Thursday, 13 February 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I have received a letter from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) advising of his resignation from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —I move: That- (1) this House re-affirms the requirement for the registration and declaration of the interests of Members, their spouses and dependent children adopted by the House of Representatives on 9 October 1984 a.m.; (2) the following amendments be made to resolution (2) of the House of Representatives of 9 October 1984 a.m.: (a) sub-paragraph (b) (ii) after ``trustee'' insert ``(but not including a trustee of an estate where no beneficial interest is held by the Member, the Member's spouse or dependent children)''; (b) omit paragraph (d), substitute the following paragraph: ``(d) registered directorships of companies''; (c) omit paragraph (e), substitute the following paragraph: ``(e) partnerships indicating the nature of the interests and the activities of the partnership;''; (d) paragraph (f) omit ``(excluding short-term credit arrangements)''; (e) paragraph (i) omit ``including collections, but''; (f) at the end of paragraph (k) add ``provided that a gift received by a Member, the Member's spouse or dependent children from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be registered unless the Member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist''; (g) omit paragraph (m), substitute the following paragraph: ``(m) membership of any organisation, and'', and (h) at the end of the resolution add the following paragraph: ``(n) any other interests where a conflict of interest with a Member's public duties could foreseeably arise or be seen to arise.''; (3) the Committee of Members' Interests be required to determine a form for registration of interests by 10 April 1986; (4) each current Member of the House of Representatives be required to provide to the Registrar of Members' Interests by 15 May 1986 a statement of the registrable interests of the Member, the Member's spouse and any children who are wholly or mainly dependent on the Member for support, as provided by the resolutions of 9 October 1984 a.m. as amended by this resolution'', and (5) any Member of the House of Representatives who (a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests by the due date; (b) knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests within 28 days of the change occurring or (c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly. In moving this motion, I point out that I have indicated to the Opposition that representations were made to me by the Chairman of the Standing Committee of Members' Interests, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), that in the timetable referred to in paragraph (4) of the motion members were asked to return their forms by 15 May 1986 so that those forms could be tabled this session. The honourable member for Prospect impressed upon me that he thought there was a rather short period between the preparation of the forms by 10 April and their return by 15 May. I indicate to honourable members that we are prepared to amend that timetable so that the forms will have to be returned by 30 June 1986 for tabling on the first day of the Budget session. On the last day of the 1985 Budget sittings, I tabled for the information of honourable members a statement of the Government's response to the report of the Committee of Members' Interests concerning the registration of members' interests. The resolution which I have moved reflects the Government's continued commitment to a scheme for registration of members' interests. It is a principle to which the Government has been formally and publicly committed for some years. We believe it to be an important additional means of reinforcing the faith of the Australian people in this Parliament and in their members. The amendments which I have now moved to the original resolution establishing the system of registration are in response to a number of concerns raised by the Committee. I wish to emphasise at the start of this debate that the Government is determined to move on registration of members' interests, despite the fact that the Senate has given no indication that it will take a similar initiative. Ideally, the Government would like to see a scheme introduced in both Houses simultaneously. As that is not to be, we hope that this scheme will serve as an incentive to the Senate as well as provide a model for action. I also reiterate at the outset the Government's intention to stick firmly to two of the essential elements of the scheme originally proposed; namely the publication of the register and the inclusion of the financial interests of spouses and dependent children as far as these are known to the member. On the question of the publication of the register, the Committee expressed concern that the register would be so accessible as to pose a threat to the person or property of members and their families. But the register will list only the nature of assets and interests, not their monetary value. There will be no requirement on members, as there is on Ministers, to stipulate the financial value of their assets in a privately held register. We believe that publication of the register is essential to the development of public confidence in the registration scheme. Only publication of the register will ensure that conflicts of interest can be avoided and can be seen to be avoided. The Committee also questioned the need for the inclusion of spouses and dependent children in the scheme, and reported the feeling of a number of members that it was an indefensible invasion of privacy. The Government's requirement that these interests be registered stems from what we consider to be an indisputable fact: Whilst there is no public register of those interests as far as they are known to the member, they could possibly affect members' actions in the House or in the party room, or be thought to be influencing actions. As such, their inclusion is an essential safeguard of the scheme. And it goes no further than absolutely necessary. It does not, for example, extend to non-dependent children. I would like to comment on two other general issues-what is a conflict of interest, and what penalties should apply to non-compliance with the scheme-before addressing a number of detailed questions raised in the report. A central concern raised by the Committee is the question of what constitutes a conflict of interest. Obviously there are problems in defining all possible conflicts of interest. But the problems are not insoluble and they should not deter us from pursuing a sensible and practical registration scheme. The Government's scheme provides a firm framework. Beyond that, it is a matter for the judgment of members, and for the judgment and discretion of the Registrar of Members' Interests. That is not asking too much. The Committee has recommended that we consider introducing penalties for non-compliance with the registration scheme. We believe that non-compliance with the scheme should be treated by the House as a serious contempt. Members who are guilty of non-compliance could then be reprimanded or suspended or other appropriate action could be taken. I wish now to turn briefly to some of the other questions of detail raised in the report. We agree with the Committee that trustees of estates, who have no beneficial interest in the estates, should not be required to disclose their trusteeship arrangements. We endorse the Committee conclusion that all directorships of companies should be registered. We agree with the Committee that information required on partnerships should concern only the purpose of operations of the partnership and the level of current involvement by the member. We agree with the Committee view that short term liabilities should be registered. The Committee, in developing a form, should prepare guidelines for the benefit of members as to what short term credit arrangements need to be registered. We accept the Committee's judgment that membership of all organisations should be included in the register. The Committee made the point that there could be difficulties in making a distinction between `collections' and other particular assets and that there may be particular security problems in registering collections. The Government accepts that in most cases the ownership of a collection would be unlikely to bring a member into a situation where he or she faces a conflict of interest, and is prepared to dispense with the distinction. It is now proposed simply to register other assets over a certain value, other than household or personal effects. The Government agrees with the Committee that a sensible approach needs to be taken to the question of the registration of gifts. We believe that the guideline suggested by the Committee is a sound one-that is, that a gift received by a member, the member's spouse or dependent children from family members or personal friends in a purely personal capacity need not be disclosed unless the member judges that an appearance of conflict of interest may be seen to exist. The guideline puts the onus on the member to exercise judgment. We would propose reviewing the effectiveness of this arrangement, together with other elements of the scheme including the appropriateness of the sums of money specified throughout the resolution, after a suitable period of operation. The Committee recognised that sponsored travel and hospitality have particular potential for producing conflicts of interest. We note the difficulties raised by the Committee in determining which elements of sponsored travel or hospitality should be included in the scheme. With regard to sponsored travel, we agree with the Committee's definition and obviously accept that the scheme should not include any entitlement received under any determination by the Remuneration Tribunal nor travel undertaken as a member of an official parliamentary delegation. In respect of hospitality, we recognise the need for members to exercise a degree of judgment, and recommend that the Committee draft guidelines along the line of the distinctions made in the report. This is another area which we would propose reviewing after a reasonable operating period. Finally, I should like to comment on the Committee's suggestion that a similar scheme might also be applied to journalists working in the Parliament. As the Committee pointed out, members of the parliamentary press gallery are uniquely placed to exert considerable influence in the decision-making process. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) advised the House in September 1983 that the Government would consider inviting both the Australian Journalists Association and the parliamentary Press Gallery to develop a similar system to the one that we will be adopting to register their members' interests. We stick by that view. After we finalise our registration scheme I will be writing to the AJA and the gallery drawing their attention to our arrangements and inviting them to formulate and introduce similar requirements for their members. I commend the motion to the House. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(10.11) —The report of the Committee of Members' Interests was brought in at the end of last year. It was a unanimous report. In paragraph 3 of the report the Committee stated: Since that date- referring to an earlier date- the committee has held seven meetings at which it has been endeavouring to determine a form of return. It has failed to do so because of potential difficulties foreseen in the registration requirements and because of inequities arising from those requirements. As usual, we have had the scantest possible notice of the proposals introduced by the Special Minister of State (Mr Young). They arrived in my room shortly before 9 o'clock. The proposals are of profound importance to members of this House, yet they have been given-and given deliberately-no notice at all. The proposals go a little distance to curing some of the deficiencies pointed out in the report but they do not go any distance at all to meeting some of the fundamental problems raised in the report and the reasons why this registration proposal should not be acceded to by this House. The concerns which are expressed in the report-I emphasise again that it was a unanimous report, a report by all parties in this House chaired by the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman)-include the following: First, we have members included but not senators. The senators do not agree to this proposal. The Government has said that it will pursue the proposal with the Senate, but it is perfectly plain that that has yet to be done and it is unlikely that the Senate will agree. Paragraph 7 of the report states: The Committee cannot see the justification for differing arrangements between the Australian House of Representatives and the Senate. It could even be said that with the present balance of power situation existing in the Senate the registration of Senators' interests is more important than the registration of those of Members of the House of Representatives. Mr Porter —Yes, because they influence decisions. Mr SPENDER —Exactly. As the honourable member for Barker has said, they influence decisions. We all know that the comment made in the report reflects parliamentary process. Down here we vote on party lines. The Australian Labor Party must vote on party lines. One will never see any member of the Labor Party ever crossing the floor regardless of how deeply, how profoundly and how sincerely he may disagree with the position taken by his Party. We have done it and I have done it because we are not simply party ciphers, but it illustrates the great difference between the House of Representatives and the Senate. Quite simply, it does not matter what is said by members of the governing party, when it is the Labor Party in this House, because it has to follow what the Executive tells it. It is profoundly naive to suggest that in fact if there is some kind of registration system it will save the Government or will save the members from some conflict of interest. We all know that senators do influence the passing of legislation in a way that does not happen down here. We all know that the Australian Democrats at present hold the balance of power. We know that senators from the Liberal Party of Australia cross the floor from time to time on issues about which they feel strongly. That is the reason, if we are going to have these absurd registration proposals, why they should apply to the Senate, not simply to the House, and apply to the Senate with far greater force. Next, we have a public register. I suppose that will satisfy some members of the Left of the Labor Party. That public register, I am glad to say, will not include reference to monetary values, which is an improvement on what was proposed originally. Why should there be a public register? Why should there be any register at all? Why-this is another objection raised by the Committee-should spouses' interests be declared? This was something that concerned the Committee. Why is it that any person here has to come to Parliament and declare on a public register what his wife has or her husband has? It may be something which has been learned in marriage and which has no bearing upon the work of the member; yet these matters are to be made public. Why should this outrageous invasion of privacy be allowed? Why should it be pursued by the Government in pursuit of this fantasy that we will have a register which will somehow change the way things work in the Parliament and change it for the better? The unanswered question is this: What good will this register do? The purpose, one would assume, is plain enough. The Government will tell us that the purpose is to ensure that members act in the interests of the Australian community and not their own. That is the underlying purpose. If that is not met by this register, it should be junked. Let us look at some of the ways in which that purpose is simply not met. Firstly, anyone who wishes to evade will simply rearrange his or her affairs. Does anybody here really suggest that we will legislate for honesty and morality and that if a person comes to this House who is neither honest nor moral, that person will say: `Yes, I do see the force of all this, I will not rearrange my affairs, I will disclose all'? Really, one has only to state the proposition to realise how patently absurd it is. It is as though we are saying that the corrupt will not evade; that the corrupt will obey. Of course they will not. Their affairs can be rearranged, and those who find the intent of this objectionable in terms of requiring them to disclose matters which they are minded not to disclose because of a dishonest intention will so arrange things that they will appear to disclose all. The careless and the honest, who may by chance transgress, may be caught, but one can be assured that the corrupt, the immoral, the shifty and the dishonest will not. It is a remarkable irony that we come to this House with this Government and this Minister preaching to us on matters of public morality. It was, the House may recall, this Minister some time ago who breached Cabinet security; who told a friend of his something which was the subject of the report of the Hope Royal Commission on Australia's Security and Intelligence Agencies. We need not go over that report in this House, but the Minister's experience and this Government's experience would tell us that this kind of register is perfectly fruitless and useless. If one is going to breach a confidence of Cabinet, is one going to be caught by a public register? Of course one is not. If one treats Cabinet with contempt, one will treat a public register with equal contempt; indeed, one would think with a great deal more contempt. The next objection is the invasion of privacy. Nothing has been done to meet that. As I said, if we learn something because we are married, are we now to be compelled to disclose what we learn and what, let us assume, no one else would be told? We would have to say to the House: `Look, true it is that my husband or wife would never have disclosed this to anybody else. True it is that he or she thought it was a private matter that should not be publicly ventilated'. However this information would be placed on the public register. What good would that do? How would this advance the way in which we work here and how would it improve the standards of morality of this House? The answer is that it would not. This would be a profound, deep and unforgivable breach of confidence. All members from both sides of the House would think that people with a great deal to contribute should be attracted to this House and into public life generally. None of us would think that we alone are the best and we would all agree that both sides of this House could be markedly improved if some of the more talented members of our community entered this place. Everyone knows that one of the reasons why people do not enter public life in this country is the profound contempt and profound feelings of aversion they have for the invasion of their personal privacy that entry into public life demands. What we are doing is reinforcing every suspicion that good Australians, be they Labor, be they Liberal, be they National, be they from any other party, may feel about entering public life. If we want to keep them out of Parliament, if we want to make sure that good people will be reinforced in their aversion to public life, go ahead and have this absurd system of registration. As we know, the Senate is not involved in this proposal. The members of the Government Party in the Senate are not involved. The Senate is the only House with real power. It is one thing to say to the Parliament that every member of the Executive-that is, every member of the Cabinet-should disclose information. However, it is profoundly stupid to say that members of Parliament, for example, members on the Opposition benches during the term of a Labor government, should disclose on the basis that in some way they are going to influence things. What we would see with the adoption of this proposal would be a ratchet effect on issues of public morality. In the so-called pursuit of proper disclosure, we would find a vehicle for political assassination. Records would be minutely examined. Errors made in good faith without attempt to hide, to dissimulate or to deceive, would be branded as deliberate dishonesty. We know that there is no pity, no mercy and precious little sense of fair play in this House when those questions arise. The Government's proposal will simply reinforce all of the problems that arise from the hunt for the error made in good faith, the error which will be transformed into something which was done in bad faith with intent to deceive. Finally, it is profoundly naive to think that what is proposed here will make the slightest difference. It will not. However, it is fundamentally wrong and fundamentally obnoxious. It is something which would do not just damage to the way in which the House may work or to notions of personal privacy but something which would act as a bar to good people coming into public life. I wish to move an amendment in the terms of notice No. 65 in the name of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) as listed in the Notice Paper No. 67 of 12 February. I move: That the preamble to the resolutions adopted by the House on 9 October 1984, a.m., relating to the declaration and registration of Members' interests by amended by adding the following proviso: ``Provided that these requirements will not come into effect unless the Senate has adopted resolutions requiring Senators to meet similar requirements''. Mr Andrew —I second the amendment. Madam SPEAKER —Members might like to note that the Leader of the House amended the circulated motion by omitting `15 May' in paragraph (4) and substituting `30 June'. Members should amend their copies of the motion accordingly. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(10.26) —I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election to the office of Speaker. Mr Spender —I should have done the same thing, Madam Speaker. It was most discourteous of me not to congratulate you as I stood up. I do so now. Madam SPEAKER —Thank you. Dr KLUGMAN —There are a number of points to be raised. I am tempted to support the amendments moved by the Opposition, but obviously I will not. It is clear that I could do so because our Caucus has not discussed this matter. If Caucus had discussed the matter I am sure it would feel strongly that senators should provide the same details as we do. But that is not my main point. I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young) for agreeing to make available the longer time in which members can reply. It is important to realise that the questions will be quite difficult to answer. I hope that the Committee can provide a form by 10 April. It ought to be able to do so because it had a form drafted to deal with the original proposition. The Committee sought clarification from the House. It will get that in the terms of today's resolution and will amend the form accordingly. There are still problems associated with the form, some of which I will raise. There will be people involved with assets who may need advice from accountants or lawyers before they can reply to the form in an acceptable way. Without wishing to criticise the Ministry too much, it is worthwhile remembering that some 27 Ministers provided a similar sort of statement on 22 September 1983. It was tabled. Within a fortnight or three weeks, at least half of them-13, 14 or 15-amended the form quite significantly. We have not seen any amendment since, but amendments should have been tabled yearly, as I understood it at the time. Mr Young —Backbenchers are a lot brighter than Ministers. Dr KLUGMAN —Maybe they are, but it should not have been too difficult for Ministers whose wives receive quite a high income in public positions to mention that when there is a specific question asking what other income is coming into the family. One Minister forgot about his wife's income of some $60,000. I take issue with the Minister's proposition that we asked for penalties to be introduced. If he looks at the bottom of page 14 of our report he will see that the last sentence states: However, it should be made clear- we had been discussing penalties- that the Committee neither advocates nor recommends the introduction of specific penalties for failure to comply with the registration requirements. We did not ask for the introduction of penalties. I raised the question of penalties to ask what the House intends to do. What do we intend to do about resolutions of the House? Let us assume that a number of members-not just one member-fails to provide a statement. According to the resolution they would be guilty of a serious contempt of the House and `shall be dealt with by the House accordingly'. What do we intend to do? Let us assume that all members of the Opposition decided not to provide a statement. Mr Young —It would not make any difference if they were not here. Dr KLUGMAN —Are we going to have a mini-election involving only one side of the House? Let us think the proposition through before we decide that a member `shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House and shall be dealt with accordingly'. The resolution goes on to say that if a member `knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests within 28 days of the change occurring' he `shall be guilty of a serious contempt'. We have now decided, and I think it is correct, that the liabilities of members should be registered. I think that liabilities are much more important than assets as far as pressure on members is concerned. If there is a suggestion that members can be influenced the member who can be influenced is much more likely to be the member who has significant short term liabilities and where there is pressure on him or her. Mr Donald Cameron —In particular, with interest rates as they are now. Dr KLUGMAN —The honourable member for Moreton was given a huge asset by this House in error. We thought that we would not see him again. We are now eliminating the caveat about excluding short term liabilities. What this means-it depends on the definition of `nature'-is that as one charges more things to Bankcard, Visa, American Express or whatever, one is supposed to register the fact within 28 days. That is a possible interpretation. It depends on what is meant by `nature'. Does `nature' mean the