliaments of Australia and society that gaols are simply failing to operate as an effective sentencing mechanism. Many people in the community even take the view that gaols are the crime. I believe that we would recoil in horror if people emerged from hospital sicker than when they went in. Yet that is what we are confronted with in relation to gaols. They do not work as any form of effective rehabilitation of people who have committed crimes. They fail abysmally. They are places of repression. They dehumanise prisoners rather than enable them to take their place as adjusted and law abiding members of the community. As some honourable members have suggested, gaols are universities of crime. I commend this amendment to the House. I turn to a matter which I will raise now in lieu of raising it at the Committee stage. I do not propose to speak in Committee. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) alluded to an amendment circulated by the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee). The amendment, in short, seeks to privatise Australia Post. In the time available I do not want to trot out the same old arguments that have been put forward by various speakers in the Parliament. I do not want to put forward a Labor view; I want to put forward the view that has been put by none other than the leader of what must be one of the extreme right wing factions in the Liberal Party of Australia; that is, the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N. A. Brown). The honourable member for Menzies, who is now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, as recently as 9 February 1983 put out a Press release. With great pride he put this release in the Press boxes of Parliament House. He sought to allay what he referred to as `public concern' over the future of Telecom Australia and Australia Post. This great ideologue, this great Liberal dry, this far right winger of the Liberal Party said: Telecom and Australia Post are great national institutions that will not be put at risk. The Press release went on to say: . . . the Government had decided that it would accept the recommendations of the Bradley Committee- to which I will refer in a moment- that as a matter of principle the exclusive power of the Australian Postal Commission to carry letters for reward should be continued. To put it simply, the honourable member, the leader of the Liberal Party far right, now Deputy Leader of that Party and the champion of privatisation, said as recently as February 1983 that the monopoly should remain. He went on to give very good reasons why that ought to be the case. He said: It is vital that the postal service should be able to keep down the costs of country and remote mail services, which it would be able to do as a result of this decision. The people of Australia will continue to have a national mail service and the Government will ensure that it is provided economically and efficiently. One would not believe that this is the same leader of the Liberal Party far right faction who now sets himself up on the national stage as the champion of privatisation. Again, I will refer not to any trite source, not even to my colleagues in the Labor movement, but to a committee of inquiry established by the Fraser Government which at great length examined the privatisation or otherwise of Telecom. The Bradley Committee of Inquiry into the Monopoly Position of the Australian Postal Commission, in its conclusion on page 77 of the report-I will refer briefly and directly to that-recommended that, as a matter of principle, the exclusive power of the Australian Postal Commission to carry letters for reward should be continued with only minor changes. We move to the real crunch issue. What did this independent Committee of Inquiry, set up by the former Fraser Government under the auspices of the leader of the far right of the Liberal Party, the now Deputy Leader who sets himself up as the champion of privatisation, say? Mr Hand —What did it say? Mr TICKNER —It said-and I thank the honourable member for Melbourne for his assistance-that if Australia Post were privatised: there would be curtailment of the Commission's national network facilities such as posting boxes, post offices and processing facilities. Staff numbers would have to be reduced and reductions in . . . services . . . might be unavoidable. It went on to say that uneconomic services would obviously be at risk if prices were not increased to reflect the increased costs. Finally, it said: There would probably be in any case a need for Government financial assistance if the Commission's operations were to remain viable. I will sum up the views of the current honourable member for Menzies and this independent Committee set up by the Fraser Government. They rejected the amendment that will be moved by the honourable member for Goldstein not only for social reasons but also for economic reasons. Is it not a tragedy that, at a time when the people from rural Australia need the voice of a representative, there is not one single member of the National Party of Australia in the chamber? One honourable member has just walked in. They are not in this chamber because they are split between the genuine old Country Party stalwarts, those people like the honourable member for Lyne (Mr Cowan) who are dear to the hearts of the country people, who reflect the old values and who look after the interests of the country people-that genuine voice of rural Australia-and members of the new guard who do not represent rural Australia, who are city born, city educated and are more representative of Pitt Street farmers and the elite and ruling class in this country. The National Party does not represent the majority of rural people. It is split, and that is why its members are not here to defend the interests of rural Australia. I will conclude by saying that the amendment moved by the honourable member for Goldstein is politically and morally bankrupt and is contrary to everything that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said on the public record little more than two years ago. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.16) —in reply-I thank all honourable members for their contributions. There will be a Committee stage and I indicate now that we will report progress and continue the Committee debate tomorrow. The matters raised by the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) will be the subject of further debate tomorrow. Let me advert to some of the remarks made by the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), leading for the Opposition. He raised one matter in particular. That was the question of review of a magistrate's order in respect of extradition. He referred to the extradition provisions in this Bill which relate to both the Extradition (Commonwealth Countries) Act 1966 and the Extradition (Foreign States) Act of the same year. The honourable member asked whether there would be a change to introduce new evidence on a review. I am advised that that will not be available for this reason: The amendment is designed to put both the fugitive and the requesting country on an equal footing. In the present situation, the requesting country may adduce new material on a review but a fugitive who applies for a writ of habeus corpus may not adduce new evidence. That is the rationale behind that position. However, in fairness to what the honourable member put to me, I would say that it is intended that in the new year the extradition task force will undertake an exhaustive review of the extradition legislation to ensure that there are no inconsistencies or problems of implementation. The honourable member asked me to give an assurance that there would be no injustice. I give that assurance. The honourable member then raised another very topical matter which was also raised by others, namely, the Family Law Act. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) was incorrect when he referred to that Act as the product of a Labor administration. If he casts his mind back he will find that the Act spent a long time in the Senate-I think some 18 months-and, of course, the Senate was not under Labor control. Also, it is a matter of record that the legislation was subject to what is called a free vote, with members voting as they thought fit and moving all sorts of amendments. The Act worries me because I have responsibility for its administration. I am aware of the enormous pressure on judges in administering the Act. The difficulty seems to be that, when people are divorced and that leads to questions of custody and property division, one partner may be the loser in both areas and feel that he or she has done nothing to contribute to that. There is naturally a sense of frustration, if not anger. Of course, the problem we have is to deal with the difficulties of people in marriage who are unable to continue to live together. The Institute of Family Studies asked children what they thought of the position. The majority were unhappy to find that their parents had to separate and said that they would much rather their parents stayed together. Nevertheless, the pressures of modern society are such that divorce exists. In many cases, people are incompatible or there are other valid reasons which lead to family breakup. Society is trying to grapple with the problem that, because the parties themselves are unable to come to a satisfactory settlement, the judges in the Family Court of Australia have the difficulty of making decisions. I must say in fairness to them that they work under enormous pressure and in my view-it is a personal view-I think it is probably incorrect to leave them in that one jurisdiction all the time. I do think there needs to be something done about it. Again it is my personal view that I would like to see them made part of the general jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia and given other work. A study has been done by a person named Cook who adverted to the fact that originally divorce was a matter for the church. It has now become a matter for the courts and the question is whether it should become a matter for another type of tribunal. I do not think I will be here when that is dealt with. The issue would be, of course, whether one can have some sense of group therapy from the point of view of conciliation, arbitration and perhaps even separation whereby the parties can come to some satisfactory arrangement. It is an interesting concept, no doubt. In fairness to the present efforts being made by counsellors, marriage guidance people and others who work very hard in this field, generally speaking great efforts are made to keep families together. If people do get to the precincts of the court, at that stage they have usually made up their minds that it is impossible to continue negotiating. The court is then left with the difficult situation of having to make a decision where the parties fail to agree. In 93 per cent of the cases, the parties do come to an agreement. Therefore, we are dealing with the 7 per cent hard core for whom it is always very difficult to make a decision in the interests of both. Maybe it is not in the interests of any, but that is the position. That situation is not unique to Australia, as one would imagine. Another difficulty we have is how to enforce maintenance collection. My own view is that it ought to be made equivalent to PAYE deductions-I think that is worth a trial-rather than people having to go through the tortuous process of garnishee proceedings which are very cumbersome, expensive and not always successful. In fact, I think something less than 20 per cent of maintenance orders are in fact collected. The cost of supporting mothers benefits has escalated to about $1.4 billion. While somebody may be getting maintenance, it seems to be somebody else's tax rather than the person who was liable for it. I know that my colleague the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) is very confident of being able to bring forward some proposition that will at least mitigate that liability. Generally speaking the matters raised by honourable members were in support of the procedure we have to adopt here to give relatively minor amendments to a large number of statutes. I will take on board that the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said that he would like to have the whole of the original statutes available to peruse so as to be able to understand the nature of the amendments. I am aware of that. He raised a number of other matters and rather than let them go unnoticed I will briefly refer to them. The first matter will interest you, Mr Speaker. You were not here at the time, but the honourable gentleman raised the question of the success of Question Time in this Parliament as against what he thinks is a more successful operation in the House of Commons. I do not know that we would readily agree with that. He felt that Ministers ought to be in the witness box. I am not here to give him advice, but having spent most of my time in opposition I can tell him that it is not very difficult to put Ministers in the witness box if the Opposition is alert enough to do it. However, that is for his judgment and for his education. No doubt if the Opposition spends sufficient time over there it might become more efficient in this arrangement. The other matter he raised was the National Crime Authority, which I think is grappling with the enormous problem of crime. One of the issues was that the Crime Authority needs to get a lot of information, and it is working on that. I think it is already showing that there is some success coming its way. He mentioned the Trimbole case on the basis that there might have been some problem with extradition proceedings: There was. That has been overcome. Certainly it was overcome late, but the real issue the honourable gentleman should ask is how Mr Trimbole was able to leave this country on a false passport. He left when the honourable gentleman, of course, was in government. He should look at the issues as to who was responsible for that. I just say these things because I think that sometimes-and I mean no disrespect to the Chair-the debate became so wide-ranging that it may have well been a grievance debate. The debate was on the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) did address his remarks to the matters in front of us. Tomorrow there will be a couple of amendments in Committee which I think could be dealt with rather speedily. It is unfortunate that we could not complete this Bill this evening, but the Government did undertake that there would be an adjournment debate this evening and on that basis I will close my remarks. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Clause 1 (Short title). Progress reported. Motion (by Mr Lionel Bowen) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(10.26) —I want to raise the matter of honours and awards to members of the defence forces for gallantry in action and distinguished service in military operations. I am aware that members of the defence forces are currently eligible to receive awards within the military division of the Order of Australia through the Defence Force service awards and in certain circumstances for Australian bravery decorations. However, due to the tardiness of the Government, several forms of recognition to which the Services have traditionally been accustomed are currently lacking. Mr Slipper —Why? Mr ROCHER —I hope to enlighten the House on that. I understand that an interdepartmental committee on honours and awards was established some time ago and has now submitted a report to the Government. My office recently made further inquiries with an officer of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) and was advised that the matter is now currently being discussed with the Palace and that this process involves a lengthy period of consultation, and because of that an announcement is not expected to be made for some time. Presumably the fact that this matter is being given detailed consideration by the Palace is an indication that the Government is planning major changes to the current range of honours and awards. If I am correct in that and in my suspicions, I ask that the matter be urgently reconsidered. I believe, given the inspiring history of awards granted for conspicuous service unique to the nature of both military operations and gallantry in the field, that awards such as the Distinguished Service Order, the Distinguished Flying Cross, the Distinguished Service Cross, the Military Cross, the Distinguished Conduct Medal, the Distinguished Service Medal and the Military Medal should all be retained within the Australian awards system. If it is felt necessary, ribbons and medals could be redesigned, but the designations of the awards should be retained to ensure continuity and to demonstrate our respect for the fine traditions of the Australian defence forces. Mr Slipper —Hear, hear! Mr ROCHER —I thank the honourable member for his support. I know that he is much of the same mind as I am. This matter is given considerable topicality by the tragic death of Able Seaman-medical assistant Ian McLachlan during the leakage of noxious fumes aboard the destroyer escort HMAS Stalwart in October this year. The report in the West Australian of 24 October stated that Able Seaman McLachlan `went to help shipmates who had been overcome by gas'. It was reported that he had consciously put his own life in jeopardy by sharing oxygen from his own breathing apparatus with affected crewmates. In doing so, he inhaled the potent fumes, causing violent reactions within his body. He died from a heart attack during an emergency flight from the ship to Darwin. The tragedy of his death, aged only 22, I remind the House, should not obscure his heroism in consciously putting his own life on the line to save his shipmates. His bravery should be properly remembered with an appropriate posthumous military award befitting his personal sacrifice. I urge the Minister, if it is not already actively under consideration, to ensure that this young man's heroism is properly remembered and that our established system of honours and awards is not sacrificed to the mindless desire of those hopefully few in the Australian Labor Party to change treasured national symbols. Mr HOLLIS(Throsby)(10.31) —In the House last night the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) made a speech about the Fleet Air Arm Museum at HMAS Albatross. I have no reason to doubt that, as the honourable member said, this museum would be a tourist attraction. Where I take issue with him is the claim that this museum should be funded from the tourist component of the steel industries asssistance program. This scheme was designed to assist the depressed steel regions and I challenge the honourable member for Gilmore or anyone else to produce figures for me showing how many people in the Shoalhaven region were affected by the downturn in the steel industry. I was the member referred to by the honourable member for Gilmore as, and I quote from Hansard: A member of parliament who represents an electorate slightly to the north of my electorate in the Illawarra region has been lobbying quite strongly to have these funds which have been given first priority by the committee taken away from the air museum and used to create a sporting facility. I can assure the honourable member for Gilmore and the House that I have not been lobbying or pushing for a sporting facility. I have no view about the Fleet Air Arm Museum as it is outside by electorate. My first duty-the first duty of any member is to his electorate-is to my electorate. My duty is not to his electorate. The museum was never discussed with me during the time I was the member responsible for the area in which the museum was located. I was never invited to inspect it. Indeed, I was not even invited to its opening. The honourable member for Gilmore has never discussed the facility with me. However, I have seen several Press reports of his claim that I am opposed to it. If he was so interested one would have thought that he would have approached me to see whether we could have got together and made a joint approach to the funding authorities. It seems strange to me that the people of the Shoalhaven area responsible for this museum never wanted to know me until there was the possibility of some Federal funding being made available. Since then some people have started to think that perhaps I should take an interest in this museum. I remind the honourable member for Gilmore that when we gained office in 1983 the steel industry was in a completely devastated state after seven disastrous years in which the