actual amount or does it mean that we say we have short term liabilities with MasterCard or whatever? Those questions require some fairly intelligent thought. I hope the Committee will come to the conclusion that by `nature' the member will be required to say only that he has access to MasterCard, Visa or whatever and that, therefore, there will be some short term liabilities at most times in that respect. The member will not have to provide the actual details. It could be argued that if one does not provide actual details the whole thing becomes fairly meaningless. I think that there are some positive aspects of the proposal. I think that the Australian public ought to be aware-I am pleased that the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) is in the chamber because it has been alleged that he has received a sponsored trip to South Africa; I do not know whether he has or not and whether the South African Government paid for all or part of the trip-that from now on it will be necessary for people to register sponsored travel. That does not apply only to South Africa. We all know that it applies to the Soviet Union, Chile, Cuba, Nicaragua, Libya, Israel, Iraq, Vietnam, China and Taiwan and, for all I know, to very many other places. I think it is important that all those trips be registered. I believe that there are senators who frequently take trips which are paid for by other countries or by organisations. It is important that if someone takes a trip which is sponsored by the Democrat International or the Liberal International-I am not sure of the name, but it is the organisation of conservative parties-that fact be registered. If someone goes to World Peace Council meetings or on similar Soviet-sponsored trips, that fact also should be registered. The public should be aware of such trips and should be alerted to what is happening. I strongly support this, and I think that senators should be doing the same thing. The same should apply to journalists- Mr Cohen —Now you are on touchy ground. Dr KLUGMAN —No, I am not on touchy ground because one of the aspects that were referred to my Committee was what other people should be included in this legislation. Obviously there are journalists who take sponsored trips. They are continuously taking sponsored trips. These journalists give assurances that they will write things in certain ways. We have the evidence of the Hope Royal Commission on Security and Intelligence that Brian Toohey and Marian Wilkinson of the National Times were recommended by David Combe to the Soviet Ambassador for a trip to the Soviet Union because they wanted to bucket the United States. Those sorts of aspects should be revealed- Mr Cohen —What about David McNicoll? Dr KLUGMAN —Yes, David McNicoll's trips to South Africa or to similar places-all these sorts of trips should be revealed, and such people's assets. How the legislation would affect such people also should be revealed. It is ridiculous to suggest that a member of this House has more power than some of the journalists and commentators who cover this chamber. It is quite obvious that many commentators and journalists have a much greater ability to affect what happens in government than any of us in this chamber, and in some cases that would even include Ministers. The new proposition that membership of any organisation should be stated is an important point and I strongly support it. There will be some difficulties, and that is another point in favour of asking for an extension of time for the reply. In some cases, especially in rural electorates covering many towns, there will be people who belong to large numbers of organisations, either as actual members or in some honorary capacity. They might belong to the local parents and citizens associations or be patrons of organisations and it might be quite difficult for them to collect the names of all those organisations. At the same time I am pleased to say that all organisations are to be named. I have always thought it a ridiculous proposition that anything that may interfere with the duties of a member in the sense of not saying or doing exactly what he wants to do should be mentioned in the register of interests, yet many Ministers do not mention that they are members of the Australian Labor Party. Some do; but some do not. Surely their whole existence here, their behaviour and how they can act are significantly influenced by their membership of the Labor Party. Obviously it is a good thing that that membership should be mentioned. The same applies to opposition members. In our Party we agree to have decisions made by the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party and those decisions, in addition to the decisions of national conferences, are binding on members of the Labor Party in their voting behaviour. Obviously, that should be mentioned. It has been mentioned by some Ministers but some do not mention it. It strikes me as ridiculous that that fact is not disclosed. We all know the methods involved in preselection, regardless of whether it is for the Liberal Party or the Labor Party, and the significance of belonging to a particular faction. The honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall), who comes from South Australia, knows that. He knows that it is important to remember what faction he belongs to and whom he has to keep happy in order to get preselection next time. That also applies in the Labor Party. It would be silly to pretend otherwise. I have no compunction about stating that I am a member of what is called the Centre Unity group in New South Wales. There are others who are members of Left groups, Right groups or whatever. That affects their preselection. Surely the threat to preselection is the greatest threat that many of us face. Therefore, that interest obviously should be registered. It will be interesting to see which groupings honourable members register membership of. That is all the more reason for believing- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(10.42) —Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset may I congratulate you on your surprise elevation. I am quite sure that you will do your best in the months ahead to take control of the new onerous position granted to you. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member very much. After listening to the honourable member for Prospect I am not quite sure whether I should declare an interest. Mr DONALD CAMERON —Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that being Chairman of Committees has its financial rewards but I do not see many others. The honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) as Chairman of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Members' Interests actually let the biggest cat out of the bag when he informed the House that the Minister at the table, the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), the Minister for Paddington bears, had not even discussed this new approach in his own Party's caucus. With his political prowess he no doubt recognised that if he had taken this matter into his party room the Labor Party would have been very much divided on the subject. Therefore, rather than face that he has opted to bring the whole lot straight into the Parliament in an attempt to lock members of the Australian Labor Party-those on his side of the House-into a political vote. This is an attempt completely to stifle their right to have a view. He seeks to impose his view on them and on us. I believe that this very procedure is something which is born out of the prejudices and upbringing of this former shearer. Probably night after night while his counterpart, my predecessor as member for Moreton, Sir James Killen, also was in the shearing sheds reading and studying to better himself, the Minister was continuing to harbour and build on his prejudices towards people who have been a little bit more successful than he in life. I believe that this legislation is born out of that type of twisted attitude. I have no argument with Ministers being required to provide a list of what they own to the Prime Minister. Indeed, I believe that was the procedure in the time of the former Government. This Parliament is filled with private individuals, and decisions made by private individuals-decisions in which members of this House have an absolute say-are few and far between, if any, because the procedures of this Parliament and the destiny of this country are decided by the government of the day. The government of the day plans out its policies and its legislation and then takes its proposals to its party room and says: `This is the way we want to go'. If the vast majority of the members of the party which is in government at the time agree with those plans, that is it, and those plans become the order of the day and are passed into legislation. It is the government and the government parties which decide which way they will go. If some member has a pecuniary interest, surely his peers in the party room will judge him if his opposition to a proposal is based on a selfish interest. I challenge the Special Minister of State, who is the brains behind this intrusion, to put forward examples of members of this Parliament in the last 85 years being motivated in their votes by the self-interest which is referred to in this procedure and tied up in the motion moved today. The Minister would be really scratching. What are we doing? By accepting this proposal we will be setting up a new bureaucracy in the country. More taxpayers' money will be required to keep a register of members' interests and to appoint a Registrar to list them. If I sell something, within 28 days I will be required to run down to the registrar's office and tell the person in charge what I have done so that changes can be made. I will have to do that if I sell 100 shares in Mount Isa Mines Ltd. Through the Minister, the Government is suggesting that my thinking and attitude may be warped and that I could be bought as a result of such a transaction. I have been a member of this place for 20 years. In that time I have seen a definite decline in the quality of people offering themselves for election to the Australian Parliament. One of the reasons is that people who have been successful in life cannot be bothered to offer themselves for this type of life because of the exposure to which they would be subjected and the scandals that would be whipped up about them, often without foundation. Their attitude is: `Why should I bother?' The procedure the Government is attempting to stampede through this Parliament today is but one more nail in the coffin that will turn people away. Honourable members might ask what a member has to hide? If John Citizen's kids own something that was given to them by their grandparents, why should he, when he comes in here as a private member, have to hang that out on the public line? In a speech I made in this House almost a year ago, on 21 March 1985, I pointed out that the proposals at that time required that if my child's grandmother gave the child a pushbike for Christmas and the value was $110, I had to race down to the registrar's office and say: `You had better register this before 25 January, because Grandma gave little Johnny a pushbike worth $110 on Christmas Day'. Thankfully, that ridiculous provision has been scrapped, but the thinking which produced that requirement is typical of the thinking in this entire proposal. It is absolutely sick. It goes back to the warped upbringing of the Minister at the table. All he wants to do is find out what everybody owns. It is to the great credit of this Parliament-I include Labor Party, National Party and Liberal Party members in this place and Australian Democrats in the other place-that I have not seen in 20 years the type of dishonesty that this proposal is trying to prevent. The Government should try to name one of its members that it believes this requirement will catch. It should name one member on this side of the House or one Democrat. The Hawke Government is way off beam because so often it sets about legislating to eliminate problems that do not exist. It must then set up units in the Public Service to police that legislation and that is why it is digging deeper and deeper into the taxpayers' pockets. Now that the Minister has come clean and has said that he intends to impose penalties on those who do not notify their interests, it is very proper to place greater emphasis on what is happening in the Senate. The Senate is not interested in what the Government is proposing. The Senate will not agree with the proposal. In terms of inconsistency it is ridiculous that the Government wants all members in this place to hang out their washing on the public line, yet senators will simply ignore the proposal. I believe that the Minister's attitude is this: `Maybe one day we might have a majority in the Senate and then I can whip those senators into action and make them enforce this requirement in that other place, but let it be passed in this place first'. In terms of consistency it is indefensible for the Minister to try to push this proposal through the House without it being agreed to in the other place. It is also indefensible that the Minister did not even have the courage to take the proposal to his own party room. I know as a result of my membership of the Committee that there are members of the Labor Party who have feelings of disquiet about what is being thrust upon this House. The Minister did not have the courage to face members of his Party. That in itself is a very poor reflection on the proposal, because if the Minister does not have the confidence to put it before his own Party, obviously he fears something. In conclusion, I state that I am not without property in this world; I am not without shares. I put it to honourable members that if anybody who has been in parliament for as long as I have did not have anything he could be judged a fool. A person on a parliamentarian's salary for a long time who had nothing at any time would be a person incapable of looking after his own life. Mr Cunningham —What a lot of rot. Mr DONALD CAMERON —It is true, after 20 years or even 10 years in this place. Another weakness of the legislation is that there is a Minister-he is not present at the moment; I will not name him-whose wife receives a salary in excess of $60,000 a year. Yet members who have wives in the work force will not be required to state anything about what their wives earn. But after two or three years a spouse could earn an amount which is greater than the value of all of the assets that the non-working spouse of a member may own. But that is not even worthy of noting according to the Government's approach. That is a further inconsistency. I put forward the fact that I have pecuniary interests. I have property and I own things. Indeed, before I was 25 I had a lump of land in Brisbane and two beach homes. They were fairly humble, but that was what I owned before I was 25. In terms of acquiring property I have not been unsuccessful. But am I to be the subject of derision because the seat is not out of my pants? The type of thinking within the Labor Party is that someone who has something must be knocked down. Its policy in the last two or three years has been to tear down everybody who is even partly successful, create a common denominator and everything in the country will be marvellous, in the name of socialism and equality. I believe that the Government, particularly the Minister, have hangups. I repeat the challenge I issued a few minutes ago when I challenged the Minister to name one Labor Party, National Party, Liberal Party, Democrat or Independent member in the last 85 years who, by supplying the information that he is demanding people to make, would have changed the course of destiny of Australia by one iota. I say that the Government does not have a hope of proving its case. Mr KENT(Hotham)(10.56) —Mr Deputy Speaker, first let me congratulate you on your elevation to the position of Chairman of Committees. I believe you will carry out your duties with the integrity and fervour for which you are so well known. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), said that he has some property. I have to admit that I have some property, too. The difference is that I am not unwilling to disclose it, if it is so required by the position that I took on by taking up public office. Of course, I did not dip so deeply into the public purse. I worked all the time before I entered this Parliament to gain what I own, and so did my wife. I arrived in this country on 4 March 1954. That was a Thursday and on the following Monday I started to work in a factory. I have not been out of work for one day. Of course, if one saves, one accumulates some property. But one should not be ashamed of it or shy of it. At the same time one should not say that it is sacrosanct, that it should not be declared in the public interest if one stands for public office. People who are prepared to put themselves forward and ask for public support have a duty to the public. I think we should bring some rationality to this debate and I will come to that in a minute. The Committee of Members' Interests of which I am a member was formed on 9 October 1984 by a resolution of the House. It was charged with making arrangements for the compilation of a register of members' interests at the commencement of each Parliament. The Committee was established in March 1985 and has met regularly ever since. As a member of the Committee I found that the meetings were used not to facilitate the establishment of a register of members' interests, but to try to find every possible reason why such a register should not be compiled. Previous speakers from both sides of the House have undertaken the same exercise as they did during those Committee meetings. Time and again the Committee meetings were taken up by members trying to outdo each other in their search for reasons and arguments against the establishment of such a register. Believe me, members of parliament have a very fertile mind when their interests, especially pecuniary interests, are in question. This is shown in the report that the Committee submitted. I must admit that I, too, raised an objection to the requirement that spouses of members, who in most cases are female, should also register their pecuniary interests. I argued that, after all, wives of members, especially those who are financially independent by being in business or employment, should not be required publicly to disclose their means, as they are neither seeking public office nor mere appendes of their husbands. However. I quickly abandoned my objection to allow the Committee to get on with its business. The fertile imaginations of my colleagues were set in motion, depicting all sorts of consequences if their assets or business interests were publicly disclosed. Arguments were voiced that assets of members will be vulnerable to theft and members of their families targets of kidnapping and extortion. Every possible objection to the register was raised-from why members and not senators and why not the parliamentary Press Gallery, to the problems of enforcing the requirements of disclosure and possible sanctions for non-compliance of members. I agree that the requirement of public disclosure of our assets is an intrusion on our privacy, but we have to balance such an intrusion against the public interest which requires such disclosure. After all, in most democracies overseas or in Australian States, parliaments have such requirements already in place. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender), the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) and the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who preceded me in this debate, worked very hard to find every reason to create doubt in this House and to cast doubt on this report. They sought every reason why they should not disclose their pecuniary interests. While they were racking their brains to find those reasons, they forgot to mention that in most democracies that we compare ourselves with, in most legislatures of those countries, such a register already exists. That point was not brought out by the previous speakers and they know about that fact. They should not be hiding it. Dr Klugman —We put it in the report. Mr KENT —Yes, but the honourable member did not mention it. He mentioned every other aspect of the report. Honourable members on the other side of the House mentioned every other aspect of the report. They put a lot of time in to show why they should not disclose their accumulated wealth but they never mentioned that in other States such as Victoria, South Australia and New South Wales or in the United States of America, England and other countries a register exists in some form for disclosure of pecuniary interests. I think it is time we looked at this matter quite rationally and not at our own small private interests only. In the United Kingdom, the United States, New South Wales and Victoria, just to mention a few legislatures, members are required to register their pecuniary interests. Why are we so tardy? I do not wish to be partisan in this debate. The honourable member for Prospect was not partisan either. As a matter of fact, I did not know which side he was to speak on, but I have to mention that Opposition members were unable to accept the resolution of this House to establish a register of members' interests. They see themselves as-and they in fact are-representatives of the propertied class of this country. Since Federation, conservative members have introduced and supported legislation which served the interests of big land owners and big capital. They consider assets and profits sacred and private. They oppose any disclosure of their private means, while at the same time they expect public support for their election to parliament. They worship property and its accumulation to such an extent that they are unwilling to accept public scrutiny of their accumulated wealth. As I said, I wish not to be partisan in this debate, so here are a few words of criticism of my side also. There was a certain reluctance on our side too to accept public disclosure of members' pecuniary interests. It is sad, but it is often true, that we who are elected to represent the interests of the ordinary wage and salary earner often forget on the way to public office the idealism that we started out with. The alienation of the individual from mass organisations and political parties and the resultant apathy is the subject of an essay by Cecil Wright Mills entitled `The Mass Society'. As I think his observations in this regard are pertinent, I would like to quote a passage from his essay. Cecil Wright Mills reminds us all: The gap between the members and the leaders of the mass association is becoming increasingly wider. As soon as a man gets to be a leader of an association large enough to count, he readily becomes lost as an instrument of that association. He does so (1) in the interests of maintaining his leading position in, or rather over, his mass association, and he does so (2) because he comes to see himself not as a mere delegate, instructed or not, of the mass association he represents, but as a member of `an elite' composed of such men as himself. These facts, in turn, lead to (3) the big gap between the terms in which issues are debated and resolved among members of this elite, and the terms in which they are presented to the members of the various mass associations. For the decisions that are made must take into account those who are important-other elites . . . As I said before, many of us who are sent here by honest, hard working Australians do tend to forget along the road why we started out on the journey. That explains why some members on my side of the House are also only too eager to see that the deliberation of the Committee comes to naught. We see members of the elite defending the interests of such an elite instead of representing the people who sent us here. The objections raised by the Committee are not just matters of detail and implementation, but are basic objections against the public disclosure of members' interests. The questions raised by the Committee as to why members shall disclose their pecuniary interests and not the senators and why members' interests should be registered and not the members of the parliamentary press gallery are churlish and infantile. Dr Klugman —You signed the thing. Mr KENT —I am more humble than to say that I was the only one really wanting this Committee to work. I was a very small minority. If the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) really wanted something done about it he should have had a committee of one. I would have fixed it. The argument members of the Committee raised was: `Why me and not someone else?' This is too childish an argument to be used by members of parliament. Other arguments by Committee members that we will be targets of kidnapping if our wealth is disclosed are even more ridiculous. After all, Sir Billy McMahon and Sir Henry Bolte are not coveted by the souvenir hunters; nor is there any desire by any kidnappers to target a member of parliament. They are not the most useful persons to be after. I, for one, fully agree with the Government's view, as expressed by the Special Minister of State in his response to the report of the Committee of Members' Interests on 30 November 1985, that the registration of members' interests is an important principle to which this Government has been publicly committed and that such a register should be set up without delay. Mr ADERMANN(Fairfax)(11.08) —Mr Deputy Speaker, first may I convey to you my congratulations on acceding to your office. I would be grateful if you would convey to Madam Speaker my congratulations on her historic and well earned elevation to the office of Speaker. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I shall do that for the honourable member. Mr ADERMANN —I am disappointed that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has brought in this matter for discussion so quickly. I am not ascribing to him any ulterior motives, but we did get the details of some of the amendments only this morning and I would have liked some more time to have a look at them. The Minister has dealt with some of the questions of the Committee of Members' Interests, but a number of matters will, I believe, still concern the Committee. I was disappointed that the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) made such criticism of the Committee, because I believe that, although it was an all party committee, and although there were Opposition members on that Committee who do not uphold or want this principle, the discussion was constructive. I was disappointed that he should introduce into his speech matters such as conservatives representing the property classes and those sorts of things that were said in an era gone by. I believe those sorts of cliches and those sorts of rationales could be well forgotten. I am concerned about some very discriminatory matters in this proposal. Firstly, the matter has been raised of the nonsense of one House of Parliament being required to make such declarations and the other House of Parliament, perhaps the more influential House, neither being in that category nor showing any inclination to be in that category. I believe that that is a discriminatory part of this proposal. Secondly, we have had some discussion this morning on the matter of spouses. The proposal states that if a member is reasonably aware of his spouse's situation, that has to be declared. That is totally impracticable. What on earth must a member do to become reasonably aware? In this day and age of the Government bringing in such things as the Bill of Rights and talking about privacy and the position of women and the position of spouses, here we have a situation that is neither practical nor sensible. The discriminatory matter-I hope that the Minister will take this point-is that some spouses will be required to have their interests declared in this House and some spouses will not. That seems totally unfair. There were members of the Committee who said: `My wife has a business in which she works, it is her business and she will not reveal to me the nature of her business or assets or anything else, nor can I require her to do that'. I suppose that member would not declare it because he is not reasonably aware. Those members who have a closer family situation and a relationship with their spouses where confidences are exchanged will have to declare the interests of their spouses. Which spouse is it whose income is more likely to have some influence in the life and role of a member-the spouse in a family situation who has little but whose privacy is invaded, or the one who has some influence and affluence and assets in this world? The spouse with the influence can escape this net; the other spouse has to have the interest declared. I hope the Minister will consider that. When the Committee brought up this matter it was not looking at the situation where a member was going to connive to get rid of assets and pass them on to his or her spouse and escape some sort of detection; that was not the motive of the Committee at all. The motive of the Committee was the impracticability of the whole situation and the fact that some spouses will have to have their interests declared or the member will be subject to a penalty; other spouses will not. That seems to me to be totally unfair. The Chairman of the Committee adverted to the Minister's statement-I commend the Chairman on handling very well a very difficult situation and a very big problem-that the Committee has asked for penalties. It has asked for no such thing. If one canvassed the Committee members, one would find that the view of the Committee was absolutely in the other direction. The matter of penalties highlights the discrimination matter I have raised. Members will be penalised in family situations if we do not declare the interests of our spouses of which we are reasonably aware. If we have joint accounts and work together with our spouses, we will be penalised with some fearsome things. We will be held in utter contempt of the House if we do not declare the interests; yet other members, whose spouses do not tell them anything, so that they are not reasonably aware, will escape that situation. The penalty exacerbates the problem of discrimination in this proposal. The honourable member for Hotham mentioned that other parliaments in the world require their members to declare their interests. The Parliament of Westminster is one. I believe that a member who has been in that Parliament for a long time has never declared his interests. That is known, and I suppose the Opposition makes some play of the fact that he has not done that. It is true that there is some sort of register there, but there are none of the fearsome penalties that the Minister is talking about in this proposal. The public register is another matter that concerns me. The Minister said-I take his point-that he has removed the need to declare the monetary value of assets. Honourable members know the imagination of people out there about the so-called affluence of members of parliament. We have only to mention a joint account or some asset and it can be magnified out of all proportion. I listened with interest to the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) and the honourable member for Hotham. I do not believe that I am a failure, but I have very little of this world's goods. The reason for that is that when I came into this place I had to sell my practice. One cannot conduct an accountancy and consultancy practice and be a member of parliament. I have raised a family of five children and I have tried to help that family, so I do not think there is any shame that I do not have a great deal of this world's goods. I have enough and I am satisfied, and in any case I do not think that is the total aim in life. Nevertheless, people imagine that members of parliament are affluent, grabbing people who have all sorts of assets. This public register could be distorted and mishandled, and I believe that the sorts of threats and problems that were mentioned to the Committee are very real. Who will want to look at this register and what will be their motives? They will not be the simple motives that the Government would have us believe-that the electorate can look at it and say: `This is an honest man; nobody has bought him, and he will be able to conduct his affairs fairly and with equanimity'. I am concerned that this public register will be used by other people for all sorts of other motives. It is not sufficient to say that somehow we will limit access to that register. If one journalist gets hold of it, the whole world will know. I turn briefly to the matter of journalists before I come back to other things. Mention has been made of whether journalists ought to have such a public register. I do not believe that members of the House ought to; I have not resiled from that, I accept the amendment entirely. Having said that, however, while members will be forced under penalty to declare their interests in this House, the Press Gallery, which has far more influence on the affairs of this nation than do I as a simple back bencher, will have some sort of immunity. Where is the equity in that? I do not want to denigrate my friends in the Press Gallery; they see their role differently from the way I see it. However, when we look at the current affairs of this nation, they see themselves in the role of Sherlock Holmes. For instance, in the Chamberlain affair, a woman was let out of gaol and the Press have been hounding her, following her in cars and trying to take photographs of her on the aeroplane. Why? Not because they can wring any more interest out of the matter-after all, there will be an inquiry at the end of the line-but because they hope to get a throw-away line, something they can use as a scoop. They see themselves as Sherlock Holmes. I exempt some journalists from that comment, of course; I am talking generally. If journalists look at the register of members' interests, will the situation be any different? I think the Minister should look at the matter of journalists. I notice that the Minister will invite journalists to declare their interests, but he will force members to fill in a register. It would be different if the Minister brought legislation into this House which invited members to fill in a register, so that we could accept or reject that invitation. However, the Government is to invite journalists but compel us to fill in a register. I believe that some things have been sorted out. The question of estates was a serious one. The Government has looked at this matter and has understood what the Committee was saying to it. However, once again it will be very difficult to decide what a beneficial interest is. I am affected by this situation. I am the executor of my father's very small estate. I get no benefit at all from the position. I suppose that I would be entitled, if I were an unworthy son, to charge the estate some fee for managing it and looking after it. The estate, which consists of just a few shares, is maintained for the purpose of looking after the interests of my mother. Would that be a beneficial interest? Of course, I make no such charge and I do not think any son would. I would not have the Minister regard that as a beneficial interest. Perhaps I will have some interest when that small estate is distributed. I hope that happens some time in the future because I love my mother. However, these things are very difficult to define. The Chairman of the Committee, the honourable member for Prospect, was not being obstructive when he raised these matters. He was pointing out the great difficulty in respect of definition. Despite the clarification that has been made by the Government, I can still see that some very difficult decisions will have to be made in trying to design the form. I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken out of the proposal the silly business of a member who is a member of a company having to declare all of the assets and all of the liabilities of the company. That requirement was never on. It was never practical because such elements change from day to day. I am worried, too, that we are now getting to a situation in which members will be required to give details similar to those involved in the assets test. After all, what are we to declare? When the assets test was brought in, pensioners had to unearth details of all of their insurance policies, collections and all sorts of things. I find it difficult to know what is going to be required of members and where this requirement will finish. The same problems that resulted from applying the assets test, from which I thought the Government would have learned, are going to apply in this case. When we finally get down to the member's opinion of whether there is a conflict of interest, who is going to make the judgment whether the member honestly was of the opinion that his situation would not influence him and who is going to decide whether he should be penalised for it? I think that the amendment that has been moved is the best possible way in which to approach this matter and I support it. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(11.24) —Mr Deputy Speaker, first of all, I congratulate you on your election to the position you now hold. I wish you well for many years to come. Today's debate on the motion of the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has been of great interest to this point. I think Opposition speakers have clearly indicated the reasons why some of them oppose what the Government has put forward. The Chairman of the Committee of Members' Interests, the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman), has put forward some concerns. I am sure that the Minister in his wisdom has taken into consideration many of the matters that have been put before him. I have a couple of concerns in relation to the House of Representatives and the Senate. I firmly believe in what the Government is putting forward. I also firmly believe that the Senate also should be involved. I think it would be rather futile if the Senate did not follow what the House of Representatives does in this area. I believe that that will happen in the long term. The public register area is another area about which I have some concerns. I am concerned about the extent to which information on the public register should be made available to the community. I am also concerned about what methods should be used to make the information available to the community and the reasons for doing so. The Committee itself expressed some concerns about that area. I believe that this is something that needs careful consideration. Members of the Opposition have argued today about why they believe the assets of spouses and dependants of members should not be included on a public register. I think that the arguments have been very spurious. There are occasions on which the information should be made available. As I develop my arguments today, I would like to show that there has been a sad lack of understanding by members of the Opposition about the effects of such a register. The honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) argued at some depth that good people will not become involved in public life-that is the terminology he used-if they are required to supply information. He believed that the register would be a disincentive to people entering public life. I cannot see how that could possibly be the case. I cannot see that a person who has the attributes and the willingness to serve his country in a parliament would go against his natural instincts to put himself forward for pre-selection because of the existence of a public register. I think any person with such a view would probably not want to come here in the first place. I believe that such a person would not be put off by such a public register. I was rather surprised to hear the honourable member say that Opposition members have no influence in decision making and consequently there was no reason for them to be on the register. That is a real indication by the honourable member for North Sydney of the absolute belief by members of the Opposition of their total incompetence and lack of influence. We were in opposition in my first three years in this Parliament and I always believed that we had a great influence. We were elected to represent our electorates. I believed that we had something to say and something to contribute. I was rather surprised to hear the honourable member for North Sydney say that Opposition members have no influence on decision making. I move on to the points raised by the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), some of which I thought were rather startling. The honourable member challenged us to put forward examples of how and where members had used their position to their beneficial interest. He also took the view that successful people will not nominate and seek pre-selection. He used arguments similar to those put forward by the honourable member for North Sydney and claimed that good people out in the business community would not be attracted to parliament. He has the strange belief that the only good people in the world are those who can show assets, bank accounts or shares on a register. He argued that those sorts of good people would not nominate. I was rather surprised that he took a similar line to that taken by the honourable member for North Sydney. The honourable member asked us to name one person which the proposal would catch. He asked us to name one Liberal, one National, one Democrat or one Labor member. I would like to spend a little time on this. The honourable member dwelt on what would happen if everybody on the Opposition side decided not to register. This matter was also raised by the honourable member for Prospect. The position in regard to the penalty is quite clear. At page 14 of its report, the Committee said: . . . it should be made clear that the Committee neither advocates nor recommends the introduction of specific penalties for failure to comply with the registration requirements. The motion put forward by the Minister today states: (5) any Member of the House of Representatives who (a) knowingly fails to provide a statement of registrable interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests by the due date; (b) knowingly fails to notify any alteration of those interests to the Registrar of Members' Interests within 28 days of the change occurring or (c) knowingly provides false or misleading information to the Registrar of Members' Interests shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives and shall be dealt with by the House accordingly. That is the sort of penalty that one could talk about in respect of an individual person. However, another penalty can be enacted, and that is by the public themselves when they make a judgment on some of the decisions that are taken by their elected representatives as a group. I think that public judgment will be much more damning and much more important than any other judgment. Most of the governments over the past 30 years have been conservative governments. The honourable member for Moreton wants us to name one Liberal or one National. We could name them all if we look at some of the legislation that has been voted on and passed in this House. I refer to occasions on which the interests of members and perhaps members of Cabinet were clearly expressed in the party rooms, not on behalf of the constituency which they represented but on behalf of the vested interests that were influencing the then government. We can see proof of that in society today. I refer to the changes that have been mooted by our Government over the last three years. Many people in the community, who for many years supported the conservative parties, have suddenly realised or have had brought to their attention that much of the voting that took place and many of the decisions that were taken were made on a vested interest approach rather than for their benefit. Had they known some of those interests that a member of parliament held they may have looked much more critically at that member to see why he was arguing a particular line in the party room or in the Parliament. One only has to look at a few instances to see that. We heard over and over again in the debate on the assets test that the vested interests of a small percentage of pensioners were against the wishes of the great majority of pensioners, because money was being paid to very wealthy people who held assets. Therefore the amount of money that could have been made available to pensioners in need was restricted. We have heard that argument debated over and over again. That is where we will see the public judgment penalty come into this. When members of the public become aware of how members of parliament are voting and debating and then look at their own positions, it will be clear whether it is personal interests that the members are protecting or whether they are protecting the interests of their electorate. That public judgment will come up very clearly. The honourable member for Moreton stated strongly that a person who has been a member of parliament for years and who does not have property and shares would be considered to be a fool. I was interested to hear the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) at least say that he has not spent his time in this place developing property and shares and that he does not consider himself to be a fool. But I consider the honourable member for Moreton to be quite a fool if he thinks that every person in this Parliament who takes that attitude and is not willing to express on a register what he has, and have that expression on a register put up against the way he puts his speeches and arguments in this Parliament, will be afraid of what his constituents may start to read into that. This man is perhaps the real fool. He is the man who is putting forward in the Parliament propositions on which he and his Party vote in the vested interests rather than for the general public good. That is where we will see the main penalty area. It will clearly come in the public judgment area. Look at the record of honourable members opposite in regard to tax shelters over the seven years of the Fraser Government and how they consistently voted. There was no public judgment which could be assessed as to why those members of parliament were making those sorts of decisions. Was it a perception of what they felt personally, or were they representing their electorates? It became quite clear eventually when the public woke up. Mr Braithwaite —I raise a point of order. I believe this is a gross reflection on members on this side of the House. I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comments that he has been making. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —The honourable member for McMillan will withdraw his remarks. Mr CUNNINGHAM —If I have reflected on the members of the House-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw his remarks unreservedly. Mr CUNNINGHAM —I withdraw those remarks unreservedly. The Government of the time, which was making those decisions, was eventually judged by the people as not making decisions in the interests of the majority of the people. Whether honourable members opposite did it individually, I am not saying; but, collectively, I am saying, they did. Therefore the penalty in regard to this area of registers will allow the public to make a public judgment of a group in parliament-not of an individual-on how they represent their electorates. It is no reflection on a member of parliament, but when decisions keep coming out consistently, members of the public will ask why it is that they have governments representing such small minorities. The honourable member for Fairfax took it up with the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) and said that he was using cliches. Let the public judge whether he was using cliches; members of the public will very quickly be able to work it out when they can see in a public register whose interests are being served by the decisions that are being taken. Many in the community today, particularly in my electorate and in rural Australia, are realising that some of those decisions taken by previous governments-as a collective group, not as individuals-were taken to improve their positions. If one wants evidence, one has only to look at statements by the Liberal Party member in Western Australia who lost his seat last weekend. He quite publicly said that, had the National Party of Australia, which at the time was in charge of the rural portfolios, done its job correctly, a lot of the rural sector would have been much better off today. That is the clear statement I am making. The public will clearly make the judgment. At the moment members of the public cannot make that judgment simply because the information is not available to them. People who are making decisions in the Parliament, influencing the position of government, should be quite willing to make public their interests on a register. I fully support that idea. Mr McGauran —Could a farmer be Minister for Primary Industry? Mr CUNNINGHAM —I am not going to argue with the honourable member across the chamber; I will talk through the Chair. Members of parliament should declare their interests so that the public can make a judgment. That is what this proposal is all about today. The penalties recommended today are strictly that this House should deal with those who refuse to do the things mentioned in the motion. I read those out before. The House expects them to provide a statement and do those three things. If not, they shall be guilty of a serious contempt of the House of Representatives as individuals. Collectively, it will be the public which will judge from the information it is able to obtain from the register. People are not going to be kept out of this Parliament simply because other people may be saying: `If you are nominated, preselected and go into Parliament, we are going to look at the decisions your Government is making and whether they are to your benefit and not to our benefit'. That is the sort of judgment that people will be able to make. If it is quite clear that the decisions are clearly not in the public interest, the perception will be made much quicker. Most of the people are not fools. Maybe political parties, too, will become interested in the people who are being nominated and preselected, and we may see a little more life getting into some of the branches of the Liberal Party and the National Party. They may have a better selection of candidates. They are some of the ways in which this register will benefit. If there is a benefit it may be for the Opposition benches. I fully support the motion put forward by the Minister. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(11.37) —I have entered this debate on a number of occasions. I repeat that it is, of course, very much evidence of the Australian Labor Party's and the Labor Government's 12-millionaire syndrome. They keep telling us how, with their iniquitous assets test, they caught 12 millionaires. They never bother to say that they also disadvantaged about 57,000 other pensioners. This proposal is a similar approach. As I have said on previous occasions, I am not all that upset about this proposal. My life has always been an open book, if controversial at times. I have never very much worried about people looking into my life. I have often said that when one picks up a stone with `Tuckey' on it, it is usually round on the edges as so many people have been looking underneath it. I have also told this House that my wife has told me clearly that she will not tell me what some of her private little bank accounts are. I wonder whom the House is going to punish if that situation continues. Is the House going to drag me before it on a contempt charge because my wife refused to tell me what her personal bank accounts contain or is the House going to drag her before it on a contempt charge? In fact, could some other member of my family who may have the privilege that I do not have of knowing what she has in her private bank account be called before the House? Nevertheless, no doubt as time goes by, that sort of thing will be resolved. Mr John Brown —Wait till she finds out what you have in yours. Mr TUCKEY —That is all right. She signs all the cheques and has been the bookkeeper in our family for as long as we have been in business together, and that is nearly 30 years. I keep raising the question as to whether, other than satisfying this 12-millionaire syndrome, we are going to get anywhere with these different things. We have a register of shareholding in public and private companies. As I saw the ministerial statement of 22 September 1983, the information was very brief. As the House now remembers and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) remembers to his chagrin, I was able to investigate that matter and to raise serious questions as to the operation of the company concerned and its dealings with the Commissioner of Taxation. Nevertheless, that was not really a matter of pecuniary interests. I did not see the Minister trying to change the tax Act even though he had avoided a large amount of probate and other matters. We have to declare family businesses, trusts and nominee companies. I do not expect that any of those would put us in the Commonwealth Parliament in a position that would change our vote. We have to declare real estate. I am sure that as time goes by I will be able to demonstrate to the Government and its members that some of that might not be to their advantage. Family trusts have to be declared. There is an argument around today-it is a pity, because I think there has been use of this nature-that family trusts have been used for tax minimisation purposes when, in fact, their role and the role which I intend to pursue in the future is to protect family assets for the beneficiaries. Many things are changing in the world today, including the Family Law Act. Trusts will become more and more a way by which families will protect their assets. My will will eventually leave anything that I have left when I die to a family trust. I do not see that as being dishonest or a method of tax evasion. That is the point. I have often declared in this Parliament, whenever we have debated excise or matters of that nature, that I have been involved in the hotel industry for nearly all of my business life. When I make comments in here opposing excise, as I invariably do, do I make them for myself, the hotel industry or the community that is the eventual payer of that sort of tax? Where is my responsibility? More importantly, I am concerned as to what serious contempt might be. To quote the Minister for Trade, justice in this place `resides in the numbers'. Paragraph (h) states: saving or investment accounts, indicating their nature and the name of the bank or other institutions . . . I have been through the ministerial statement, which basically reflects what members will be required to do and what Ministers did on 22 April 1983. I went to a particular Minister. Honourable members can rest assured that I do not intend to use the Minister's name in what I am about to say. In fact, I do not intend to disclose it to other people. I noticed that that Minister declared a couple of savings accounts in the name of himself and, I presume, his wife. Subsequent to the declaration of this report I received a letter which I want to read. It says: I am writing to you because you seem willing to expose the dishonesty of Labor Ministers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Before the honourable member continues I draw his attention to the standing order which provides that a member cannot make imputations against members. I do not know whether the honourable member was intending to do so. Mr TUCKEY —Had you not been talking to someone you would have heard me say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that under no circumstances did I intend to use a member's name. I have deleted it from the letter and as such I will read what the letter says. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I further advise the honourable member that the practice of the House has been that, if a member on one side or the other feels that an anonymous allegation could be against him or a party, that should also be considered to be out of order. Mr TUCKEY —If the Minister wishes to come in here and complain about my reading of this letter he is welcome to do so. In the meantime I wish to read the letter. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Often it is up to the Chair to decide what is proper for the House to deal with. I am just cautioning the honourable member. Mr TUCKEY —I am most anxious that the particular Minister not be mentioned. I make that very clear. The letter states: You might like to make some inquiries and investigations into Commonwealth Savings Bank Society Cheque A/c No. 911-300. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the honourable member wants to adopt a back-door method of identifying someone that is also out of order. Mr TUCKEY —I believe that number is confidential. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It would not be confidential for people who work in the bank. Mr TUCKEY —That comes under the name of a Federal electorate committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think that the honourable member for O'Connor might be better to pursue something other than what he is pursuing. Mr TUCKEY —The letter continues: Money is paid into the a/c at election time and then it seems only cheques larger than $20 and they are made to- another account- He seems to syphon off some of his campaign donations . . . The largest seems to have been cheque No. 302178 for $2,868 last year . . . That was paid to the member, and another was paid to the other signatory. The letter continues: None of his workers seem to know about this fund- that is, campaign workers- though cheques paid in are for his campaign. There does not seem to be any balance sheets or statements given at any meetings. No cheques to the ALP either. He seems to have taken at least $5,000 over the years. Mr John Brown —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Germane to your comments in caution of the honourable member for O'Connor, I think that what we now have is a back-door expose of some cheque account numbers and cheque numbers. This reflects very badly on the Ministry because the honourable member suggested that these accounts belong to a particular Minister whom he will not name. I think that he has drawn some form of stigma across the whole of the Ministry. I for one take exception. They are certainly not my accounts so I know he is not reflecting on me, but I speak on behalf of 26 other Ministers who are not here. We are all under suspicion. Mr TUCKEY —I will stop reading the letter, all right? Mr John Brown —That would be a fairly typical method that is normally employed by the honourable member for O'Connor. I suggest that the information that has been supplied should be stricken from the record. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am not quite sure whether that can be done. I think that the honourable member for O'Connor would be far better pursuing another line of debate before he gets himself into a bit of deep water. Mr TUCKEY —I think that the sensitivity of the Minister and you, Mr Deputy Speaker, exactly explains the point. To be quite honest-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw the reflection upon the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, I withdraw, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not mean it to be a reflection on the Chair when I said it. I wholeheartedly withdraw. The point I am making is that this is how simple this whole thing develops. It is in the Government's hands. The Government wants this thing. It has called upon its Ministers to make a declaration and as a result there appears to be an omission. It might be an omission in respect of the electoral Act as well. All I am drawing to your attention- Mr John Brown —I take a point of order. In view of the reflections that are now being made, I would think that the more proper course of action-if the honourable member for O'Connor could in any way at any time find a proper way to do things-would be to make an official complaint about some alleged misstatement in any Minister's statement of assets. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. I caution the honourable member for O'Connor again that it is disorderly to make reflections upon individuals or groups of individuals. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, as part of the group of the Ministry, can take offence at that. Therefore, I ask the honourable member for O'Connor to make his point without infringing the Standing Orders. Mr TUCKEY —I am determined that the matter regarding this person go no further. The point I am making is that this is the type of situation that will arise day after day once this proposal opens the way for this situation. I put that to the House. How often can a member get up in this place, read from a letter such as that, cast this sort of aspersion on people, true or false, and, to quote the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), who spoke previously, be judged by the public? Surely that is step one. What is the imputation? I gave the example of a previous occasion and all that came out of a ministerial statement. A previous speaker has referred to the deficiencies of that particular statement and the imputations that could be based upon it. However, it is up to the Government. As I said, I am prepared to cop it. I do not know what I will do about my wife's position; I will have to live with that. The Government will have to decide on that. But, if Ministers think that this is the end of it and that that is the end of what is in this little blue file, it is on their heads. Let it be on the Government's head, because once this is under way I can promise faithfully that I will be able to go through that declaration and point out deficiency after deficiency after deficiency. There is no doubt that the Minister concerned in the incident mentioned had to declare all his savings accounts, and I put it to the House that the one I have just mentioned was not declared. In fact, there are allegations that it was improperly used. Those allegations were sent to me under a signature. Mr John Brown —Why don't you have the guts to say who it is outside this place? Mr TUCKEY — No, because I do not want to hurt that person. Mr John Brown —No, you are a rotten little sneak. Mr TUCKEY —All right; if I am a rotten little sneak, I will be a rotten little sneak. If the Minister thinks that there are no rotten little sneaks around this place, he will soon find out when he gets an example of how this register is going to work. If his back bench wants to vote for it when this debate is over, let it be on the Government's head. The Government has to come first, honourable members opposite are the Government and therefore it is they who must be tested, page by page by page, on their declarations. No one will argue the point that Opposition members, through their pecuniary interests or other interests, can affect the decisions of this House, yet those who can in another place will not have to make declarations. That is what makes a joke of the Government trying to massage its 12-millionaire syndrome. Government members will be the sufferers. As I said, I am prepared to head the list; I hope that my declaration is in ahead of others. Government Ministers can go through that and some of them can make some suggestions about it. I will welcome that. I promise them that I will not leave anything out. Mr John Brown —I don't think I will find it compulsory reading. Mr TUCKEY —It will not be at all. As I said, the stones are all round on the edges. I am not too worried about it at all. I can live with it, but there might be some honourable members opposite who cannot. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(11.52) —I take the opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker, to congratulate you on your attainment of high office. This is the first opportunity I have had to do that, and I hope to have the call on many occasions in the future. I wish to indicate at the outset of my contribution to this debate my strong support for the proposed register of members' interests. It does not surprise me that Opposition members who are taking part in this debate are opposed to a register of members' interests as such a register will disclose to the public their strong ties with wealthy and powerful conservative groups in our society. Mr Spender —Oh, dear! Mr MILTON —The honourable member may well laugh. For too long members and senators of the National and Liberal parties have been able to hide behind a cloak of concern for the poor and the disadvantaged in our society, whilst at the same time reaping the benefits of the unequal distribution of property ownership in Australia. It must not be forgotten that the wealthiest one per cent of the population owns 22 per cent of the total wealth in Australia and half the population owns less than 8 per cent of the wealth. The richest 2,000 people own just as much as 2 1/2 million people who live on or below the poverty line. It is members on the other side of this House who represent the wealthy and the powerful. It is quite clear, therefore, that we will hear from honourable members opposite expressions of outrage at the possible disclosure of what they will term and what they have termed their private interests. However, I do appreciate that there are some problems with the proposed register to which the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) has referred in his speech. Although the Minister has indicated that he considers that the definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest will not cause insurmountable problems, I believe that the lack of a definition with indicative guidelines has the potential to cause many lively debates in this House and will make the task of the registrar of members' interests more difficult. The conflict of interest with a member's public duties could arise because of the pecuniary interest or the possible conferring of an advantage because a member belongs to an organised interest group. For example, is there a conflict of interest for me, if the Federal Government is debating whether to provide finance to buy back land in the Dandenong Ranges, because I am a member of the Save the Dandenongs League? My membership of the League came about not only because I lived in the Dandenong Ranges but also because a large number of my constituents lived in the small townships in the ranges. The Minister has supported the view of the Committee of Members' Interests that membership of any organisation, be it political, sporting, recreational, or community based, must be included in the register. I do not have any difficulty with that proposition, but I must reiterate my view that the question of conflict of interest which may arise as a result of such membership will be virtually insurmountable if the registrar is not given some guidelines to assist him or her in deciding when a conflict of interest has arisen. I appreciate that some honourable members have argued in this debate that divulging their interests in property or their membership of organisations is an unacceptable invasion of privacy. I reject that argument on the ground that we all accept candidature for public office willingly and we must accept that holding a public office does not allow us to be private citizens. Unfortunately, the Australian public does not hold its parliamentarians in high esteem. The scathing and sometimes insulting comments made by many Australians about their State and Federal parliamentarians are certainly heard in amazement by people overseas. Whilst I have some reservations about the philosophical integrity of some politicians-certainly in general-I take great exception to the ill-informed comments of some media reporters and commentators who should know better and to the insults of letter writers in our magazines and newspapers- Mr Hand —Name them. Mr MILTON —I do not have to name them; they know who they are. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —I hope that the honourable member will not name them, because he will then require me to show some considerable impartiality. Mr MILTON —I would not dream of naming them, Mr Deputy Speaker. Fortunately, there are not many of them. The register of members' interests will help to inform the public quite properly of our allegiances and vested interests, if any; but it will not reveal the long hours of exhausting work and the days and sometimes weeks away from family and friends which are so often ignored by our critics. I turn now to the intention of the Government, as announced by the Minister, to include in the register of members' interests the financial interests of spouses and dependent children. Initially there was a suggestion that non-dependent sons' and daughters' interests also should be included. I am glad that that suggestion has been dismissed as quite unacceptable. When I mentioned the possibility to my two sons and mydaughter, all three made it quite clear that as adults they considered themselves independent people and that they had no intention of providing any information about their financial interests to me or anybody else in relation to my parliamentary position. In like manner, I can see some difficulty in the case of spouses, but not in the case of dependent children. Again, I believe that it will be necessary for the Government to provide guidelines because it will be quite reasonable for a spouse to declare that he or she is an independent person and to ask why he or she should provide the Government with details of pecuniary interests for inclusion in a public register. In its report, the Committee referred to the considerable difficulty in applying a reasonable interpretation of the proposition that a member should register pecuniary interests of a spouse of which he or she was aware. To what lengths should a member be required to go to become aware of the interests of a spouse? I trust that the Government and the Committee will look again at this matter because, unless clear guidelines are provided, members could be placed in a compromising and embarrassing situation. In its report the Committee has referred to the possible penalties which could be introduced for non-compliance with the registration scheme. The Minister has stated that the Committee recommended the introduction of specific penalties; but, with respect, I point out that in its report the Committee neither advocated nor recommended specific penalties. However, I agree with the Government's view that without penalties the scheme would lack credibility. The only plea I make is that a distinction should be made between a wilful contravention and an inadvertent contravention. In my view, an inadvertent contravention should not be subject to a penalty, particularly in the first year of the operation of the scheme. A member should be given some benefit of doubt in a borderline case. I would have thought that the publicity which would arise as a result of even an inadvertent or thoughtless contravention would be sufficient penalty, bearing in mind that the member has to face party members at a pre-selection ballot or the general public at the next election. I hope that the Minister and the Committee will take my comments into account and will form specific guidelines on the matters I have raised so that we can be quite sure that that information will be of great help to the future registrar of members' interests. However, apart from those reservations, I fully support the Government's proposal. Mr STEELE HALL(Boothby)(12.02) —The futility of this measure has been well demonstrated by speakers on this side of the House. That could not be pinpointed more than by reference to the fact that members of this House will be responsible in this way, as demanded by the Government's measures, yet members of the Senate will be able to do as they wish under a cloak of secrecy without any revelation of their personal involvement, which is required by this declaration of members' interests. As has been demonstrated here, this is an utterly futile way to approach such a disciplinary and unfair measure. It is of great interest and of great conflict that the Government should be so intent on selling its identification card, the Australia Card, by stressing that there will be regard for privacy-this morning we have seen a furtherance of the Caucus debate-and I understand that another special body, at further great expense to the taxpayer, is to be set up to safeguard privacy. Yet here we are in the process of destroying privacy-not without consequence. The request that details of spouses' financial statements be revealed has some deeper implications. I believe that few members who have spent long years in politics would not have been subjected, either themselves or their families, to personal threats. It seems to me that nothing could make it easier for political crazies or people who carry hatreds to further their evil stunts than to publish names in regard to anything that has a measure of financial or political impact that is transferred to family members. I believe that, regardless of the stricture we are discussing here, when a spouse requests the continued maintenance of her affairs in secrecy on the basis of personal safety the member should escape censure. There is no other way. There must be sympathy in the community for those people who are endangered in some way through no action of their own. In this case it would be the action of a spouse. Of course, the whole thing is a facade in any case. We are to have this register. Then I suppose we will be able to go to the community and say: `Look, there cannot be any malpractice among politicians or Ministers because we have all signed the register. We have declared our interests. We have to be free of any thought of corruption or malpractice'. That is an absurdity. What a member did if he helped a constituent, what a Minister or highly placed public servant did for a friend or an acquaintance, need not be revealed or alluded to at all by this fiction of an all-revealing register, which, as I have said, is nothing more than a facade. I know that the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who has brought this matter into the House, has a varied background. He seems to have made an anniversary occasion of getting involved in matters of great moment. I have been given information recently that the Minister has done a favour for a friend. I had intended to put this question on the Notice Paper, but as this debate has arisen and seems to surround this question of probity, I would like to ask a question directly of the Minister, as to whether he has done certain things. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Boothby knows that Question Time is at 2 o'clock. It is not Question Time now. If he wants to reflect on the Minister he must do so by substantive motion or otherwise continue his remarks. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not reflecting on the Minister at this time. I am simply putting to him a position. His response would indicate whether he is reflected on. I am requiring information from the Minister, and I believe it is sensible that I should put it to him here. It seems to me to be taking the matter to an absurdity that I cannot have a debate about issues here with the Minister. I thought this was a place of free discussion. The Minister knows well that in his history here in the Ministry he has been subjected to the most strident criticisms. We have had that out in the House, and at times I have been part of that debate. As I said, I have been told that the Minister has been instrumental in upgrading a friend from an economy class trip to Europe to first class on Qantas Airways Ltd. I would like to know whether he has been involved in that. My information is supposed to be of fairly good quality. Has he upgraded a prominent president of a prominent union in a trip to Great Britain recently? Was another Minister involved? Did he make such a request? Was the union president's wife involved? What was the monetary value of the upgrading? If the Minister can wipe it off, if he can say: `Well, I am a bit of a- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I just remind the honourable member for Boothby that he is supposed to direct his remarks to the Chair, not to the Minister. The Minister is not in a position to reply to questions here. He may decide to reply in winding up the debate. However, if the honourable member for Boothby has a question he might keep it until Question Time, which is the appropriate time in the House for that. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have put to the Minister a matter which he can reply to if he desires. If he does not reply I might put it on the Notice Paper. I thought it would cut things short, and it fits the description of what we are talking about. If my information is totally wrong the Minister will attack me on that, I am sure, and I will sit down and be somewhat chastened. But if I am right, of course, he will answer, because we are dealing now with matters of revealing these sorts of things. We are being constructively open, and nothing of such a nature is to be hidden. I am sure that the Minister will do one of two things: He will openly answer my query or he will castigate me for having the wrong information. He will get satisfaction, I will get satisfaction, or no one will get satisfaction. Mr Young —Could I also respond in respect of Liberal Party people who have approached me for favours as well? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am sure the Minister will respond to whatever he likes when the time is right. Mr STEELE HALL —Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought we were being quite open about this. I am here to hear what the Minister has to say about the question. In regard to the upgrading of air travel, everyone knows that many members in this House have been upgraded in relation to travel on Qantas when the seats have been available. I guess it has been some sort of unofficial policy that this has been done in a sort of national sense to get members of parliament carried in some standard around Australia, to have them arrive in good health and good temper, so that they can discharge their duties on behalf of the country when they arrive. One could make an argument for that, but what I brought up was quite removed from that matter. I brought up the subject of the Minister taking a role in intervening to upgrade a friend who is the president of a prominent South Australian union. As I said, he will answer that question. I believe the answer relates to that action and that action alone. Any reference to anyone else being upgraded will not remove any responsibility in regard to the matter I have just raised. This is an exercise in futility. Regardless of how the question I have just put to the Minister is answered, it illustrates the point that I have made on the futility of exposing to the community all the areas in which Ministers or members of parliament might take advantage of their position. Ultimately, the only means of censure that are worth anything in this regard are the preselection procedures and the procedures of a general election by the Australian electors. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.10) —First of all, let me deal with the contribution of the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall). Many requests come to us as members of parliament, as they do to him. Indeed, he rang me a couple of weeks ago to see whether I could help him with an issue. Unfortunately, I was unable to do so because it would have been beyond the criteria set down by government guidelines, although, let me say, I disagreed with the government guidelines and said so when I spoke with the public servants concerned. That issue has now been brought to finality by our changing the system. With regard to whether a person asked me whether I could assist with that person's travel arrangements, yes, that is true. A question was asked whether I introduced that person to someone at Qantas Airways Ltd. Yes, I did. With regard to the final arrangements which were made, I understand that the person was upgraded. I do not think any member of the Parliament has the power to upgrade people unless he or she is sitting on the Board of Qantas or happens to be the General Manager of Qantas. I do not find this situation that peculiar. I think it has happened quite a lot. As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) said some months ago in the Press, this is the sort of thing that he has had made available to him over the years. He did not find it so extraordinary. To answer the question of the honourable member for Boothby, if he thinks that this issue throws some colour into this debate, I can tell him that hardly a week goes by that a member of his Party does not come to me to see whether I can be of assistance on some issue. I try to assist wherever it is possible, because I think, as Leader of the House and as the person in charge of facilities and conditions for honourable members, that is one area in which we should be a little bipartisan. I do that. I express that attitude to the honourable member, because I think he raised this matter in order to try to downgrade and denigrate the issue which is before us. The issue before us has been before this Parliament for many years; namely, should this Parliament, like so many other parliaments throughout the world, require members of parliament to declare their interests and put them on a register so that people outside are able to see that all is above board in the Australian Parliament? Let me deal with the first argument of the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender). I want to disregard the personal abuse the honourable member brought into this debate. Perhaps one day I will have the opportunity of returning the compliment to him, but I will not do it on this occasion. First of all, he argued that because the Senate will not adopt this proposal, we should not do it. Should we be putting pressure on the Senate or should we be subjecting ourselves to pressure from the Senate? That is the question we have to answer. Who is the government of this country? Is it the House of Representatives or the Senate? The Government resides in the House of Representatives. The fact that we are moving this motion today, after giving notice in 1964 of our intent to move in this way, will bring greater pressure on the Senator to move in exactly the same way as we are doing today. I have absolutely no doubt that that is what will occur. The honourable member for Boothby asked: `Why do this? A senior public servant can have more influence than a member of parliament'. In some cases that is true, but the honourable member for Boothby ought to be aware that a senior public servant already fills out a pecuniary interest statement and submits it to the Minister, and so do members of statutory authorities. There are some problems with this proposal. I appreciate the contribution made by the honourable member for Fairfax (Mr Adermann) relating to some of the finer points that have to be dealt with in the filling out of the declarations. I appreciate the work that has been done by the Standing Committee of Members' Interests in trying to sort problems out. I do not think that the members of the New South Wales Parliament, the Victorian Parliament, the South Australian Parliament, the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly, the House of Commons or the United States Congress, who all have to sign declarations, are any smarter than we are. I am pretty sure that if a few members of that Committee put their heads together they could overcome the problems which for honourable members opposite seem to be enormous hurdles that we will never be able to overcome. The honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) has raised some matters in the House. Unfortunately, I missed most of his contribution. I understand that he was making allegations about funds for an election being put in a private account and the extent to which that would infringe upon the declaration of pecuniary interests. First of all I say to the honourable member for O'Connor that the Australian Electoral Commission might be more interested in what happens with political donations of that nature. As the honourable member knows, the Government has moved already to try to clean up the electoral system by requiring the public disclosure of donations of over $200 to a candidate or of over $1,000 to a political party. Those things are supposed to be on the record. I refer to what happened during the last election and all the predictions that the Opposition made about what would happen as a result of public disclosure of political donations and about that being the end of the world. Who took any notice when they were all published? The newspapers ran a story the next day that the biggest donors to us were some company or a trade union and the biggest donor to the Liberal Party was someone else. Who has heard anything about it since? No one. The same principle will apply to this proposal. We have heard all the rantings from the Opposition about how it will bring the world down and how the Westminster system will suffer as a result of members of parliament having to declare their pecuniary interests. This will all be done in the next few months. In a year's time we will not hear anything about it. Of course, the Press may play it up at first, but we have taken significant notice of the Committee and of where it thought problems might arise in the declaration of monetary values of holdings rather than just the holdings themselves and we have made suitable amendments to meet the problems mentioned by the Committee in that regard. I do not believe that we will face any greater problem than the problems that have been faced by other parliaments around the world, and, indeed, by the majority of State parliaments in this country. Such a proposal was good enough for the conservatives. The honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) seemed to think that my time in the shearing sheds was spent dreaming up ways of getting at the establishment and that 30 years ago I was thinking that if I ever reached this House of Parliament I would have a pecuniary interest statement made out by members of the Opposition. I tell honourable members opposite that if I was thinking in the shearing sheds about wanting to do something to the Opposition, it would have been far more devastating than having its members fill out pecuniary interest forms. I am not too sure that Margaret Thatcher spent any time in the shearing sheds; yet she subscribed to signing a declaration. She herself fills out a form declaring her interests to the British House of Commons and, as I said, so does every member of the American Congress. The penalties in our proposal which will apply to honourable members who are found in contempt of the Parliament-that will be something for the Parliament itself to decide-are in line with decisions that have been taken by the State parliaments. There might be some variation on the theme, because I believe that some parliaments have a monetary penalty of up to $5,000. But in a couple of cases, the seat of a member can be declared vacant if that member is found in contempt of the resolution of the Parliament concerned. That is the same sort of proposal we are applying to this Parliament, which is the most important parliament in Australia. So we are not doing something so terribly radical which is leading the way and which the rest of the world might look upon and be frightened away from. As is so often the case, unfortunately, in the Australian Parliament, in the wake of what has happened in the other institutions around the world, we are bringing our House into order. In the same way as we have made changes to the electoral laws, by virtue of a resolution of this House, we will ensure that members of parliament will declare their pecuniary interests so that all will be above board. We do not hold any great suspicions. One honourable member challenged me to state a case in the last 85 years in which a member's interests may have influenced his decisions. We do not know the answer. It may have happened. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if it had not happened and some member of parliament had not been influenced by some of his personal or his family's holdings. Where the family may be involved, we have said that only to the extent that a member is aware of his spouse's holdings will he have to declare them. In the case of the South Australian Parliament a member of that Parliament issued a statutory declaration that she was not aware of the financial or business transactions or holdings of her spouse. In so doing, she did not have to declare them as part of her pecuniary interests. The same will apply in this case. If an honourable member is not aware of a spouse's interests they will not have to be declared. We have moved along the lines that the Committee has asked us to move in these areas. The conservatives on the Committee really wanted us to abandon the whole idea. We have been saying for at least the 12 years that I have been in the Parliament that we should introduce this proposal. I am glad that it will be brought to a conclusion today, because we have given people plenty of opportunity to look at this matter and to speak about it. Committees have looked at it. The Standing Orders Committee and the parliamentary Committee have looked at it. There have been discussions inside and outside of parliament. There has been the report of the Bowen Committee of Inquiry Concerning Public Duty and Private Interest. There has been the move by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to see that Ministers disclose their interests. Senior public servants and members of statutory authorities do so, and we are the last ones to do so. So all I am suggesting to the Parliament- Dr Klugman —The second last. What about the Senate? Mr YOUNG —I am pretty sure-as I said earlier to the honourable member for Prospect-that what we are doing today will ultimately be the weapon and the necessary pressure that needs to be applied to members of the Senate to do exactly the same as we are doing today. I commend the motion to the House. Amendment negatived. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Young's) be agreed to. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 60 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 10 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beazley, K. C. Jakobsen, C. A. Beddall, D. P. Jenkins, H. A. Bilney, G. N. Jones, BarryBlanchard, C. A. Keating, P. J. Blewett, N. Kelly, R. J. Bowen, Lionel Kent, L. Brown, John Keogh, L. J. Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E. Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H. Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V. Charlesworth, R. I. Lee, M. Chynoweth, R. L. Lindsay, E. J. Cleeland, P. R. McHugh, J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G. Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F. Free, R. V. Saunderson, J. Gayler, J. Scholes, G. G. D. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Simmons, D. W. Grace, E. L. Snow, J. H. Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W. Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Hunt, R. J. D. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Lloyd, B. Beale, J. H. McArthur, F. S. Blunt, C. W. McGauran, P. J. Braithwaite, R. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Brown, N. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N. Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Burr, M. A. Morris, Peter Jull, D. F. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to: That the grievance debate proceed forthwith. Question proposed: That grievances be noted. Mr SMITH(Bass)(12.31) —This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in a grievance debate. As I understand it, because it is a rare occasion one has to give some deep consideration to the matters one wants to speak about. Being the youngest Liberal in this House, the area that concerns me most and also concerns many in my electorate of Bass is the question of education, and today I want to talk about the tertiary education assistance scheme. In the last 12 months I have had considerable correspondence with the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) on this matter. I think it is something this House has been neglecting and something this community is very concerned about, and I should like to highlight some of the issues. The number of students in this community on a TEAS allowance is small compared with the number who would like to be beneficiaries. Indeed, a very great number of students in educational institutions rely on financial assistance provided by the Government. However, and this is the reason I really want to speak today, the levels of financial assistance available are extremely low and the conditions which apply to the granting of such assistance are extremely restrictive. Not only does this therefore mean that many students are in receipt of financial assistance which is quite patently inadequate to help them meet their needs, it has also resulted in the disturbing situation that potential students are prevented from attending tertiary institutions because of the absurdly low levels of parental income used in calculating the means test. Even worse, potential students realise that financially they would be far better off if they were receiving unemployment benefits. This Government is on the public record as having committed itself to bridging the gap between benefits payable under TEAS and those payable under unemployment benefits. Let us examine the figures. Unemployment benefits offer a person over the age of 18 some $90 a week on which to live, not a mighty sum, but it is a princely sum when compared with the pittance offered to those who wish to further their education. If a student wishes to go on to study and is forced by circumstances to live away from home, he or she is given a maximum of $73.28 a week by the Government. If a student lives at home, this Government will donate the staggering sum of $47.50 a week. There is a perverse disincentive for young people to qualify for the unemployment benefit rather than put themselves through three or more years of rigorous academic study. Even worse are the unrealistic and totally iniquitous eligibility restrictions which apply to applications for assistance under TEAS. Tertiary students who have not met certain criteria for independence from their parents are discriminated against. A combined parental income of just $22,280 will exclude a student living at home from receiving any assistance. If a student is forced to live away from home, he receives no assistance if the combined income of his parents exceeds $27,320. In a nation where the average wage, which admittedly can only ever be a very rough benchmark, is of the order of $20,000 per annum, these parental income limits are patently absurd and too low. Indeed, maximum assistance is granted only when the combined parental income is $14,281, an amount so low it could be treated as a sick joke if this were not such an important matter. This Government makes much of its posturing on improving the plight of the disadvantaged in our society. In Tasmania we have a Liberal Government which is really trying to help those students forced to live away from home. Every student who is in such a situation gets $40 a week towards the cost of living for 30 weeks a year, a total of $1,200; that is, every student who does not receive any assistance under TEAS, however small an amount. The TEAS guidelines allow for the receipt of a maximum $500 per annum from other allowances and grants. How absurd! Those who qualify for maximum assistance do so on the supposition that their socio-economic status entitles them to special financial help from the Government. Yet this Government's own regulations deny these people in Tasmania at least $700 a year because it has not concerned itself with the question of how best to assist those most in need. That $700 a year could go a long way to alleviate the excessive rise in book costs. All of this goes on while the Government expresses concern and wrings it hands, as indeed do all Australians, about the appallingly low retention rates evident in our education system. According to the Government's own figures presented in the last Budget in Budget Paper No. 13, only 9.6 per cent of all people aged between 19 and 24 were engaged in some form of tertiary education in 1984. In fact, this was less than the comparable percentage figures for a decade ago. So we are slipping back, we are not going forward. One need only examine some comparable educational statistics for nations such as Germany in order to gain an indication of Australia's appalling record in this regard. For instance, in the field of tertiary engineering study, which will become an increasingly important area of research and study, the comparative figures are as follows: In Australia 24,200, which is 0.16 per cent of the population; in the United States of America nearly 1 1/2 million, being 1.53 per cent of the population; and in Japan 393,000, being 0.33 per cent of the population. Australia lags far behind its international competitors in this vital area of tertiary education. Part of the blame at least must be sheeted home to this Government, as must the quite perverse disincentives which exist in relation to a choice between tertiary study and unemployment. This matter is one which I have consistently raised with the Minister for Education. It remains, however, an issue which this Government has been reluctant to address in any material way. There are a number of specialised problems in relation to TEAS which are also of interest to me. There exists within my electorate of Bass the Australian Maritime College, the only maritime college in this country and a unique institution. As a result of direct action taken by this Government, some 50 students who attend the Australian Maritime College have been deprived of the benefit of even one return trip home per year. These 50 students are assessed as being substantially independent from their parents and are required to study in Launceston. They cannot study anywhere else in Australia. The argument of the Government that they are not deserving of any assistance to enable them even one trip home per year is petty in the extreme, and the budgetary savings per annum cannot amount to more than $30,000. If from a budget of $69 billion this Government cannot find $30,000 to assist a few of the small number of tertiary students in this nation, its priorities are well and truly wrong. This Government must stand condemned for its failure to assist the youth of this nation and, particularly, future mariners. We talk a lot in this chamber about exports and how we wish to see exports expand. Since I have been in Parliament we have talked about the Australian shipping line. We need people who have expertise to run these ships. We need a shipping line that will be efficient and has the right type of people involved. If we are not prepared to help educate the people who will be involved in the shipping lines, whether it be a government run shipping line or private shipping lines, we condemn ourselves. I continue to write to the Minister to try to get this issue resolved, but I continue to get stupid, bureaucratic replies that give no substance to the things she has been saying about wanting to narrow the gap between education assistance and the unemployment benefit. It is simply appalling. I went through the university system on TEAS. At the stage I was at university TEAS met the cost of university colleges but now it does not even half-way meet that cost. Something has to be done. It is a grievance felt by many people contemplating starting university and many people in universities. To say that the maximum amount of TEAS can be paid at a parental income up to $14,000 is a sick joke. Those on the other side of the chamber stand condemned. At least on this side of the chamber we have a young Australian who is prepared to have a bit of a go and look at these educational issues. When our policy is put forward, these issues will be addressed in a way that reflects the needs of the community and the needs of a country which has to lift its retention rates if we want to compete with the rest of the world. At the moment we are falling behind rapidly and it is a real grievance. Mr KENT(Hotham)(12.41) —I grieve today because of the Government's proposal to introduce a national identification system involving the issue of an identity card and a national computerised data system. I wish to sound a warning, as I genuinely believe that the Government is in error and that the introduction of an identity card system will erode our civil liberties without producing the benefit of preventing tax avoidance as the Government believes. It causes me deep anguish and sorrow that such a proposal, which is absolutely alien to the Australian Labor Party, should come from our ranks. It is unacceptable to me, as it is unacceptable to most thinking Australians, that we should ever give up any part of our privacy, civil liberties or rights, for the sake of efficiency and at the behest of Big Brother. I am not alone in opposing the introduction of ID cards. There are many civil libertarians, individuals and organisations who join me in voicing their opposition to such a development. For a long time I was puzzled as to how it could be possible that such a proposal could come from a party which calls itself democratic socialist. I once heard a story which said that there is a fascist streak in the minds of many socialists or social democrats. The proponent of that theory argued that Hitler's and Mussolini's support came not from the conservatives, but from many right wing socialists and social democrats and the so-called lumpen proletariat. That, of course, would explain how the proposal for the introduction of ID cards could have come from our own ranks. However, I reject the theory that there is a fascist streak in the minds of some of us, and I also reject the necessity for the introduction of the card. That it is called an Australia Card is an exercise in cynicism in itself. Nothing can be more un-Australian than the need to prove one's identity on the call of an official, be it a policeman or a bureaucrat. It would be much more appropriate for the proposed card to be called a Hitlercard or Stalincard, as the whole exercise smacks of authoritarianism. The proposal to introduce an identification card system and computerised data bank on individuals is a sinister attack on our civil liberties by the bureaucracy. It first appeared in some obscure Treasury papers, nudging the Treasurer (Mr Keating) to use it as a means to mop up the undeclared interest on the small savings of Australian wage and salary earners. It was of no concern to the small minds of the bureaucracy that, in the process of mopping up the petty amounts from average Aussies who are reluctant to pay taxes on inflation, by the use of identity cards our traditional liberties and our way of life which respect the privacy of the individual will be jeopardised. Since Federation, except for a limited period during the war, we have got by well without ID cards. During the two centuries of our existence on this continent, we have always treated the individual with great respect. By the introduction of ID cards, this respect for the individual will be eroded and so will be the respect for his or her privacy. In many overseas countries where ID cards operate, including Western-type democracies, the individual, unless he or she belongs to the elite, is treated as part of the mob by the bureaucracy. In many such countries, anybody who packs a pistol can board a train or bus and ask the passengers for their ID cards. I can tell honourable members of more extreme uses of systems of identification. I have many friends who have their numbers, not imprinted on a plastic card, but tattooed on their forearms. They have told me that if it were not for the use of ID cards overseas, the nazis would have found it much more difficult to find them and herd them into concentration camps. I mention this only to show the extremes to which systems of identification can be taken. I am not suggesting for one moment that such a use of ID cards would ever be contemplated by the Australian bureaucracy. Nonetheless, I refuse to be numbered and branded. There is no doubt that once the ID card is introduced it can be used for any purpose, legitimate or sinister, depending on the government of the day-or, even worse, on the bureaucracy. Irrespective of assurances by the Treasurer, would anyone seriously suggest that the police will not use it as one of their tactics to intimidate individuals, by asking them to produce their ID card at every opportunity? One would have to be born in cuckoo land to believe that they will not. I received a letter addressed to Caucus members from the Privacy Committee of New South Wales, urging us to reject the introduction of ID cards. I quote from that letter: The Privacy Committee has consistently opposed the introduction of any `standard universal identifier'. Significant North American inquiries have rejected such a scheme as: 1. significantly privacy invasive; 2. having the potential for abuse by government and private organisations through the use of computer `matching' techniques; 3. raising a `presumption' of validity regarding the cards which would be exploited by organised crime; 4. providing the skeleton for a national dossier system; 5. requiring the creation of a complex bureaucratic apparatus to assign and administer such a scheme. Mr