people on the other side of the House had control of the treasury bench. After seven disastrous years of their rule the steel industry was absolutely devastated. One of the first things that I did as the member representing that area after the steel industries assistance plan was announced was to arrange for a deputation from the Illawarra, comprising the mayors of Wollongong, Kiama and Shellharbour, to come to this Parliament and spend a day talking to Ministers and putting a case for extra and special assistance for the area. Of the $44m made available for our region $10m was allocated for the tourist industry. As the member for Macarthur I had responsibility for the Nowra area. I approached the Shoalhaven Council at Nowra and told it of the success we had in forming a deputation from the northern Illawarra region. I suggested to the Shoalhaven Council that it go to Canberra. My staff and I arranged for five Federal Ministers to spend a day talking to representatives of the Shoalhaven Council. After I had arranged that visit I had a telephone call from the Mayor telling me that he had a prior engagement and could not come. As I have said, that Council could have obtained special assistance had it come to Canberra. The steel industries assistance program is designed to assist the depressed steel regions. It may well be that the Fleet Air Arm Museum is the best thing for tourism since sliced bread. However, it is not going to be funded from steel industry money which has been allocated to assist the depressed regions of Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama. I suggest that if the honourable member for Gilmore is so interested in this matter he work a little harder and try to get funding. Instead of making cheap political gibes and attacks on me in the local paper, he should approach me-he has never done this-and discuss it with me. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(10.36) —Mr Speaker, I do not know whether you have been watching as closely as I have the progress that has been made in primary education particularly in regard to the education of physically and mentally handicapped young children. I remember as a young schoolboy that unfortunately in those days the mentally and physically handicapped were more or less kept aside and out of the normal primary schools. Consequently most children did not come into contact with them and therefore regarded them as strangers when they did meet them. However, recently things have changed and many of these children attend primary schools in both government and non-government sectors. For all intents and purposes, these children are being treated as much as possible like any other child. Of course, these young children need particular care in the school system and therefore additional staff are required. However, something has gone basically wrong with the system. I would like to read a letter from one of the primary schools in my electorate which put forward a submission regarding the care of these children in the school. The letter states: The following statement is not written as a criticism of the officers of the Schools Commission, but as a point of view to those responsible for policy. NEED. As can be seen from this application, we have submitted statements over the past four years to support applications for assistance to handicapped children. As the pupils in our care have deteriorated we have lodged the appropriate degree of assistance NEEDED. It has since come to my notice through the crippled children's Association, that funds are allocated to various areas on a population basis with little or no regard for the difficulties or severity of handicaps that exist. When looking at the needs, it is a simple case of country children being doubly disadvantaged, in that parents have NO CHOICE but to send their handicapped children to regular schools. By comparison, city and suburban handicapped children are relatively close to adequate facilities to cater for their needs and, most importantly, are living within the family structure where their security is assured. Country children, on the other hand, to remain within the `bosom of the family', are not adequately catered for in relation to facilities and undue pressure is placed upon the regular school, parents and the children themselves. This inequitable burden on this school alone, meant an allocation of $6,000 from general school funds this year to provide a necessary teacher's aide which necessitated a reallocation of the budgeted income and curtailed already meagre fund allocations to maintenance and resources. To further expand upon this point of funding, could I ask that advice from the Commonwealth Schools Commission to Senator Susan Ryan be realistic so that the Government may be able to `put their money where their mouth is'; in other words, to back up their policy statements with action? It had been stated to me by officers of the Commission that allocation of funds was made from what funds were available. I ask, then, that those charged with advising the Government be realistic. Senator Susan Ryan has replied to our Local Federal Member- that was me- in 1984 that growth had been 20 per cent `in real terms' yet in 1983 we had received a grant of $6,000 for the teacher's aide salary and this had been slashed by 50 per cent (or more `in real terms') to $3,000 this year. This is for the same person, doing the same job for children who are progressively deteriorating and thus placing more demands upon all who assist them. When one goes to these schools one sees the way in which these young children are assisted by other children and the way they join in with playing games. One sees young Johnnie and young Mary pick up a handicapped child and drag him into the classroom. That child thinks it is great fun. When one has seen those things and seen how well this program is progressing I think it is a shame that more money is not provided. I make a request to the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) to check out the funding for these students. I ask the Government to assist where it can. Mr LAMB(Streeton)(10.40) —Just over 10 years ago a tragedy occurred in East Timor which introduced a decade of doubts and concern amid an atmosphere of continued international tension. I refer to the killing of five journalists working for Australian television-HSV7-who had been sent to cover the reported Indonesian invasion of the tiny Portuguese colony. Greg Shackleton, Tony Stewart, Malcolm Rennie, Gary Cunningham and Brian Peters, all in their twenties, lost their lives in October 1975 during the Indonesian invasion in the small village of Balibo. The shame is that after a decade questions remain about their deaths which neither the Indonesian nor Australian governments have answered. Their families and news colleagues have lived with the uncertainty of not knowing exactly how or why they died. The tragedy of their deaths and the inadequate efforts of the Australian and Indonesian governments to explain their deaths have been swamped by similar inaction over the much greater tragedy of the Timorese people. The purpose of the television journalists was to discover the truth about events in East Timor. That purpose was absolutely frustrated and individual and international efforts to discover the truth of the situation in East Timor ever since have been hopelessly frustrated by the occupation of Indonesian forces. There are many in this Parliament who are determined that the truth should be known and that the welfare and human rights of the East Timorese should be recognised and honoured. There are many in this Parliament who will not forget the 60,000 East Timorese who died as a result of their courageous support fighting alongside Australian forces to protect Australia from falling to the hands of the Japanese during the last world war. There are many in this Parliament who will continue to urge the Government to express their continuing concern at the situation in East Timor, the denial of self-determination for the East Timorese people and concern at the renewed fighting and threats to human life and rights in that country. If the truth is to be learned about the past 10 years in East Timor the Indonesian Government, which claims control over the area, must give free access to humanitarian relief teams; to international organisations such as Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Commission of Jurists. The Indonesian Government must allow an independent international mission to enter the territory to make an independent and impartial report on the situation. Although Amnesty International has not been able to visit East Timor, it has been able to accumulate a large body of information about what it describes as violations of human rights-extrajudicial executions, `disappearances', torture and political imprisonment over the nine years from 1975 to 1984. In its report, issued a few months ago, it catalogues a decade of repression drawn from reports, accounts written and passed on to it in confidence, and other confidential material, including copies of interrogation reports and reports on prisoners taken into custody by Indonesian forces. It is essential that in the absence of completely free international visits to East Timor the radio link between Fretelin forces and Australia continues to operate. This is the only source of alternative information to that provided by the Indonesian Government, especially as the international telephone link to Dili is either inoperative or denied to outside callers who are not approved by the Indonesian telephone operators in Jakarta. I can vouch for this as my efforts to contact Monsignor Belo, the Bishop of Dili, have been totally frustrated. I will be very interested to read the report or to learn about the contents of the report about the visit by our Ambassador to Indonesia, the Honourable Bill Morrison, when I get to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and obtain a copy of that report. I undertstand that he met with Monsignor Belo and it will be interesting to hear what took place. The tragedy of East Timor will not go away-especially for Australia for we are too involved. East Timor is our nearest neighbour; we have shared the fight in a world war; many East Timorese have migrated here; and five journalists have died there in the search for truth. But more than all this, Australia as a medium sized but influential country must set an example for other nations, particularly in our immediate region, and argue in our international forums for the principle of self-determination for the East Timorese. The next 12 months will be crucial in the history of East Timor. The United Nations has not accepted the illegal take-over by Indonesia, and Australia must support the Secretary-General in his efforts to arrange talks between the Indonesian and Portuguese governments, followed by the inclusion of Fretelin representatives, to settle peacefully, humanely and diplomatically the political future of East Timor. Australia owes this to the five journalists who died 10 years ago searching for the truth. Australia owes this to the East Timorese in their search for freedom and self-determination. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.45) —Running as we are into a South Australian State election it is inevitable that in any chamber of Parliament in Australia, except of course for the South Australian chamber, which is not meeting, there will be some focus on State elections and in any chamber some emotion is bound to be produced. But there have been few issues in this State election which have produced as much emotive reaction as has the issue of privatisation. Whilst the honourable member for Hindmarsh (Mr Scott) may try to interject, both he and I might be very pleased that we are in fact in Canberra and spared some of the nonsense that currently occupies the South Australian tele- vision screens under the name of the Public Service Association in South Australia. That Association, in fact, has declared that it is attacking the Liberals' privatisation policy. I take up the point of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), who alleged rightly that the material being used is defamatory, deceitful, emotive and as much as we might expect from that Association. What is not expected is, in fact, the material that is also being run from what are regarded as relatively well-informed but misguided sources. In the Sunday Canberra Times the journalist Mr Tom Connors, in his `Supply &Demand' column, wrote: I am personally intrigued- he is speaking of Mr Olsen- by his interest in selling off irrigation schemes, and the very mention of such an action implies that Mr Olsen has done little research on privatisation. Why would any sane businessman want to buy an irrigation system? I doubt if any State Government has ever charged farmers a price for water that covers maintenance of irrigation schemes let alone a capital cost for the construction of dams and canals. I am not surprised that Mr Connors wrote in those terms. They are the terms that are generally accepted in the House. But I have to say that Mr Connors is quite wrong. I have first hand experience, in fact, of farmers who have not only bought into but also constructed their own private irrigation schemes without any support at all from the Government. In one instance these private irrigation schemes occupied initially 500 acres or 200-odd hectares, with water reticulated to each six-acre unit, each six-acre unit having a freehold title with an encumbrance on it to cover the grower's involvement in the pump at the river and the main lines. There is currently such a demand for land that for people wanting to get into the private irrigation scheme land in the area happens to be twice as expensive as land in the adjoining government irrigation area. I think this is a classic illustration of privatisation in an area that is relatively unattractive-that is, the area of irrigation-being a resounding success. People in private irrigation schemes with no government support at all within the South Australian Riverland area are discovering that the investment they have made is now worth twice as much as an identical investment in a government irrigation scheme. I repeat that there is no government involvement in these schemes. The schemes were initiated in the heady Playford days of free enterprise in South Australia. Effectively, investors will now pay twice as much to stay away from a government run scheme. They will pay twice as much to invest in an irrigation scheme that is privatised. If this is the sort of success that we can have with a relatively unattractive capital investment area such as an irrigation scheme, imagine what can be done with any area that lends itself to imagination. One might care to consider just for a moment the fact that the PSA has ignored and that is that Australia Post believes in privatisation. If Australia Post has a rural postal office that it feels it can no longer afford to service, it offers that rural post office to some private, enterprising person to develop under an Australia Post licence. What sort of service would we give to rural Australia were it not for the fact that the Australia Post service is privatised in this way? Privatisation is a policy of which all Australians ought rightly to be proud, and the way in which it has been denigrated in the run up to the State election should be despised by all thinking people. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.52) —Following the honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew), I would like to dwell on another issue which is of vital importance to South Australians. Crucial to the confrontation with poverty is co-operation between State and Federal governments and voluntary agencies. State attitudes towards poverty vary. In South Australia, for instance, the Government is making a very welcome two-pronged attack on poverty. As early as January this year the South Australian Government recognised that there were people who were receiving unjustified welfare concessions, and that there were also people who were in dire need of whom governments were not aware. A task force was set up to identify the economically disadvantaged, to focus on their needs and to promote actions to help these disadvantaged people. The Bannon Government, in its brief time in government, has given a lead in its attack on poverty; it spends 50 per cent more per head than does Queensland. Even excluding Commonwealth special purpose payments, the amount per head of population is less than $20 in Queensland and over $30 in South Australia. In the important area of child welfare, South Australia spends $19 per capita-more than any other State and $8 more per capita than Queensland, which has the lowest figure. The Bannon Government has taken a lead nationally in the important area of child welfare. It recognises that every dollar spent in prevention today- Mr Downer —Rip-off merchants. Mr SNOW —What the honourable member for Mayo does not recognise and the South Australian Government does recognise is that every dollar spent in prevention today saves many more dollars in health, refuges, prisons and other treatment costs when the children affected grow up. The Bannon Government has given South Australia a 74 per cent growth rate in child welfare financial commitments to bring it to second place just behind Western Australia. In the area of emergency assistance, South Australia provides three-and-a-half times as much funding as Queensland per capita and seven times as much as Queensland in transport concessions. In the few minutes that remain to me I want to comment on another aspect of poverty-the assistance to sole parents, including unmarried mothers. The Government last week dealt with the Social Security (Poverty Traps) Amendment Bill, which provides that sole parents and other beneficiaries are able to earn a higher amount-$40 for single people and $70 for couples-and provides a doubling of the amount allocated for children before the people concerned are penalised in any way in the amount of pension or fringe benefits they receive. One receives criticisms, particularly about payments to sole parents. A disturbingly vocal minority in the community, rightly or wrongly, claim that young girls get pregnant and have a baby so that they can receive benefits. If that is true, such a young woman would soon be disappointed because as she tries to cope with the vexing economic and social pressures, as well as the trauma of adapting to parenthood, she finds that it is anything but fun. What do critics of these payments want government to do? Do they expect the benefit to be refused? If they do want the benefit to be refused, what do they propose the Government or the hard-pressed voluntary agencies should do about the side effects? Let there be no doubt that the sort of people who have attacked the Fraser Government as well as the Hawke Government over this benefit would effectively shift responsibility for the support of these people from the Department of Social Security to women's refuges, orphanages, child protections agencies-which would receive more child bashing incidents to deal with-and voluntary agencies, which would have to provide clothing, power and food. Whatever the reason for a young woman becoming pregnant, these critics of the sole parent benefit have failed to explain what we do about the pregnancy. Do we encourage abortion? Sometimes I think the Right to Life people could use their time more effectively in championing adequate benefits for single parents rather than championing some of the activities they take on. There are those who say that young women have a baby to avoid becoming part of the work force. Even if these young women are trying to avoid getting work, this would not be particularly useful information until the employment situation gets better. I believe that the measures we took this week, together with the innovations of the Australian States, including South Australia, were a significant step in assistance for those in need. Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(10.56) —I wish to comment on the release of the Industries Assistance Commission report on fertilisers. At the moment fertilisers are assisted by subsidies of $12 per tonne of single superphosphate, or SSP, $138 per tonne of available phosphorous in other manufactured fertilisers, and $20 per tonne of contained nitrogen. The report makes the point that the fertiliser subsidy is not a big input cost across rural Australia. In fact it is something like 7 or 8 per cent but, according to this report, in the wheat belt of Western Australia the purchase of fertilisers accounts for up to 28 per cent of farm costs. Coincidentally, it is this group of farmers which has one of the highest debt structures in Australia. Their debt averages $148,000 per farm. In this instance I cannot support the view of the IAC that fertiliser subsidies are not a good way of providing farm support. In fact, this form of subsidy is cost effective and has been finding its way to the farmers who need it most. Fertiliser subsidies provided about $49.2m in assistance to farmers last year. In effect, if the Government takes the IAC's advice on this matter there will be a net transfer of $49.2m away from rural Australia. It so happens that the most disadvantaged sectors of Australia's rural producers will be targeted. These include the wheat belt, which I have mentioned, which uses about 30 per cent of the phosphatic fertilisers consumed in Australia, and the sugar industry, which uses about 30 per cent of the nitrogenous fertilisers consumed in Australia. In Western Australia some 800,000 tonnes of SSP was consumed last year. In effect, the removal of this subsidy would add $9.6m to the input costs in Western Australia. The IAC is carrying out government policy in encouraging industries which are capable of operating over a long period with minimum levels of assistance, and I am sure we all agree with this. In a way the IAC is fulfilling the same function domestically as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade is fulfilling internationally. Both organisations realise that subsidies and tariffs and unfair trading practices must be reduced. One lesson of GATT is that it is extraordinarily difficult to obtain agreement between various countries to disarm their unfair and discriminatory trade practices. It is essential that the trade-offs take place progressively towards reducing these barriers. Farmers pay directly for many forms of assistance which the Government grants to manufacturing industries-tariffs and so on. On the other hand, this increases our farmers' costs and reduces their competitiveness on international markets. On the other hand, the level of assistance granted to agriculture has little effect on the competitiveness of our manufacturing industries on world markets. I believe that on any rational assessment, we should reduce subsidies to both agricultural and manufacturing industries in such a way as not to disadvantage agricultural industries. Let us face it, agriculture is far more important to Australia's balance of payments. Manufacturing industries receive across the board about 50 per cent more assistance than agriculture. It is quite clear what the Government must do to address this imbalance. If we can work towards eliminating internal protectionism, we will have made a significant step towards our goal of full employment, growth and development. When we look at a number of recent IAC reports on agriculture, we see that the recommendations reduce or phase out altogether assistance such as that given to the dairy, apples and pears and dried fruits industries. In this report I am discussing tonight, I am not suggesting a bias against agriculture, but rationalisation must be advocated across all industries. Finally, this report arrives in the context of a general shift of Government revenue away from rural Australia, the prospect of the new tax package which actively discriminates against farming interests, and a state of siege in many of our world export markets. The fertiliser subsidies were introduced in 1963 to improve the productivity of farms and pastures. Because of the grossly distorted world trade- Mr SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Cohen to present a Bill for an Act to protect Australia's heritage of movable cultural objects, to support the protection by foreign countries of their heritage of movable cultural objects, and for related purposes. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Restoration of facade, General Post Office, Martin Place, Sydney. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Melbourne Mail Centre, Spencer and LaTrobe Streets, Melbourne. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new ward block and outpatients department, Repatriation General Hospital, Heidelberg, Vic. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of Commonwealth Law courts building, Parramatta. Mr West to move- That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of new telephone exchange building for Telecom Australia at Dalley Street, Sydney. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 26 November 1985: Air Navigation Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 300, 301. Audit Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 302, 303. Banks (Shareholdings) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 299, 311. Commonwealth Employees (Redeployment and Retirement) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 310. Customs Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 305, 306, 308. Excise Act-Regulation-Statutory Rules 1985, Nos. 307. Public Service Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 298. Registration of Deaths Abroad Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 304. States Grants (Petroleum Products) Act-Regulations-Statutory Rules 1985, No. 309. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 934) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 7 May 1985: (1) Which water resource projects have been initiated in 1984-85 and (a) where are they located, (b) what is the estimated cost of each, (c) what is the estimated expenditure on each in 1984-85 and (d) under which heading and on which page of 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1 is each listed. (2) Which water resource projects are in progress in 1984-85 and (a) when was approval given for each project to proceed, (b) where is each located, (c) what is the estimated cost of each, (d) what is the estimated expenditure on each in 1984-85 and (e) under which heading and on which page of 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1 is each listed. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The information requested in parts (a), (b) and (c) is shown in Table 1. In respect of (d), the overall allocation for the Federal Water Resources Assistance Program is referred to on page 199 of the 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1. However, specific allocations to State and the Northern Territory projects are not shown as these allocations are finalised after the Budget by negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory. Table 1 WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS INITIATED IN 1984-85 Total estimated cost Total estimated expenditure 1984-85 Commonwealth expenditure 1984-85 $ $ $ New South Wales FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Albury... 10,000 9,600 4,883 River Murray: Lake Hume to SA border... 70,000 54,000 35,000 Woronora River... 135,000 90,000 36,000 Flood Mitigation Works Georges River: Kelso Creek and Carinya Road... 780,000 315,500 100,947 Nambucca River: Macksville... 72,500 62,500 20,000 Tweed River: South Tweeds Heads... 350,000 5,000 1,600 Property Acquisitions Georges River: Milperra and Moorebank... 17,100,000 508,300 162,656 Lake Macquarie... 375,000 46,850 14,992 Victoria FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Avoca River... 137,000 137,000 28,000 Canadian Gully, Ballarat... 37,600 37,600 10,000 Goulburn River... 327,000 87,800 43,000 Lower Latrobe River... 57,000 6,500 3,000 Muckatah Depression... 125,000 74,000 14,000 Ovens River... 153,000 26,100 12,000 River Murray... 350,000 264,000 65,000 Flood Mitigation Works and Measures Andersons Creek... 741,652 627,738 185,000 Bendigo... 722,500 27,500 15,000 Geelong... 1,930,000 210,000 84,000 Horsham... 320,000 202,700 85,000 Shepparton/Mooroopna... 769,000 267,000 112,000 Traralgon... 1,755,000 327,000 130,000 Wangaratta... 2,768,000 50,000 22,000 Tasmania FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Tamar Valley Silting Study... 261,000 135,566 35,000 (2) The information requested in parts (a), (b), (c) and (d) is shown in Table 2. In respect of (e), the Burdekin Dam and the Bundaberg Irrigation Project are listed under the heading Irrigation and Other Pastoral Water Projects on page 199 of 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1. Specific allocations to other projects do not appear in the 1984-85 Budget Paper No. 1 as allocations to these projects are finalised after the Budget by negotiation between the Commonwealth and the States and the Northern Territory. Table 2 WATER RESOURCES PROJECTS APPROVED PRIOR TO 1984-85 Date of project approval Total estimated cost Total estimated expenditure 1984-85 Commonwealth expenditure 1984-85 $ $ $ New South Wales Water Resources Assessment... 24 Nov 1964 ongoing 4,800,000 1,250,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Floodplain Mapping (Tidal Reaches)... 13 Jun 1979 ongoing 226,000 110,000 Floodplain Mapping (Non-Tidal Reaches)... 5 Apr 1980 ongoing 14,338 11,440 Flood Awareness Programs... 15 Dec 1981 ongoing 94,000 35,000 Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Clarence River: South Grafton... 4 Mar 1981 112,500 62,500 25,000 Tweed and Brunswick Rivers: Murwillumbah, Chinderah and Belongil Creek... 15 Dec 1981 21 Apr 1983 17 Feb 1984 110,500 80,500 32,200 Georges River: Floodplain modelling... 15 Dec 1981 245,000 93,600 37,465 Nambucca and Macleay Rivers: Macksville and Kempsey... 15 Dec 1981 13,500 13,500 4,000 Bega River... 21 Apr 1983 27,500 25,000 10,000 Central Coast: Lower Ourimbah and Narara Creeks... 21 Apr 1983 50,000 22,000 8,883 Forster-Tuncurry and Lower Hastings River... 21 Apr 1983 17 Feb 1984 110,000 10,000 4,000 Narrabeen Lagoon... 21 Apr 1983 92,500 62,500 25,000 Richmond River: West Ballina... 21 Apr 1983 39,000 29,000 11,600 Parramatta... 17 Feb 1984 52,000 27,000 13,000 Camden... 17 Feb 1984 38,000 25,000 9,000 Fairfield... 17 Feb 1984 292,500 33,000 13,902 Flood Mitigation Works Toongabbie Creek... 15 Dec 1981 4,700,000 862,000 275,938 Tocumwal... 15 Dec 1981 277,000 62,500 20,000 Wagga Wagga... 15 Dec 1981 125,000 50,000 15,936 Central Coast: Saltwater Creek... 21 Apr 1983 100,000 100,000 32,000 Fairfield... 21 Apr 1983 4,700,000 1,508,000 412,000 Campbelltown... 17 Feb 1984 10,800,000 1,606,000 512,705 Cooma... 17 Feb 1984 32,000 32,000 10,272 Property Acquisitions Richmond River: Lismore and Goonellabah... 13 Jun 1979 13,500,000 276,000 88,288 Clarence River: South Grafton... 5 Apr 1980 177,075 177,075 56,664 Hunter River: Maitland... 4 Mar 1981 4,667,000 110,000 40,286 Macleay River: Kempsey... 15 Dec 1981 800,000 100,000 32,000 MURRAY VALLEY SALINITY AND DRAINAGE Wakool-Tullakool Sub-surface Drainage Scheme... 13 Jun 1979 27,000,000 5,102,248 Berriquin Irrigation District Surface Drainage Scheme... 5 Apr 1980 41,000,000 3,080,135 2,000,000 Monitoring and Investigations... 5 Apr 1980 on-going 272,000 CHICHESTER WATER TREATMENT PLANT... 21 Sep 1983 13,860,000 1,879,088 1,650,000 Victoria WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT... 24 Nov 1964 on-going 1,963,916 950,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Surveys and Mapping... 17 Mar 1980 on-going 306,900 134,717 Floodplain Management Studies and Investigations Lower Loddon River... 17 Mar 1980 220,000 161,800 76,000 Lower Maribyrnong... 5 Feb 1981 250,000 170,814 65,000 Werribee River... 30 Mar 1981 on-going 8,300 4,000 Flood Mitigation Works and Measures Echuca... 17 Mar 1980 1,400,000 59,900 27,000 Kerang... 17 Mar 1980 1,270,000 293,500 116,000 Lough Calvert... 17 Mar 1980 1,450,000 439,500 147,000 Nathalia... 17 Mar 1980 1,273,000 85,114 51,000 Dandenong Valley... 5 Feb 1981 on-going 156,116 54,447 Seaspray... 5 Feb 1981 1,250,000 253,700 120,000 Complementary measures... 30 Mar 1981 on-going 77,500 31,000 MURRAY VALLEY SALINITY AND DRAINAGE Mineral Reserve Basins Scheme ... 17 Mar 1980 8,450,000 2,819,600 Monitoring and Investigations ... 17 Mar 1980 on-going 542,700 Shepparton Sub-surface Drainage Scheme ... 17 Mar 1980 20,000,000 546,000 2,400,000 Shepparton Surface Drainage Scheme ... 17 Mar 1980 on-going 1,337,900 TANJIL RIVER (BLUE ROCK) DAM ... 6 Jan 1982 43,400,000 4,192,781 600,000 STATE WATER PLAN ... 18 Dec 1983 on-going 545,000 200,000 Queensland WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ... 24 Nov 1964 on-going 3,426,984 800,000 BUNDABERG IRRIGATION ... 23 Jun 1970 228,000,000 13,951,168 4,000,000 ETON IRRIGATION ... 19 Dec 1973 70,150,000 9,291,252 2,700,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Brisbane Creeks ... 20 Dec 1974 23,200,000 1,675,000 461,470 Herbert River ... 21 Feb 1983 7,000,000 700,000 250,681 BURDEKIN FALLS DAM ... 23 Jun 1983 143,500,000 25,919,892 20,000,000 Western Australia WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ... 24 Nov 1964 on-going 2,583,580 1,610,000 SALINITY CONTROL Collie River Catchment ... 13 May 1980 21,500,000 1,158,018 587,624 South West Catchments ... 21 Jan 1982 35,000,000 1,459,741 790,116 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Surveys and Mapping ... 21 Jan 1982 Narembeen-flood study ... 10 Dec 1984 2,159,000 202,397 100,000 HARDING RIVER DAM ... 16 Feb 1983 29,732,000 13,200,369 6,650,000 South Australia WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ... 24 Nov 1964 on-going 1,328,509 600,000 ADELAIDE AND NORTHERN TOWNS WATER FILTRATION PROGRAM Metropolitan Adelaide ... 9 May 1974 179,239,000 10,658,000 3,150,000 Northern Towns ... 10 Dec 1981 49,560,000 9,034,000 2,534,700 MURRAY VALLEY SALINITY AND DRAINAGE Berri-Cobdogla Comprehensive Drainage Scheme ... 11 Apr 1979 4,320,000 20,000 Lock 2 to Lock 3 (Woolpunda) Investigations ... 8 Apr 1980 21,582,000 461,000 Noora Drainage Disposal Scheme ... 8 Apr 1980 11,318,000 33,000 700,000 Murray River Irrigation and Salinity Investigation Program ... 8 Apr 1980 on-going 414,000 Murray River Salinity Control Studies ... 22 Feb 1983 on-going 486,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT River Torrens Flood Mitigation Scheme ... 10 Dec 1981 13,745,000 2,550,000 1,000,000 Tasmania WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ... 24 Nov 1964 on-going 831,862 180,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Launceston Flood Protection Scheme ... 17 Feb 1981 8,000,000 53,161 22,100 Northern Territory WATER RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ... 18 Dec 1979 on-going 4,706,122 1,390,000 FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT Mapping, investigations and complementary measures ... 2 Dec 1981 on-going 230,315 115,000 (Question No. 1383) Mr Jacobi asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: Is he able to say whether there is a loop-hole in Western Australian legislation which prevents evidence being obtained from overseas for admission in certain prosecutions; if so, will he take urgent action to enact Commonwealth legislation to provide for the institution of the letter of request procedure, either in particular cases or generally. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: There is no legislation in operation in Western Australia making provision for obtaining evidence abroad for use in criminal proceedings. In recent prosecutions in that State for alleged breaches of the Banking (Foreign Exchange) Regulations it was decided that a Court of Petty Sessions had no power to issue a letter of request to a court in Hong Kong. To remedy the situation, the Evidence Amendment Bill 1985 was introduced into this House on 16 October 1985. One purpose of the Bill is to provide for the taking of evidence abroad for use in civil or criminal proceedings in Federal courts, State courts exercising Federal jurisdiction conferred by an Act, and in courts of other Territories. (Question No. 1457) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If any advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Australian National Opinion Polls undertook an attitude and communications research study for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs in 1984. The Department has not undertaken any advertising campaign. (2) The Information Co-ordination Branch of the now Department of Sport, Recreation and Tourism. (3) (a) See answer to (1) above. (b) The cost of ANOP's attitude and communications research study was $59,000. (4) Not relevant. See answers to (1) and (3b). (Question No. 1506) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or automatic data processing hardware are used in the Minister's Departments and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user; if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is set out in the tables below: (1) and (3) Organisation and Location Brands Sharing Arrangements Department of Aviation, Central Office, Canberra ICL 2960; Hewlett Packard 1000, A900 and 3000; Prime 750; DEC PDP 11/73, PDP 11/44, PDP 11/45; Sigman Data Wordplex; Integraph None Regional Offices-Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide, Perth Hewlett Packard 5 x HP 3000 None QANTAS Amdahl; Sperry Share reservation system with several South East Asian/Pacific Region Airlines to assist them in providing a state-of-the-art service TAA Rockwell-Collins; Sperry None (2)- (a) Major Systems and Principal Function (b) Date Installed (c) Hardware Cost (d) Anticipated Life (from October 1985) (e) Replacement Action ICL 2960 (Department of Aviation Canberra) Processing a range of small Departmental Support Systems, e.g.: Aircraft Register Information; Finance (Costing); Licensed Aircraft Mainten-ance Engineers Exam- inations; Facilities Implementation Plan; Arrivals and Departures. 1982 $1.044m 1.25 years Responses to a Request for Tender for General Computing Network (GCN) have been evaluated and negotiations to acquire suitable equipment are in hand. The GCN is expected to replace the ICL 2960 system by the end of 1986 and then progressively replace the HP 3000 and Prime systems. HP 1000 and A900 (Department of Aviation Canberra) Model simulation 1984 $0.49m 5 years To be reviewed in context of GCN. HP 3000 (Department of Aviation Canberra and Regional Offices) Processing a range of Departmental Support Systems, e.g.: Supply; Manpower; Flight Standards; Works Programming; Aerodrome Information. 1984 $1.87m 4 to 5 years None. Existing systems installed on HP 3000 network will progressively be overtaken by new systems on the GCN. Prime 750 (Department of Aviation Canberra) Support for Office Automation System, Executive Information System and Ministerial Papers System. 1984 $0.47m 1-5 years None. Existing systems will be replaced by systems to be developed for the GCN. DEC PDP 11/73 (Department of Aviation Canberra) Analysis of Airport Development Projects. 1984 $0.42m 5 years None. DEC PDP 11/44 1975 $0.200m 5 years No immediate plans DEC PDP 11/45 (Department of Aviation) Canberra Read out and analysis of flight recorder and radar data in the course of aircraft accident and incident investigations. 1981 $0.250m 5 years No immediate plans Sigma Data Wordplex (Department of Aviation Canberra) Support to Word Processing facilities. 1980 $0.62m Up to 5 years Existing system to be progressively extended and enhanced. Integraph (Department of Aviation Canberra) Interact and Interpro terminals linked to a Bureau host for a Computer Aided Design and Drafting (CADD) Pilot Study. 1985 $0.319m 1.25 years Subject to Pilot Study. Amdahl (Qantas) Support to world wide seat reservation system. 1985 $8.8m To be depreciated over 5 years from date of installation None. System recently installed. However, enhancements to the system are planned over the next 5 years. Sperry (Qantas) Support to cargo reservation system. 1980 $3.6m Up to 5 years Enhancements to the system are planned over the next 5 years. Amdahl (Qantas) Support to general data processing system. 1983 $12.3m Up to 5 years Enhancements to the system are planned over the next 5 years. Rockwell-Collins (TAA) Control of TAA Australian and worldwide communications network. 1979 $2.367m To be depreciated over 10 years from date of installation Arrangements in hand to supplement and eventually replace the equipment. Sperry (TAA) Provision of centralised computer service supporting such functions as: Seat Reservation Departure Control Flight Information Hotel and Holiday Bookings Inventory of Aircraft Spares 1980-81 $11.175m To be depreciated over 10 years from date of installation Investigations into possible replacement are in hand. The above list does not include any computer that is an integral part of large operational real time systems, either as a processor or control device. Examples of these operational systems would include the flight simulators used by Qantas and TAA; the flight management systems installed in some aircraft; the Department of Aviation radar, navigation aid and communications systems; and air traffic simulators. (Question No. 1536) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1985. (1) Has he read the judgment of Hutley JA, Glass JA and Priestly JA, in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. (2) Did he decide that the marketing of Aboriginal art should fall under his control in 1983; if so, did this constitute a change in administrative arrangements. (3) Did he decide that the marketing of Aboriginal art should be transferred from the Australia Council to the Aboriginal Development Commission (ADC). (4) It is a fact that (a) the Australian Council made provisions for the funding of $190,000 to Treka/Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd (Treka) for the second half of 1983-84 and (b) the New South Wales Supreme Court Equity Division and the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered that $190,000 was allocated to Treka. (5) Did the ADC express a desire that the transfer of the control of Treka should take place from 1 January 1984. (6) Is he able to say whether Treka legal opinion stated that the transfer of control would transgress two Acts of Parliament. (7) Is it a fact that the Companies Code makes requirements for directors in relations to their fiduciary duties and penalties which they could incur in failing to carry out these duties. (8) Did he state at a meeting with two Treka Directors, and ADC representative, several Australia Council Aboriginal Arts Board representatives by Treka would be considered as obstructionism. (9) Did the Chairman of the ADC issue telexes, telegrams or letters claiming that obstructionism had taken place. (10) Was the Chairman of Treka at that time a Director of the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute (ATCI). (11) Were the funds of the ATCI at that time subject to an agreement which allowed the ATCI three years to become independent of his Department. (12) Did he withhold core funds for the ATCI from 1 January to August 1984 and then discontinue funding; if so, on whose advice and who was the secretary of his Department at the time. (13) Did the ADC apply the funds allocated to Treka to a shelf company called INADA Holdings Pty Ltd in March 1984. (14) Who were the directors of INADA Holdings at that time. (15) Was INADA Holdings at that time a legally constituted body which could be funded by the ADC under the Aboriginal Development Commission Act. (16) Did the ADC lodge a change of objectives with the Corporate Affairs Commission on 12 October 1984; if so, was this the day that the judgement of the New South Wales Court of Appeal referred to in Part 1 was given. (17) What was the purpose of the insertion of objectives in INADA Holdings. (18) Is there any evidence to suggest that the transfer of funds to INADA Holdings was ultra vires the Aboriginal Development Commission Act prior to the lodgement of objectives. (19) Was he asked not to allow the ADC to circumvent an Act of Parliament; if so (a) by whom (b) on how many occasions. (20) Was Treka forced into liquidation by withholding of the $190,000. (21) Was Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd receiving a subsidy of approximately $400,000 per annum in May 1982. (22) Was Treka required to reduce that subsidy when it was established in May 1982; if so, was it able to reduce substantially the gross loss by December 1983. (23) What was the ADC expenditure on INADA Holdings from March 1984 to date. Mr Holding —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (9), (13) to (15), (18) to (20) The honourable member has asked a question in 23 parts which refers again to some of the issues arising in the course of a dispute between Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd and Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd on the one hand; and the Aboriginal Development Commission (ACD) and Inada Holdings Pty Ltd on the other; and refers to matters arising in his Question Number 189 placed on notice on 20 March 1985 and answered by me on 31 May 1985 or in the judgement of Hutley JA, Glass JA and Priestly JA in the New South Wales Court of Appeal (CA321 of 12 October 1984). I forwarded a copy of the judgment to the honourable member at that time. (10) The period of time being referred to by the honourable member is not clear. Ms N. McNamara, who was at one stage Chairman of Treka, also held the position of Director of the Aboriginal Training and Cultural Institute (ATCI). (11) Yes. Such an agreement had been reached with my predecessor in the previous Government. (12) Yes. The delay in the release of funds was related to the events leading to my decision to change the funding arrangements of ATCI. I do not propose to disclose the source and nature of the advice given to me. The Secretary of the Department from 1 January 1984 to 28 March 1984 was Mr J. C. Taylor and from 29 March 1984 to August 1984 was Mr C.N. Perkins. (16) No. (17) Not applicable. (20), (22) These questions should be directed to Treka Aboriginal Arts and Crafts Pty Ltd. (21) This question should be directed to the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment. (23) The Aboriginal Development Commission has expended the following amounts on the establishment and operations of Inada Holdings: 1983-84... $190,000 1984-85... $907,000 1985-86 to 30/9/85... $300,000 (Question No. 1656) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 11 September 1985: (1) How many people were employed in each of his Department's organisational divisions, in each of the former Public Service divisions, or their current equivalent, as at (a) 1 March 1983 and (b) 30 June 1985. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Staffing data is no longer maintained according to the former Public Service divisional structure. The table below represents full-time and part-time operative staffing levels by organisational units for 1 March 1983 and 30 June 1985. DEPARTMENT OF AVIATION 1 March 1983 Full-time Part-time 30 June 1985 Full-time Part-time CENTRAL OFFICE Airports... 218 3 197 1 Airways... 425 343 1 Bureau of Air Safety Investigation... 75 68 Domestic Policy... 41 42 Review of Economic Regulation of Domestic Aviation... 10 Executive and Overseas... 9 12 Flight Standards... 192 190 6 Information &Executive Projects... 111 81 International Policy... 40 32 Management Services... 462 48 372 49 Resources... 163 147 TOTAL... 1,736 51 1,494 56 REGIONS New South Wales... 2,207 6 2,177 3 Victoria/Tasmania... 2,306 6 2,172 6 Queensland... 1,615 1 1,592 South Australia/Northern Territory... 1,396 3 1,349 2 Western Australia... 1,192 13 1,169 12 TOTAL... 8,716 29 8,459 23 Operational Trainees... 506 205 Civil Aviation Agency (PNG)... 67 23 Independent Air Fares Committee... 10 9 National Airport Authority Task Force... 9 Canberra Transfer Program Declinees... 43 (Question No. 1989) Mr Duncan asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 8 October 1985: (1) Has his attention been drawn to (a) a common law damages judgment handed down on 24 July 1985 in favour of Mr Katracazas, formerly a railway ganger of Mallala, South Australia, against Australian National and (b) the fact that Australian National have not yet paid Mr Katracazas. (2) What is the reason for the delay by Australian National in paying Mr Katracazas his settlement. (3) Are there any instances of similar delays by Australian National in settling claims following judgments. (4) Will he ensure that such delays are prevented in future. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) The Australian National Railways Commission (AN) has advised that a judgment in favour of Mr Katracazas was made on 24 July 1985. The Australian Government Solicitor advised AN on 15 August 1985 that the judgment had been accepted by Mr Katracazas. (b) AN has advised that the agreed sum was paid to Mr Katracazas' solicitors on 20 September 1985. (2) Delay in making payment was due to administrative processes within AN and the Australian Government Solicitor's Office. (3) AN advised that similar delays have occurred in the past mainly due to requirements to meet audit procedures or administrative processes. However every effort is made by AN to pay such claims within thirty days of settlement advice. (4) I am advised that AN is making every endeavour to eliminate such delays in the future. (Question No. 2035) Dr Klugman asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: Has his attention been drawn to articles by Professor Enid Campbell dealing with jury secrecy and related topics; if so, will he consider referring these articles to the Law Reform Commission after current relevant cases have been finalised. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Yes, I am informed that the Law Reform Commission will be giving consideration to the question of the application of the law of contempt in relation to the secrecy of deliberations of jurors as part of the reference given to it in April 1983 on contempt of court. Professor Campbell's articles have been drawn to the attention of the Commission. (Question No. 2056) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 9 October 1985: (1) What amounts have been paid to Mr Phillip Adams and Mr Rod Cameron, their companies, or principals of their companies, for services rendered to the Minister's Department or authorities under the Minister's control and for what purposes in each case. (2) What amounts have been paid to each of these people or companies for (a) travel allowance, (b) air fares, (c) accommodation costs, (d) hire car expenses and (e) any other expenses incurred. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) In the period 11 March 1983 to the present: In relation to the Department of Resources and Energy: Mr R. Cameron is a principal of ANOP (Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls). A flat fee of $45,000 was paid to ANOP in two instalments in May and June 1983. The fee was paid for the undertaking of consumer research on the energy efficiency labelling of domestic appliances. No payments have been made to Mr P. Adams or to the company Monahan, Dayman, Adams Ltd of which Mr Adams is a principal. In relation to authorities under the Minister's Control: No payments have been made to Mr P. Adams, Mr R. Cameron or their respective companies. (Question No. 2131) Mr Andrew asked the Minister representing the Minister for Resources and Energy, upon notice, on 10 October 1985: (1) For each of the countries shown in Table 8 `Indicative International Retail Prices' of the document `Major Energy Statistics', published by the Minister's Department, what were the retail price for farmers for (a) automotive gasoline, (b) automotive diesel oil, (c) automotive LPG and (d) AVGAS, in (a) December 1983, (b) December 1984 and (c) for the latest month for which data is available. (2) In cases where the prices for farmers are less than the Indicative International Retail Prices in what administrative ways are these reductions applied. (3) Is he able to say whether in any of the OECD countries any form of fuel other than automotive distillate is used extensively by farmers; if so, which fuels are so used and in which countries. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Resources and Energy has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Details of retail prices for farmers for (a) automotive gasoline, (b) automotive diesel oil and (c) automotive LPG are shown in Table 1. No details are available on aviation gasoline prices for farmers. (2) In the majority of cases where prices for farmers are less than indicative retail prices the reductions are applied by way of a rebate of tax. Other less common methods are purchases at reduced tax rates, or by bulk discounts or voucher system. (3) Table 2 shows the major fuels used in the agricultural sector in OECD counties. The table shows the predominance of automotive diesel oil, however fuel oil is of particular significance in European countries (presumably for heating purposes, eg greenhouse etc). Also Canada makes extensive use of automotive gasoline while Japan makes extensive use of kerosene. Table 1. INDICATIVE INTERNATIONAL RETAIL PRICES OF AUTOMOTIVE FUELS FOR FARMERS (1) Australian cents per litre (2) Automotive Gasoline Dec 1983 Dec 1984 Oct 1985 Automotive Diesel Oil Dec 1983 Dec 1984 Oct 1985 Automotive LPG (3) Dec 1983 Dec 1984 Oct 1985 OECD Australia... 47 47 54 39 37 43 (4) 24 21 24 Austria... 64 63 94 44 43 66 40 41 63 Canada... 36 35 46 35 34 44 29 26 31 FRG... 57 56 81 na (5) na (5) na (5) France... 38 42 66 36 36 53 Greece... 46 40 44 28 26 31 Italy... 24 24 33 29 29 40 na na na Japan... 74 74 98 39 39 52 38 32 49 Netherlands... 69 61 96 38 36 51 29 25 37 New Zealand... 46 45 71 43 39 62 25 19 40 Norway... na na na na na na Spain... 61 64 82 37 40 73 Sweden... 59 57 87 33 33 42 Turkey... 47 50 67 31 34 34 United Kingdom... 30 27 44 31 27 47 29 26 40 United States... 33 33 43 28 32 40 OTHER Argentina... 26 na na 17 16 31 Brazil... 43 48 29 29 33 31 China... 36 27 31 23 22 19 Egypt... 21 16 24 4 3 4 India... 66 60 85 34 31 41 Indonesian... 36 39 50 16 25 32 Kuwait... 15 16 20 15 16 20 Malaysia... 50 52 67 22 28 36 Malta... 64 63 84 39 38 51 Nigeria... 29 28 32 16 15 17 Philippines... 44 51 68 28 38 52 Saudi Arabia... 7 12 14 2 4 5 Singapore... 55 66 103 32 30 38 South Africa... 58 40 48 na na 30 USSR... 21 21 35 13 13 16 NOTES: (1) The farmers' prices are calculated as the national average retail prices less concessions available to farmers. (2) International prices were converted using exchange rates as at 7 December 1983, 3 December 1984 and 1 October 1985. (3) Where there is no LPG price given its use is either insignificant or not used for automotive purposes. (4) Currently Australian farmers are eligible for a 7.6 cents per litre rebate on ADO. As from 1 November 1985 the rebate will be increased by 2.4 cents to 10.0 cents per litre. This represents a rebate of total excise. (5) Farmers are eligible for a rebate of part of the mineral oil tax but no details of the fraction rebated is available. Source: Department of Resources and Energy October 1985 Table 2. MAJOR PETROLEUM FUELS USED IN THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN OECD COUNTRIES-1983 Country LPG Automotive Gasoline Kerosene Automotive Diesel Oil Fuel Oil Percentage of Total Australia... . . . . 1 98 . . Austria... . . . . . . . . . . Belgium... 2 1 1 51 43 Canada... 2 37 2 57 1 Denmark... 2 2 1 77 17 FRG... . . . . . . 100 . . Finland... . . 3 1 77 19 France... 7 2 . . 84 4 Greece... . . 7 . . 93 . . Iceland... . . . . . . . . . . Ireland... . . . . 2 83 15 Italy... 2 9 1 77 11 Japan... . . . . 41 55 4 Luxembourg... . . . . . . 50 50 Netherlands... 14 . . . . 84 . . New Zealand... . . . . . . 89 11 Norway... . . 8 1 83 7 Portugal... 1 . . . . 92 5 Spain... . . . . 1 98 1 Sweden... . . . . . . 83 17 Switzerland... . . 8 . . 92 . . Turkey... . . . . . . 100 . . UK... . . . . 1 80 15 US... . . . . 2 98 . . TOTAL OECD... 1 6 5 84 4 NOTES: The percentages may not add up to 100 since minor fuels have been exluded. Source: International Energy Agency `Annual Oil and Gas Statistics' 1982-1983 OECD Paris, 1985. (Question No. 2202) Mr Goodluck asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: (1) What is toxic dinoflagellates and is it contagious. (2) Is he able to say whether toxic dinoflagellates is in Tasmanian waters. (3) What is its effect on people. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Dinoflagellates are single-celled organisms, similar to algae, of which there are some 1200 species in the aquatic environment. About 10 of these species are known to produce toxins which can be concentrated by marine animals particularly filter feeding shell-fish such as mussels, oysters and scallops. Illness caused by toxic dinoflagellates is not contagious from person to person, it is contracted only by eating sea-food contaminated by the organisms. (2) Two species of dinoflagellates known to be toxic have been isolated from Tasmanian waters including the Derwent Estuary, Storm Bay and off Maria Island. However, testing of oysters in the affected areas has shown no trace of the toxic organisms and, therefore, there is currently no evidence of any public health risk. (3) One of the species isolated has been associated elsewhere in the world with diarrhetic shellfish poisoning which can make people very ill, and the other has been associated with paralytic shellfish poisoning which can also cause serious illness which may prove fatal. I understand that the situation is being monitored by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation's Division of Fisheries Research and officers of my Department are liaising with the Tasmanian health authorities. (Question No. 2205) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 15 October 1985: Has the Metal Trades Industry Association surveyed members subsequent to 1983 to ascertain how many firms were engaged in some form of export activity; if so, when were the surveys conducted and what was the percentage of firms advising that they were engaged in export activity. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: Since 1979 the MTIA, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Bank, has conducted an annual survey of the metal and engineering industry. The most recent of these is dated March 1985 and includes figures for December 1984. A total of 1197 establishments/companies engaged in the metal and engineering industry, employing 176,895 persons and with annual sales of $15,307 million responded to this survey. Of these, 38.0 per cent (approximately 455 firms) were engaged in export activity. According to the survey, the value of exports rose by 19.4 per cent during 1984 and is expected to rise by a similar amount during 1985. This is significantly better than the respective increases for total sales. (Question No. 2225) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Have all the State governments agreed to increase the legal speed limits for trucks with approved braking systems to the same legal speed limit for cars. (2) Has the Victorian Government only increased the limit to 90 kmph instead of the agreed 100 kmph. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) At the June 1985 meeting of the Australian Transport Advisory Council (ATAC) all State and Territory Government's endorsed a fast-track package of reforms for the road transport industry which includes a proposal to remove the speed limit differential between trucks and other vehicles outside built-up areas. The fast-track package was announced by the Federal Government in March 1985 and is based on the re- commendations of the National Road Freight Industry Inquiry. The target implementation date for the fast-track package is 1 July 1986. (2) The Victorian Government, along with all other State and Territory Governments, is currently giving consideration to its responsibilities within the fast-track package including the removal of the speed differential between trucks and other vehicles. (Question No. 2243) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Transport, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Which States have legislated for the mandatory fitting of emergency locating beacons (EPIRB) on all boats operating within State Government jurisdictions. (2) Is he or his Department promoting this action as a safety measure. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) None at present, but New South Wales has legislation before the Parliamentary draftsman proposing mandatory carriage of EPIRBs on all commercial vessels proceeding beyond sheltered waters and madatory carriage of either VHF radio or EPIRB on craft proceeding more than two miles offshore. Both legislative instruments are expected to be effective in early 1986. (2) Both the Federal Department of Transport and myself are actively promoting the carriage of EPIRBs on all boats through the Department's Sea Safety Program. This program encourages safe boating practices, including the carriage of radios and EPIRBs, through displays at boat shows, the media, and by liaison with volunteer search and rescue organisations and boating clubs. The Department, in conjunction with Castrol Australia Pty Ltd, is currently undertaking a three month public education campaign to re-inforce these safety concepts. A total of $300,000 is being spent on leaflets and posters, a radio advertising campaign, and intensive editorial exposure through newspapers, television and specialist boating magazines to raise the boating public's awareness of necessary safety precautions, which includes the carrying of an EPIRB.