Frank Costigan, a former royal commissioner, recently told the Joint Select Committee on an Australia Card-I am in agreement with him-that the introduction of a national system of identification will substantially erode privacy and civil liberties because thousands of people will be able to gain access to personal information about every Australian; and that the system is open to abuse. It will not deter organised crime or stop individuals from using multiple identities for purposes of tax avoidance and social security fraud. This point is supported by evidence from the United States and West Germany, where it is estimated that $20 billion in revenue is lost every year as a result of the fraudulent use of social security cards. I, together with other members of the community, agree and support these observations and criticisms and urge the Government to reconsider the proposed introduction of a national identification card system in Australia. I also urge the Government to give more serious consideration to other less intrusive, less authoritarian means of reducing the rate of tax evasion and social security fraud, such as the reform of banking practices and the further tightening of loopholes in the Income Tax Assessment Act, which Mr Costigan and many others have suggested. The disclosure of taxation file numbers as a prerequisite for opening bank accounts would decrease the incidence of tax avoidance and social security fraud by eradicating non-disclosure of income and the possession of multiple bank accounts under false names. Measures such as these constitute a less costly and more effective method of reaching the same objectives as the Australia Card, without the same invasion of privacy or destruction of individual civil liberties. I could also quote many other articles and editorials opposed to the introduction of a national identification card system, but I choose only one, from Arthur Horner in the Age of 20 August last year. Horner wrote: . . . let's face it, when in a democracy you need a bit of card to say not that you can drive a car or are credit worthy but simply that you exist, and have a number to prove it, it's time to get a bit concerned. While such a card could be very handy for those of us who don't know who we are, the rest of us should take a good hard look at it-before it happens. Accordingly, I call on the Treasurer and the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett), who is in charge of this infamous proposal, to think again before it happens. I would like again to remind the House of the seventeenth century French philosopher, Descartes, who said `Ego cogito, ergo sum', which means: `I think, therefore I am.' If the Treasurer and the Minister for Health, formerly of the Civil Liberties Council of South Australia, need a plastic card instead of thought to determine who they are, I certainly do not. I reject such intrusion of my privacy and of the privacy of millions of Australians. Mr DONALD CAMERON(Moreton)(12.50) —Strange though it may sound, the honourable member for Hotham (Mr Kent) will find a lot of agreement on this side of the House to what he has said today. I compliment him and remind listeners that he is someone who during the Second World War fought in Yugoslavia against the nazis and has a very full understanding of what the numbering system is all about. His comments should not be dismissed lightly, despite the fact that the editorials and some newspaper articles write down those of us who have the same concerns as those expressed so well by him from the other side of the House. The Opposition Whip's office rang me last evening and said: `You are speaking in the grievance debate tomorrow'. So I got out the file of the subject on which I had been wishing to speak for some time. I felt: Well, I am ready for it. At 20 past 12 this morning in bed at my hotel I was reading a Courier-Mail-I am not sure whether it was yesterday's Courier-Mail or the one for the day before-and tucked away at the back of the paper was a reference to the length of time that people are out of work. The Australian Bureau of Statistics figures had shown that over the last five years there had been a considerable growth in terms of the time, or the number of weeks, that people were out of work. I want to state today that Australia's unemployment problem is far worse than presented and it is getting worse. The Hawke Government is deceiving the public on the unemployment problem. The latest Bureau of Statistics figures show that the unemployed are waiting longer than ever to find a job. This means that overall unemployment has reached its most devastating proportion since the Great Depression. I repeat that: It has reached its most devastating proportion since the Great Depression. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table which I have prepared. Leave granted. The table read as follows- Year Number of unemployed Weeks unemployed Total weeks lost Total years lost 1981 400,500 34.1 13,657,050 262,635 1982 479,700 34.3 16,453,710 316,417 1983 724,300 39.9 28,899,570 555,417 1984 630,600 47.8 30,142,680 579,667 1985 598,800 51.9 31,077,720 597,648 Mr DONALD CAMERON —Briefly, these figures, which are all based on financial years, for the year ending 30 June, show the following: In 1981 there were 400,000 Australians out of work but the number of weeks out of work was 34. What it meant in that time was that 260,000 work years were being lost by the population as a result of unemployment. In 1982, when the Fraser Government was getting on to slippery ground, the 400,000 unemployed had grown to 480,000 unemployed and the 260,000 work years had grown to 320,000 work years. In 1983 there were 725,000 out of work and the total lost work years amounted to 550,000. In all fairness, a lot of that was in the Fraser years, but it was also the beginning of the Hawke years. I will repeat those figures: 725,000 people out of work and 550,000 work years lost. We are all subjected to propaganda about how marvellously the Government is doing. In 1983 that 725,000 unemployed fell to 630,000. However, lost work years grew from 550,000 to 580,000. Even now, although the number of unemployed has fallen just below the 600,000 level, the number of work years lost has almost touched 600,000 work years. The point I am making is that in the last five years we have seen the numbers grow from 260,000 lost work years in 1981 to 320,000 lost work years in 1982, to 550,000 lost work years in 1983, to 580,000 lost work years in 1984, up to the end of last financial year when it touched the 600,000 mark. Even for the year in which unemployment was at its highest level ever-in 1983, when there were 725,000 out of work-the number of work years lost was infinitely lower than it is now. The proud chest beating of Australian Labor Party Ministers about unemployment figures must be a distressingly hollow and phoney sound to the nearly 600,000 still out of work who have been through a bitter experience and have learnt the hard way that to go on the dole now means to face a sentence of a year's hardship. For reasons of political expediency the nation has been continually taught to forget about unemployment as a problem. I suggest that in view of the picture that is emerging this is a shameful act. Unfortunately, even in the recent parliamentary recess, we saw articles coming out which suggested that Australia has probably reached a stage where we are always going to have this number of people unemployed. I think the Government ran away from actually commenting on that. One or two Ministers or academics said: `Perhaps that's right'. I do not believe that this nation has any chance of recovering while we fail to recognise that the problem of unemployment is in fact worse than it has ever been. Lest it be suggested that I am using figures selectively, I am using not only the Bureau of Statistics figures but also the figures of the Department of Social Security. Here is the cost to the nation of unemployment benefit over the five years I have just referred to: In the year 1981, $1 billion dollars, in the year 1982, $1.25 billion; in the year 1983, $2.25 billion; in the year 1984, $2.9 billion; and in the year 1985 it is touching $3 billion. It could be said that there is an inflationary factor in that in terms of higher benefits, and I willingly agree that that would be the case. The point is that in the Fraser years the benefit was costing $2.25 billion and today it is costing $3 billion. I believe that when we put both these sets of figures together it completely destroys the myth that has been created in this country that unemployment is under control and things are getting better. In conclusion I state as fact that this continuing unemployment is draining the nation. Granted there are fewer people being hurt, but those hurt are being hurt for longer. I believe that one year on the dole compared with, say, 34 weeks during the Fraser years can mean the absolute destruction of so many lives. The Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), describes the Treasurer (Mr Keating) as the world's greatest. That is a lot of piffle. One only has to look at interest rates and our balance of payments to destroy that claim. I include the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis) in this. I believe it is time that people knew the truth as to what is really going on. The only apology I make is that I have not thought of presenting the figures in this way before, when it has suited so many politicians and others to conceal the truth by simply talking about the raw numbers rather than the man years being lost, because that tells an entirely different story. The complacency which exists on the other side has come to an end. Now that members on this side of the House know what the figures are about, we are going to give the Government heaps into the future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Mountford) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(1.00) —In this grievance debate I would like to grieve momentarily about the sophistry that one hears in this House from time to time. I draw the attention of the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron) to the words of Sir Winston Churchill's father when he referred to liars, damned liars and statistics. I have been giving some consideration to what the future of this House is. It has a lot of history. With the advent of the bicentennial year we will be moving to a magnificent new structure up the road and I think some thought should be given to what we should do with this House. In the time that remains for it I would like to use it as a slaughter house to try to slaughter some of the sacred cows that beset Australia. The one I would like to start with concerns Mudginberri. The Mudginberri incident was not the answer. It is true that slaughtermen can earn big money at Mudginberri, but unskilled workers did not fare anywhere near as well and there is no doubt that the big exporters working under the existing scheme have been the greatest contributors to our performance. It was an attempt to impose American culture on ours and as such it was bound to cause friction. In saying that, I must say I have absolutely no respect for the performance of the Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union; its public relations was deplorable. It is interesting to note in Mudginberri that these masters of free enterprise who put forward this scheme wanted the Government to compromise our health standards to protect their profits, thereby putting at risk the export of all Australian meat. Mudginberri had its supporters in the rural sector, many of them mindless ideologues-and there are ideologues on the Right who are just as mindless as some of those on the Left. There were people in the rural sector who supported Mudginberri out of desperation, for it is true that the rural sector is beset by enormous problems and something must be done to address the problems of terms of trade, interest rates and markets that exist in the rural sector. Mudginberri was a simplistic answer and simplistic answers are often popular. I suspect it would be more beneficial for the rural sector to look at perhaps slaughtering stock in Australia, boning it out in, say, China and distributing it from there. There might be many markets to be opened and opportunities to be obtained there. In any case, China offers enormous potential to Australia. I was told while I was in China recently that by the year 2050, President Reagan permitting, they expect to have stabilised their population at 1.2 billion people and to have a per capita income approaching that of the West. As such, China will be the powerhouse of the world economy. When I was in Lanzhou I noticed stacked up in a factory I visited oil pump jacks, all consigned to America. In Australia when we buy pump jacks for pumping oil from fields such as those which exist north of Derby in my electorate we buy them from America at four times the price. We have an enormous balance of trade deficit with America, an enormous surplus with China. Every dollar we buy out of China means we can sell into China and I think that we must be exploring the potential of the China market. I would like to attack another couple of myths: The myth of multiculturalism and the myth of family reunion immigration policy. Multiculturalism is a policy propounded by both major political parties in this country, and it is simply wrong. This country is not multicultural; this country is Anglo-Celtic in origin. That is an accident of history but it is a fact, and the machinations of politicians will not disguise this. The great danger to this country is that that main culture, that Anglo-Celtic culture, is dividing against itself and it is dividing on a city-country basis. The manifestation of this is the macho image that farmers and miners try to portray-the image that they as earners of export income are somehow more important than city workers; a nonsense concept. We have seen it manifested in the cities by a disregard for the problems in the rural sector. Twenty, 30 years ago, everyone in the cities had an uncle or brother in the country, or just moved from the bush and there was a sympathy. I think that has died and it is a tragedy for Australia. We must be working to unite those two sections of Australia because divided we will not survive. We will not survive if we continue this. I might add that Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen in Queensland is one of the greatest culprits in this regard. He has been likened in this House to a poor man's Marcos. I say he is a latter day Papa Doc. Arising out of multiculturalism has come our immigration policy. I believe that Australia owes no regard to consideration other than national interest in terms of immigration policy. What we need is a dynamic economy. Into a dynamic economy we can fit far more refugees than we presently take, and they can be fitted into the economy without any disruption. The overriding consideration for Australia must be national interest. The policy of family reunion in Australia at the moment effectively discriminates against a very large section of immigrants. They are the traditional immigrants upon which this country was built. It is difficult these days for German, Dutch, Yugoslav and British people, and some others, to get into the country because they no longer comply with the guidelines. Their parents are dead and their brothers and sisters are their age-they are middle-aged now-and they do not want to move. What they need is a policy that recognises their need to be able to bring in nephews, nieces and younger people. I have on my files the names of literally dozens of people with entrepreneurial flair and $100,000 or $200,000 who want to come to Australia. It is extraordinarily difficult to get these people into the country. The ones whose names are on my files are principally British but some are from Germany. It is not in the national interest to discourage these people. Immigration is neutral in its effect. We can devastate our economy if we bring in the wrong sorts of immigrants; we can enhance it if we bring in the right sorts. We ought to have a policy that allows us to bring into this country immigrants who are going to contribute immediately to the country and to employ other people. Instead, I find myself having to fight rearguard actions to prevent the deportation of many immigrants in this country, albeit illegally, who are making a substantial contribution. Recently a case in Geraldton was drawn to my attention. A family had settled in the town for three years. The kids were at the school, the parents were gainfully employed. At a moment's notice they were given two weeks to get out of the country. I have another case on record which I will go into greater detail about later on. I do think we have to face this fact: The policy that we have does discriminate against the large source of traditional immigrants to this country. I believe that if this policy is not changed or ameliorated there is going to be a backlash, a back-lash of significant proportions, and I would not like to be on the receiving end of that. There are many, many attempts these days to deny our heritage. I think there is some belief that Australia must create for itself a brand new image, an instant ersatz Australian. We are all products of our past; none of us can escape that. In our past there is good and bad, but I would say that, on balance, our culture has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. In an historical concept, there are things of which I would not approve and I do not think anyone would approve of them today, but by the standards of the time our culture was probably more enlightened than other prevailing cultures. I think it is a great tragedy when we try to seek a future by neglecting the past. It is a dangerous course. It is a course which can, in fact, lead to getting lost on the way. Mr PETER FISHER(Mallee)(1.10) —I wish to draw the attention of the House to the economic and social tragedy taking place in rural Australia. The whole structure of family farming is under threat and with it the infrastructure of small business and vibrant rural communities. This infrastructure has been built up, despite the harshest conditions of climate and economic conditions, over many generations to become highly efficient units working long hours and, in many cases, earning a fraction of the average wage. By contributing 40 to 50 per cent of our export income this rural sector still has the most potential of any sector to reverse our foreign debt explosion, yet this Government has allowed our primary sector to be exposed to adverse circumstances to a degree not contemplated by any other agriculture intensive nation. Of course, low commodity prices and aggressive trading and market corruption by many of our competitors are significant factors. Poor seasons in particular regions such as the Central Mallee of my electorate have produced a crisis for grain growers and the communities that serve them of a magnitude worse than any experienced since settlement. These factors are mainly out of the control of the farmers or of governments. These conditions are not the prime reason for the economic plight facing rural Australia. The Australian farmer's ability to adapt, to innovate and continually to improve productivity has kept us ahead of our competitors and has provided a source of cheap and high quality products for our domestic population. Increased productivity and improved farming techniques will no longer ensure the viability of agriculture. Governments throughout Australia today must act with real understanding and restore equity in agricultural policies. The seriousness of the situation has to be recognised. This Federal Government has that responsibility and apologists in the Government or for it in the community must be exposed to their role in this national debacle affecting the total small business community. The real problem is twofold and it is domestic: Firstly, the effects of national economic policies that have acted against and discriminated against our productive industries; secondly, an anti-rural attitude, that has already drawn hundreds of millions of dollars away from the farm sector, by the Hawke Labor Government. It is incredible to the extent of being provocative that this process is continuing, the recent fertiliser rort being the most noticeable, not to mention, of course, the petrol price situation. If the 7c per litre drop in fuel prices is not passed on it will cost each wheat farm $1,685 next year and each dairy and horticultural property $610 each year. It will rob the rural sector of another $140m and, of course, will rob massive amounts from the average motorist. The Government, I believe, has embarked on a dangerous economic course in using high interest rates and foreign borrowings to support a sick dollar and to fund our excessive public expenditure. The self-employed, the export-competing sector simply cannot live with these policies and are now totally left out in the cold. Government and its advisers may argue that the monetary policies being pursued are considered appropriate for the long term benefit of our nation's economy, but there is no justification for destroying the primary sector along the way. At the time of recent visits I have made to banks in my electorate top farm loan rates stood at 21.75 per cent. The average farm loan of all borrowers was 20.25 per cent. This Government is now suggesting that these people, who in good faith entered into realistic borrowing arrangements in the 10 to 12 per cent range, should not receive compensation for the massive escalation in rates, or assistance to remain in the industry. The current loan repayment problems are worse than they were during any period of tight liquidity, during drought or during previous recessions. I stress that every Labor Budget and mini-Budget and the accord have worked against small business and the self-employed sector. Labor has already withdrawn $440m directly from Federal Government outlays since coming to office in changing the deductibility provisions and the depreciation allowance and, of course, the emasculation of the income equalisation deposit scheme. It has imposed additional costs with the indexation of fuel and, of course, the sales tax on petroleum products. We are yet to face Labor's proposal to limit the amount of farm losses that can be written off against other income. This becomes significant at this particular time when many families, in an effort to survive and to meet debt repayments, are forced to take off-farm employment. Add to this the new capital gains tax, the assets test, the fringe benefits tax and we see a recipe for disaster. Why are we facing this consistent attack on thrift and productivity and a planned attack on this nation's capital base? The seriousness and impact of this attack by the Government is highlighted by recent Bureau of Agricultural Economics figures which show the increase in, and the extent of, farm debt. It increased by 50 per cent between June 1980 and June 1985 and has escalated massively since then. We see today that total rural institutional debt is $7 billion. We see that the average debt on all farms throughout Australia is $80,000, and even this figure does not reflect the true position of most of those in trouble. The cumulative effects of low prices, high costs and escalating interest rates coinciding with three disastrous years out of four that have occurred in my electorate have produced a state of crisis and will lead to a disastrous future unless significant support and assistance is urgently provided. What must be done? I must stress that this is a human problem of great magnitude. We are not dealing with just statistics, finance and figures; we are dealing with human lives and families who are facing personal tragedies of the highest order. If what has taken place over a period of years in the Mallee had taken place in one year somewhere else it would be recognised as a natural disaster. Governments, both State and Federal, therefore, must see this crisis as they would a bushfire or an extreme drought and meet it with understanding and a desire to assist, above party politics and individual differences between States and industries. The lead is being given by local communities, who are responding to the crisis by forming local support groups and committees, assisted by church leaders and professional people from our government departments. Their support for each other is commendable and typical of the community spirit which has lifted rural regions out of similar difficulties in the past. Many families are eligible for family income support and in order to meet the basic requirements of the household women are reluctantly registering for employment and some will receive unemployment benefit. Already there have been in excess of 100 such applications in my area and they are increasing daily as conditions deteriorate. While this is entirely their right, such approaches are foreign to these people and are placing great stress on their dignity and pride. The lasting solution to our problems cannot be found through social welfare and we must reject this. It will be to the everlasting shame of this nation if lack of government support and concern forces our self-employed people, particularly our older citizens and women, into the dole queues in a desperate bid to meet their basic living requirements for their families. The underlying difficulties confronting Australia's farmers and small businesses and the scores of people in the rural work force now being stood down are interest rates, the escalation of costs and bureaucratic red tape. This is an on-going question and I do not wish to discuss much more of it here. It is clear that existing programs are not meeting the specific needs of the Mallee community. The Rural Finance Commission has been able to assist only a percentage of applicants because the rural adjustment scheme provides support only for those considered to have a long term prospect. These families then face the prospect of having to walk off their properties. Farms are on sale at unreasonable prices and if these families were sold up by creditors they would be left with only clothing and personal items. Land values would crash if a large number of properties were forced on to the market in this way and banks would then readjust their equity levels, which would mean that another group of farmers would become marginal and be placed under severe economic restrictions by financial institutions. This situation must be prevented at all costs. The Rural Finance Commission must meet this situation and any constraints due to the criteria, the rural adjustment scheme or the amount of funds available must be removed. There is a clear need for additional specific programs to be developed for the affected areas, such as the central Mallee with its boundaries extending from Ultima in the east, Birchip in the south, Hopetoun and Patchewollock in the west and the Murray River in the north. Sea Lake is central to this area and is the most severely affected district. I ask for special initiatives as a matter of urgency to meet this crisis. It is in order for the survival of individuals and families and for the grain industries in the communities that service them in the Mallee. We need an immediate and appropriate increase in Commonwealth and State funding from the rural adjustment scheme. We believe that the existing program will be fully committed by mid-February and there will be unprecedented demand on it in the weeks ahead. Both of these programs in the rural adjustment scheme would allow time for farmers to reassess their position and it would stop properties from being forced on to the market. It would prevent a crash in land values and would save many farmers from certain economic disaster. Rural Australia is saying in no uncertain terms that it will not accept defeat, that it is not going to be made redundant and that it will not allow the callousness or the ignorance of governments, no matter which they are, to throw away this nation's rural heritage. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(1.20) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I would firstly like to offer you my congratulations on achieving the office of Deputy Speaker and my best wishes. The Australian War Memorial in Canberra serves as a permanent national shrine to those who have served their country in times of war. As such it is an important venue for the remembrance of the courage of those who have fought and died. The continued popularity of the Memorial's displays and educational activities has ensured that many people from both Australia and overseas are aware of the immense human sacrifice made during wartime. There is, however, another dimension to the role of a national war memorial that has not been consciously developed in Australia-the link between war and peace. Peace is the ultimate objective of war and this connection is manifest in every conflict Australia has been engaged in since Federation. Veterans and war strategists agree that peace is the result for which armed forces struggle. Indeed, the soldiers, sailors and airmen immortalised in war memorials around the world fought not for glory but for peace. Power and greed are the triggers of war and governments and individuals carry the blame; but I do not propose to debate this issue today. Regardless of cause and effect, there is a need for the nation to remember not only those who fought and died but also why they fought and died. They died in the pursuit of peace. I would therefore argue for the creation of a peace memorial sited in Canberra which would embrace the spirit of the Australian War Memorial while recognising the primacy of peace in the precipitation and settlement of armed conflict. The relationship between a peace memorial and a war memorial is a logical one and is reflected in the mutual association of war and peace. A peace memorial established adjacent to the Australian War Memorial would give the fullest expression to this association and would extend the process of education already undertaken by the Australian War Memorial by providing a visible statement on the reason for the sacrifice of the lives-particularly apt in this International Year of Peace. The education section of the War Memorial with its numerous classroom activities, information and learning programs has been one of the most successful aspects of the Memorial, with over 60,000 school children alone participating every year in education programs. Given this level of accessibility, the Australian War Memorial is in a uniquely advantageous position to incorporate demonstration of the steps which must be taken to achieve peace in the future. By selling books, giving pamphlets and mounting displays to recreate the scenes of specific battles, the War Memorial is educating young people in the history of Australia. It is already involved in the process of teaching the anguish of war and the desirability of peace. It fulfils this role objectively and with sensitivity. Staff members are superbly equipped to cope with its natural extension, which I am proposing. The funding base of the Memorial would then also, of course, require extension relative to its extra function. The concept of a peace memorial is by no means new, the possibility having been explored in many countries overseas. The desire to promote the association between war and peace has led to the establishment of major peace memorials in Japan and the United States. In addition, the Canadian Government has taken steps to incorporate a peace memorial as part of the National War Museum. Perhaps the most graphic and comprehensive example of a peace memorial is in Hiroshima, Japan, the site of the first atomic bomb attack. A special peace centre exists in Hiroshima and consists of a peace memorial park and a peace memorial hall. The hall contains offices, meeting rooms and a museum with the information on the bomb blast and its effects, while the Peace Memorial Park faces the Atomic Bomb Dome, the site of the actual explosion. In addition, the Peace Centre includes a memorial cenotaph for atomic bomb victims. As well as the names of the victims there is an inscription on the cenotaph that reads: `Repose in peace, for the error shall not be repeated'. The need to recognise remembrance of war and peace has also been taken up by our traditional allies, the United States, as a peace museum has been set up in Chicago. This museum was established in 1982 through a United States Federal Government grant. There is another memorial and a peace park at Nagasaki. Proposals for a peace memorial were also made in Ottawa, Canada, the site of the Canadian National War Museum. In addition, the Royal Canadian Air Force has planned a peace memorial in Trenton, Ontario, but a lack of funds has so far prevented the completion of the project. While a peace memorial in Australia could draw on some of the features of the memorials of other nations, an Australian peace memorial should be uniquely Australian in character, reflecting Australian values and the efforts and desires of Australians' own initiatives in attaining world peace. Given the role of Australia as one of the leading nations in the remembrance of peace, this commitment to establishing a national character within a peace memorial would indeed be appropriate. Secondly, an Australian peace memorial should have an educational function but should not involve peace education classes as such. The educative lessons of peace transmitted through a peace memorial should be made through implication rather than direct instruction. An Australian peace memorial should illustrate rather than indoctrinate and a suitable format of display could be developed that would go no further than an explanation of the horrific effects and consequences of war, particularly nuclear war. In this respect an Australian peace memorial could be in the spirit of the Hiroshima memorials, illustrating a peace message in an indirect way, with the archives and relics of war telling their own stories. An Australian peace memorial could therefore be educational to the extent that it records the results of the nuclear course we are now following and, like Hiroshima, it should not comment in any way on the actions of any other country. Particularly, an Australian peace memorial should be uniquely Australian, giving talented Australians the opportunity to design a fitting complex. The real question to ask is: Why should Australia have a peace memorial? I believe that it should because attitude underlines all human endeavour. Remembrance of past sacrifice, history, art and science are all essential to the enrichment of our culture but peace is essential to the very survival of our culture. Without a proper respect for and understanding of the need to put the pursuit of peace at the top of our ladder of aims and achievements, memorials and institutions dedicated to the pursuit of history, art and science will be as nothing. What is the cost of a lack of peace in the world-the real cost? Every minute 30 children die for want of food and inexpensive vaccines and every minute the world's military budgets absorb $1.3m of the public treasure. The world's stockpile of nuclear weapons represents an explosive force over 5,000 times greater than that of all the munitions used in World War II. The cost of a single new nuclear submarine equals the annual budget of 23 developing countries with 160 million school-aged children. According to a United Nations report which was presented in 1982, one-half of one per cent of one year's world military expenditure would pay for all the farm equipment needed to increase food production and approach self-sufficiency in food deficit low income countries by 1990. How is this related to an Australian war memorial? Certainly a memorial would not rectify the situation of hunger and need-and indeed there is an urgent necessity for all governments to give the problems of developing nations high priority-but attitudes of electors underlie government action. We have an Australian War Memorial superbly run; we should have an Australian peace memorial. It need not mean an enormous amount of expenditure which could better go to feeding people, but it could prove part of an educative process which is needed. Our institutes and memorials fulfil the role of formulating attitude. Every concrete action in society finds its nucleus in an attitude or a desire. If our attitude towards life is built on the accumulation of material goods as the ultimate goal, power will reign. Great buildings will be erected and war will continue. There is a build-up of arms which should be reversed. To find the path to this reversal, to find peace, we need to have a standard-we need to have a memorial which has an educative process which extends the process of the Australian War Memorial and provides our school children with information which shows the irreversible link between war and peace. To find peace we must want peace. It is up to us, it is up to adults and up to governments in our society to ensure that the information necessary for formulating the correct attitudes is available. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(1.30) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I add my congratulations on your election to your high office. I wish to use this grievance debate to raise the issue of local government amalgamation, which the State Labor Government in Victoria is forcing on municipalities across the State and which is causing grave concern to ratepayers and councillors across the electorate of Corangamite. We all know that local government is referred to as the third tier of government in our national democratic system and the tier often considered to be closest to the people. In my electorate-and I know this goes for many electorates across Victoria-innumerable hard-working citizens have given many years of their lives in an honorary capacity to serve their local community. They have done so with honour, pride and integrity and often to the disadvantage of their own financial and family situations. Yet this Labor Government is hell-bent on forcing amalgamations, for what we can only assume are blatant political reasons, on the system which has generally served Victorian ratepayers well. The Federal Parliament has a substantial financial involvement in local government and therefore should be actively interested in its future direction. The 1985-86 Budget showed that Federal taxpayers contribute to local government through State grants, road building projects, community employment programs, JOLOR-jobs on local roads-programs and, more specifically, $487m through the 2 per cent Federal income tax sharing system. There may well be instances when amalgamations could prove to be in the interests of ratepayers, but it is up to the local communities to decide where those amalgamations are necessary-not State government or politically biased commissions. A poll of ratepayers within the municipal boundaries would seem the only fair way to determine the views of ratepayers, but in Gippsland, where such a poll was undertaken resulting in clear opposition to an amalgamation plan, it was totally disregarded by the Labor Party in Spring Street. The State Government has argued its case on the grounds of greater efficiency; in other words, centralisation of service and decision making works better than the smaller, decentralised approach. This is typical of how the Labor Party approaches policy formation generally. But big is not necessarily better and a number of documents, such as the report by Coopers and Lybrand and W. D. Scott, management consultants, expose the flaws in the Government's assumption of the economic benefits of amalgamation as put forward by the Victorian Grants Commission. The Victorian Government has relied heavily on the findings of the Commission to substantiate its case for fewer councils, yet the Coopers and Lybrand report found that the recurring economic benefits likely to flow from the State Government's wholesale restructure are likely to be relatively small. This report states that by and large the apparent economies of scale discovered by the Grants Commission are illusory. I believe that, due to intervention in the role of local government by State and Federal governments that has taken place over recent times, local government has been losing control over its decision-making autonomy, while at the same time having provision of services imposed upon it which ratepayers neither require nor can afford. Originally local government provided the very essential services of road and street maintenance, garbage collection, building and planning supervision and infant welfare. Of late, however, more and more services have been thrust on to local government and, as a consequence, local government is now responsible for a wide range of so-called human services. These are often costly to maintain and many are of questionable benefit when one looks at the cost involved relative to the number of recipients of the service. Frequently these services have arisen out of hasty election promises during State and Federal campaigns where a capital grant is generously offered to local government and then, after a structure is created, we find local government has been left to carry the ongoing recurrent expenditure. The recent debacle of unutilised child centres provides a perfect example of this. The State Government decided on the location of child care need. The Federal Government put up the capital for buildings, local councils provided the land and then the Federal Government changed its funding arrangements; and now the centres remain unopened because local government has not the funds to meet the recurrent expenditure of the centres. The human service areas of community education, recreation and arts offices; aged people's services; child care and pre-school centres, welfare and financial counselling; and unemployment supervision are just some of the areas which have led to the increasing administrative burden of local government and escalating cost in provision. Many local councillors and their executive officers have been almost as guilty as State and Federal politicians in proudly announcing the provision of such services with little or no regard for the long term implications of the costs involved. Responsible municipalities which have not embarked headlong into many of these services, which the State Labor Government would no doubt include in its social justice strategy and who have consequently kept their rates low and had minimum borrowing requirements, now find themselves included in proposals for amalgamation with less financially prudent councils. It is simply not fair that ratepayers within the cost-conscious municipalities now find their council's savings and creditworthiness used to offset the extravagance of less responsible councils. While extra services have been imposed on to local government, they have by and large lost control over their own decision-making process because we now have regional planning authorities, consultative councils, State appeals tribunals and Federal and State policy departments which ultimately decide local government direction. It is my view that local government has been deluded into trading its decision-making autonomy for capital grants and, as a consequence, is left with a whole range of costly and often questionable human services which neither the taxpayer nor the ratepayer can afford. Forced amalgamation as currently proposed by the State Labor Government in Victoria will worsen this situation. Local government will become no more than an administrative tentacle of the State Government with highly paid bureaucrats in command. It does not surprise me that a survey of the metropolitan town clerks in Melbourne found no dissent to amalgamation. After all, they will not be disadvantaged by amalgamation and, for most of them, their salaries and positions will be improved. In proceeding with amalgamation the State Government has obviously paid little regard to the costs involved. For instance, in the Launceston city amalgamation in Tasmania the cost of staff redundancy payments was in the vicinity of $3m. The State Government in Tasmania was approached to make up these costs but refused and, therefore, the ratepayers of the amalgamated city of Launceston will have to cover the $3m. The University of New England has done a study and found that the benefits were less than certain when in New South Wales there was amalgamation to 15 councils of formerly 34 under an Act of Parliament in 1980. In my electorate of Corangamite there have been a number of meetings where this local government issue has become very important for the local people. Issues raised have been local representation, the borrowings of surrounding councils and the rate increase potential. Traditionally well-run, responsive local councils are now concerned about the problem of being amalgamated with less financially prudent councils. The Minister for Local Government, Mr Simmonds, well known for his left-wing tendencies in the Labor Government, is pushing forward with his amalgamation plans with a view to centralising the power in Spring Street so that the policies of social justice can be implemented by the Australian Labor Party. In the United Kingdom the amalgamation of mega-municipalities has seen a reverse to this policy and we now see a return to the old boroughs of 30 years ago. The Government there is finding that there are no advantages in having the bigger municipalities. Prime Minister Thatcher, having seen the extravagances of local government, is on record as making some attempts to curb these excesses. Likewise, even the Labor Party is concerned about the excesses of local government. I pay tribute to the harmonious relationship that I have had in Corangamite with local municipalities and pay tribute to the work and dedication of the councillors in the shires of Otway, Colac, Winchelsea, Bannockburn, Leigh, Bellarine, Queenscliffe and Barrabool and the cities of Colac and South Barwon, and I hope that they will continue to be their local representatives in the truest form of democracy. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(1.40) —Let me begin by congratulating you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your high office, and I wish you well. It is an index of the way in which economic thinking in Australia is dominated by conservative forces that the only responses to the current account problems that one hears about at the moment are the knee-jerk and right-wing ones. I was especially disappointed to read the comments of the Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Bernie Fraser, in which he suggested that a renegotiation of the prices and incomes accord is necessary to further discount wages and reduce Australian living standards. It is the most common response of conservative economists, when faced with any economic difficulties, to call for reductions in the wages of working people. This has been the response of conservatives for the last 150 years. But this response is not a panacea. Even though the Liberal-National parties have no wages policies except reduction, reduction and more reduction in the wages of workers, the fact is that that is not the way in which to run a modern economy and it will not resolve our problems. One has to consider the causes of the current situation in detail, and they have evolved over many years-I might say over many years of mismanagement of our trading situation, of our industry policy and of the macroeconomic strategy in general of previous conservative administrations. They have created and caused the crisis that we are facing at the present time, including, I might say, the so-called rural crisis, because they have created the circumstances in which our trading situation was bound to deteriorate. When they had the opportunity to create a viable export manufacturing sector for this country, they failed to take up that opportunity; and we are now paying the price. Rather than reflecting on the past, it is better to talk about what might be done in the current situation. In order to look at this matter we must first recognise that it is disappointing that the impact of the devaluation on imports in particular has not been as good as might have been hoped. It is important to recognise that the devaluation provided much increased competitiveness to Australian manufacturing industry. In fact it was equivalent to an increase in tariffs of between 10 and 20 per cent, so it was certainly a substantial change in that respect and made the competitive position much better for Australian manufacturing industry. Although there has been some increase in manufacturing investment and intended manufacturing investment, unfortunately that increase does not seem to have resulted in, and does not appear to be resulting in, a turn-around in terms of a reduction in imports. So the J-curve effect, that is, the effect whereby there would have been an increase in domestic production and a reduction in imports, appears to be further away than most people in this country would have hoped. One of the problems that we have is: What are the causes of this situation and what can be done in the future to resolve it? Mr Braithwaite —Your interest rates are to blame for that; 21 per cent. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I hear the interjection from the honourable member opposite that interest rates are the cause of the situation. I remind him that he has got his causes and effects back to front. It is because of the high current account deficit that interest rates have remained high. I suggest that he study some more economics and come back with a viable solution to the problem. The high interest rate situation has been forced on the Government partly because of the worsening situation in relation to the balance of payments. Let us go to the hub of this problem. The fact is that, like the Mitterrand Government in France in 1981, we have put into place programs which have led to substantial growth in the Australian economy and this has led to substantial growth in demand, as one would have expected, in particular in substantial growth in imports and especially in durable imports. That is the situation we are faced with. It is a serious situation because it has resulted in this deteriorating balance of trade position. When there is an increase in growth in the economy, it is almost inevitable that there will be pressure for increases in imports. We have to deal with the situation in a sensible way so that we are not forced into the sort of position which France was forced into of adopting a series of deflationary and negative measures to deal with a crisis situation that arose. The honourable member, rather than interjecting, would do well to recognise that this is a problem for the whole of the nation and that it would be better if we sat down and thought about how we are going to get out of this problem rather than throw out pat solutions such as the kind which suggest that, if we merely reduce wages, we will solve the matter. Let me say something about this notion of reducing wages. The fact is that workers in this country have taken a discount in their wages already as a consequence of the devaluation. That has already occurred. That has already put pressure on the prices and incomes accord. Further pressure on the prices and incomes accord and attempting to further discount the wages of workers, firstly, will not resolve the crisis and, secondly, will put us in danger of undermining the central tenet of the economic strategy of the Government which is the prices and incomes accord. As Mr Fraser himself said, this is not an option for the Labor Government. One has to ask: Why is there this pressure for imports? Why has this increase been occurring, given the devaluation? Why have there not been increases in the prices of imported goods, or sufficient increases in the prices of imported goods, so that we could have the offsetting effect? The answer is that, in fact, importers were existing previously on very large margins; they had very large margins with which to play. Consequently, rather than increasing their prices or reducing the amount of goods being imported into Australia, they have cut their margins. Imports are continuing to penetrate Australia at an unacceptable level. This is the problem we have to deal with. We hear honourable members opposite saying that the only resolution to our current problems is a reduction in wages, rather than looking at doing something about the continuing penetration of imports. This is the serious matter which they refuse to come to, nor do they have any policy for increasing investment in manufacturing and taking up the increased competitiveness which has been created by the devaluation of the dollar. These are the problems that the Government has to address. There are two things that the Government needs to be looking at and is looking at. The first is the continuing implementation of the Labor Party's industry platform. With the implementation of that platform and the development of further plans in different areas of industry we will go forward and further develop manufacturing investment. The second thing we need to do is to look at the nature of the protection mechanism and re-evaluate the situation. We need to re-evaluate it and to ask ourselves whether it is not time for the Government to be considering alternative protection mechanisms that do, in fact, result in reductions in imports. One of the mechanisms that we ought to look at is quantitative limits on the number of imports. Unless we look at mechanisms of that kind, we may not be able to achieve the J-curve effect, the turn-around in the balance of payments and the situation of continuing growth that we want. Let me repeat the point with which I began. It is not an option for the Labor Party and the Labor Government to look at reductions in the real level of wages. It is not a solution to the problem. We will not be adopting it in any of our deliberations in relation to the current economic situation. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(1.50) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I also add my congratulations to those of others in this chamber and wish you well in the post that you now occupy. I am glad that the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) is in the chamber at the moment because the subject which I am going to address today, I think, will be of particular interest to him. I refer, of course, to the announcement by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) at the end of last year, on 13 December, to close the Albion explosives factory. It is interesting that the Minister chose to make that announcement after the Parliament rose. I suggest that probably he did not have the courage to make that announcement while the Parliament was actually sitting. Ostensibly, the factory has been closed after a review of explosive factories throughout the Commonwealth. I can speak with some knowledge of the history of the area because, as Chairman of the Opposition defence committee, I visited the factory in the winter recess last year in company with the secretary of the committee. It is interesting to note that from the outset there has been a prolonged campaign by the Left activists of the Australian Labor Party branches in Calwell to close down that factory. That is in fact the whole purpose of the exercise. It is interesting to note that, when the closure was announced just before Christmas, the first couple of people to welcome the closure were none other than our colleague the honourable member for Calwell and one of his State colleagues. As reported in the local newspaper, the Keilor Messenger: Federal MHR Dr Andrew Theophanous welcomed the decision. He said he had sent an immediate telegram to the minister, thanking him on behalf of the local community. His State colleague, apparently, was similarly quoted as `ecstatic'. To continue: Both said it would be particularly gratifying to the community of the district and particularly to local Labor Party branches which had been striving for years to have the factory shut and made available for recreation and residential purposes. Dr Theophanous said that the factory had been seen by many as a potential pollution and safety hazard for people living in the area. `Closing it will not only remove this risk but will release much needed land for housing, recreation, community services and industrial development'. It is a pity that his concern for the people of the area does not extend to the work force of that particular factory. It is interesting to note the change in terminology in relation to that factory. We find that the wording relating to what is to happen to the people who are to be retrenched from the factory has changed substantially between the Press release put out by the Minister and the letter subsequently sent to the consultative area committee of the 16 unions who represent employees on that particular site at the Albion explosives factory. I quote from the Minister's Press release of 13 December as follows: In the period up until the closure in September, there will be intensive and extensive consultation of all those affected and their representatives to ensure that satisfactory alternative employment is available for those who desire it and acceptable termination arrangements are made for those who would prefer redundancy or early retirement. Subsequent to that, we find the Minister taking a totally different line in the letter that he sent to the consultative area committee, as I said, representing the 16 unions on site. That wording has changed and taken on quite a new and distinct interpretation. I quote from the Minister's letter: I have given an assurance to the ACTU that every effort will be made to find suitable, alternative employment for AEF personnel. Where such redeployment is not possible, appropriate termination arrangements will be made. We had a situation where the Minister was undertaking to place people. That situation has now moved to one where he says: `If there is not a job for you, too bad fellows, there is nothing we can do about it'. As I said, it is a pity that both the Ministers and the honourable member for Calwell do not show the same concern for the employees of that Albion explosives factory as they do for the wishes of the left-wing activists in the ALP branches of that particular area. I also point out that, despite the earnest hope of the honourable member for Calwell to establish, as he hopes, an institute for post-secondary studies on the spot, the Andrew Theophanous Memorial, that is highly unlikely to take place as a re-establishment process is going to take some 10 years. Another most extraordinary feature of this whole exercise is that this Minister for Defence, while of course announcing that he is going to close this particular factory with effect from September of this year, at the same time announces jointly with another Minister of this Government that a community employment program grant is going to be made to the Albion explosives factory to beautify the site. I quote from the Melbourne Herald of last week: The Federal Government has announced a $98,700 grant to improve the appearance and environment of the Albion Explosives Factory in Deer Park. The Government hopes the grant, which comes under the Commonwealth Employment Program, will create 10 jobs for a 26 week period. I suppose those 10 jobs are some compensation for the 200 people who will lose their jobs in the Albion explosives factory. But what a confused government we have. On one hand, the Minister for Defence is closing the factory to take effect from September of this year, yet at the same time, co-jointly with another Minister of this Government, the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations, Mr Willis, he announces a grant to beautify the factory. So we are going to beautify the factory while we are closing it down. I guess that pretty much typifies the general confusion of policy and lack of co-ordination between departments that is going on in this particular Government. What an absolutely paradoxical and ridiculous situation! I am also aware that there is considerable concern about the alternative site to which eventually the facilities of the Albion explosives factory will be moved. The Minister proposes that over a 10-year period the facility will be re-established at Mulwala near Yarrawonga, in southern New South Wales and northern Victoria respectively. There are several disquieting aspects of that because, as we have seen from the statements made by the honourable member for Calwell, one of the things that concerned him was the aspect of pollution and safety. At Albion over a very long period very good waste disposal programs have been developed that worked very effectively. What waste there is is fed into the Melbourne sewerage system, a very vast sewerage system that can easily cope with that problem. In Mulwala-Yarrawonga we are talking about a town of only 4,500 people with a very limited sewerage system. I know that the Defence Department has had a number of representations from that area expressing grave concern about whether the limited facilities of Mulwala-Yarrawonga, with a population of only 4,000 to 5,000 people, has any hope at all of coping with the waste that will come out of Mulwala on an advanced scale when the facilities presently at Albion are re-established there. The final area of concern is the loss of expertise of some very skilled professional personnel at Albion. It is, for instance, a fact that one of the key areas they have been working in is the testing of TNT samples. It has taken some 14 years to develop to a high state of art the testing of those particular samples. The professional staff who have developed that now look like being lost, unfortunately, to the Defence Department because many of them will not be prepared to move to the new location, quite apart from the 200 people generally in the factory who have no guarantee as to where they are likely to go in the future. Summing up, given the general confusion about this whole exercise, including the most extraordinary situation of giving a CEP grant to this factory at the same time as it is being closed down, with the employees having no secure guarantee of where they are to go, I suggest that the Minister needs to look very carefully at exactly what is being done in relation to the closure of this particular factory, and understand perhaps more clearly exactly what he has embarked on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to the advice to his Government from the Joint Economic Forecasting Committee that this year's current account deficit is predicted to be $12 billion. I also refer him to the quarterly balance of payments figures released today which show that, for the first six months of this financial year, the current account deficit has been $7.5 billion. I ask the Prime Minister: In the light of that advice and those figures, does he still maintain as he did on 24 January this year that interest rates would come down and that the right level of the Australian dollar was between US72c and US75c? Mr HAWKE —As usual-it is a pity it has happened again on this occasion-the Leader of the Opposition cannot get his facts straight. The premises of his question are inaccurate. Let me prove that very quickly. He says that I asserted what the right level of the Australian dollar should be. He is wrong. I will read the transcript so that everyone in this House can see that he is wrong. In the interview with Carlton, I was asked: Which would be about what? He was talking about the dollar. My reply was: Well, you ask six economists, you'll probably get six different answers. But I guess the range of opinion, Mike, is of the order of 72 to 75c. I think that would be the sort of order that the majority of economists would say is perhaps the appropriate level. In other words they're saying that when it went down to the 65 and 66 there'd been an overadjustment. But you'll get different answers, as I say, to just precisely what it should be. For the Leader of the Opposition to say from that that I have asserted that that is the right figure is manifestly absurd. Mr Howard —Ha, ha, ha! Mr HAWKE —The hyenic laughter that comes from the other side of the table does nothing to dispel the observation that was made this morning by the person the Leader of the Opposition has appointed to the tactics committee. The honourable member for the Northern Territory said: The fact is that he- that is the Leader of the Opposition- doesn't seem to be coming across in the media and to the Australian people as a decisive leader. This stupid laughter will not help the honourable gentleman in that lack of image. I must say that that is one of the more incisive judgments that the honourable member for the Northern Territory has made of late. On the question of the level of the current account deficit, both the Treasurer and I, as from last November, have indicated that in fact the Budget figures may look as though they were going to be somewhat exceeded. The statistics to which the Leader of the Opposition refers confirm the indication that the Treasurer and I made. Let me say this quite clearly: As far as the Government is concerned, we assert that the economic fundamentals of policy making in this country are right and will continue to deliver to this country the economic and the employment growth which has put the performance of this country so far ahead of anywhere in the rest of the world. Mr HOLLIS —Will the Prime Minister inform the House of the latest labour force statistics and indicate whether they are consistent with the Government's long term economic strategies? Mr HAWKE —I would hope that all people in this House, irrespective of on which side of the House they sit, will join with me in welcoming the employment figures that were released this morning. The preliminary labour force statistics for January issued by the Australian Statistician this morning indicate that employment rose in January by over 60,000-60,200. That large increase in employment, I believe, is most encouraging. It means now, of course, that the increase in employment since April 1983 is 608,300. And we have these people on the other side of the House complaining about economic policy making! That means that so far this financial year employment has grown by 3.4 per cent compared with a Budget forecast of 2 3/4 per cent for 1985-86 as a whole. The latest figures, therefore, point to an employment growth in 1985-86 of the order of 3 1/2 per cent, a result which everyone can see is consistent with very strong economic growth in this country. I think it is also important to note that the bulk of this very strong employment growth continues to be in the area of full time employment with strong increases in both male and female full time employment. It is interesting to note that the participation rate has returned to the near record level of 61.6 per cent. Despite that strong increase in the participation rate, the unemployment rate has remained steady at 7.8 per cent which compares with the 10.2 per cent that we inherited from these economic geniuses on the other side. It is quite clear that there have been very substantial improvements in the employment situation which now exceeds by more than 20 per cent the promise I made to the people of Australia on behalf of the Australian Labor Party in the beginning of 1983 that we would deliver half a million new jobs in three years. We have now exceeded that by more than 20 per cent in less than that period. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Treasurer. Where a husband and wife partnership own a farm and, in accordance with a long standing tradition, they bring a family member into the partnership, will the new partnership have acquired the family farm for capital gains tax purposes? Does this mean that a farm that has been in a family for many years before 19 September of last year will therefore be subjected to capital gains tax simply because a son or daughter is introduced into the family partnership? Mr KEATING —I have no intention of offering tax advice to the honourable member. The honourable member asked me a question the other day which went to basic tax principles which, of course, I referred to the Commissioner of Taxation and on which I will be furnishing him a reply. I am not about to satisfy some of the germination of tax schemes which will obviously hatch around on the honourable member's side of politics. If the honourable member wants advice on technical questions involving the change of tax status of taxpayers in tax arrangements, let him put them on notice and I will give him a reply. Ms McHUGH —My question is addressed to the Minister for Health. Is the Minister aware of the proposed new fee scales circulated by the Australian Association of Surgeons to its 1,600 members last week? Is it a fact, as reported, that the Association is recommending that surgeons charge up to nine times more than the present schedule fee? Can the Minister give any possible justification for such astronomic increases? Dr BLEWETT —Yes, my attention has been drawn to those massive increases in fees. I can only say that they seem to have been made without any consideration of the welfare of the patients themselves. If those massive increases were adopted generally by surgeons there would be very heavy out of pocket payments by patients. Although surgeons are quite free to charge what they wish in this country, patients, of course, are only paid benefits on the basis of fees set by an independent arbitral inquiry. Therefore, if these fee recommendations were followed through there would be very heavy out of pocket bills to be paid by individual patients. This Government has demanded of the whole community wage restraint. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand that this particular group seems to take no notice whatsoever of these wage restraint guidelines. Nobody has ever argued that the medical profession-- Opposition members interjecting- Dr BLEWETT —Yes, here are their defenders, the people who are willing to support these outrageous claims, yet are not prepared to listen to any justified union demand. Nobody has ever argued in this country that the medical profession as a whole is somehow a disadvantaged group which needs special augmentation under the wage fixing guidelines. Everyone recognises that the surgeons themselves are a peculiarly advantaged group within the medical profession itself. The 1985 fees inquiry, in which the Australian Association of Surgeons participated, determined that surgeons should not increase their fees by any more than 3.5 per cent. This current action is a complete disregard of that arbiter's decision. Ordinary workers must simply stand back in amazement when a profession for which an independent arbitrator sets what is regarded as an appropriate fee schedule, a schedule accepted by the Government, goes ahead and decides to charge above schedule fee and still have the bulk of that fee underwritten by the taxpayer. What I would do is to call on surgeons in this country not to follow through those outrageous recommendations. I also ask patients who are compelled to suffer heavy out of pocket fees because of this to let us know so that we can at least publicise the way these people behave. Mr SINCLAIR —Has the Minister for Primary Industry alerted his ministerial colleagues, in the context of the present consideration of the application of fuel excise, to figures that flow from the submission by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiry into petrol taxation which shows that if the Government passes on the full 7c drop in the fuel price an average wheat farmer would save $1,680 in a full year, an average cane grower $1,100, an average wheat-sheep-beef producer $1,570, and an average trawler operator $4,400? Will the Minister acknowledge, especially in the current rural crisis, that these figures demonstrate the absolute necessity of passing on in full the fall in the price of crude oil? Mr KERIN —My colleagues and I are very well informed by the BAE. I, as Minister responsible for the BAE, strongly stand up for its independence. It has made a submission to the IAC with respect to a reference before that body. Of course, we are very well informed. We are aware of those figures. All other departments concerned with this issue are putting forward submissions. All those matters will be taken into account. We can read. Mr WRIGHT —I direct my question to the Minister for Health. I refer to this Government's ongoing commitment to and commendable policy of constantly reviewing the adequacy and effectiveness of delivering Commonwealth services in rural and non-metropolitan areas. With specific reference to Medicare offices and agencies, what action is being taken to expand the Medicare services in country areas? Will the introduction of an Australia Card have any effect on the provision of Medicare services? Finally, has consideration been given to the use of toll free phone calls to supplement Medicare services in non-metropolitan areas? Dr BLEWETT —Let me point first of all to the ability of the Health Insurance Commission to provide a very fast turnaround postal service; secondly, the use made, particularly by many country people, of the pay doctor cheque system; thirdly, and the welcome further increases in bulk billing. All this means that many pressures on Medicare offices in those areas are reduced. However, we do maintain a constant review of the network of Medicare offices across the country and where there are justified needs for further offices they will be established. Since the original network was established there have been a number of additions to Medicare offices in provincial centres. As the honourable member for Capricornia mentioned, if the Parliament accepts the Australia Card proposition-which, of course, would be operated through the Health Insurance Commission-there would have to be an expansion of the Medicare network. On present planning there would need to be some further 24 offices in provincial and country centres. On his last point, we have looked at issues in relation to toll free telephone numbers. They usually have been used by government in explaining a new program rather than in providing a continuing service with an existing program. I will certainly take the suggestion made by the honourable member to the Health Insurance Commission for consideration in improving what are already its excellent services. Mr HODGMAN —I direct my question to the Prime Minister and it relates to the Belconnen Mall affair. Will the Prime Minister deny that in the draft sale contract forming part of the tender documents the total value of depreciable plant and equipment aggregated $4,003,327, but that surprisingly in the executed sale contract this figure rocketed to nearly $9m, thereby bestowing on the lucky purchasers a windfall tax benefit well in excess of $2m by allowing them to claim an extra $5m for depreciation? Will the Prime Minister now immediately table in this Parliament the executed sale agreement for the Belconnen Mall? Mr HAWKE —As the United States of America does on another matter which is well known, I will neither confirm nor deny something of which I have no knowledge. The particular details to which the honourable member refers in his question are not within my knowledge. Let me say two things which are relevant to his question, however. It is appropriate that I repeat again the processes that were followed in this matter. With the probable exception, I guess, of the honourable member who has asked this question, no one in this House would have any doubt as to the propriety of this matter. Nevertheless- Mr Moore —Wrong again. Mr HAWKE —All right; honourable members can identify themselves. That suits me fine. If honourable members opposite want to be identified with this fellow in this sort of approach, it suits me fine. If the honourable member for Ryan is one of them, very good. Let me say two things which are relevant. First of all, for the benefit of the honourable member for Denison, in the hope that it may finally get through his thick skull, I will repeat what the processes were. As I said to this House yesterday, the tendering process for the sale of the Mall was determined by an interdepartmental committee established for that purpose after reference to the general tendering procedures laid down by the Purchasing and Disposal Division of the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The tendering process was then supervised by the interdepartmental committee in accordance with the procedures it had laid down. The final decision on the tender was taken by Cabinet on the unanimous recommendation of the interdepartmental committee. Secondly, I will inquire as to whether, given the confidentiality which normally attaches to this matter, it can appropriately be tabled. As far as I am concerned, if within the procedures that are normally followed it is appropriate to do that, I am more than happy to do so. Mr LINDSAY —My question is directed to the Minister for Science. In view of the considerable public criticism of the Bureau of Meteorology over the monitoring of the movement of tropical cyclone Winifred, will the Minister take immediate steps to establish a tropical cyclone warning centre in Townsville? Mr BARRY JONES —I thank the honourable member for Herbert for his concerned question, which affects his electorate. While a tropical cyclone warning centre at Townsville would provide moral reassurance for people in the local area, it would make no significant contribution to improving the accuracy or time limits of cyclone warnings, particularly for areas distant from Townsville. A second warning centre in Townsville would require duplication of the specialist meteorological staff and facilities located in Brisbane. Such a centre would be more vulnerable to destruction and total or partial loss of forecasting ability and communications during a cyclone threat to Townsville. I believe that resources and effort would be better directed to improving the existing cyclone warning system-better observations, communications, and improved facilities and staffing of the Brisbane Tropical Cyclone Warning Centre. There has been criticism, for example by the honourable member for Ryan-it has been the greatest resurrection since Lazarus in his case-that this Government and the Bureau of Meteorology are insensitive to the need of people in north Queensland for accurate, timely cyclone advice. Let me reassure the honourable members for Herbert, Capricornia, Leichhardt and Kennedy and their constituents that this is not the case. Last month I opened a new meteorological observing station with weather radar at Gove in the Northern Territory. A new weather radar has been installed at Karratha in Western Australia through the co-operation and assistance of the mining companies. A new weather-watch radar is planned for Weipa in Queensland, together with the placement of the wind-finding and weather-watch radars at Cairns. Obsolete wind-finding radars at Townsville and Charleville have been replaced. A Darwin receiving station, linked to the Brisbane regional forecasting centre, has been established to receive data from the Japanese geostationary meteorological satellite covering all northern Australia. Telephone recorded announcement systems have been established at Townsville, Cairns and Rockhampton. We are doing everything possible to upgrade the cyclone weather-watch service. Mr Moore —There is still an hour and a half's delay. Mr BARRY JONES —Unlike the Fraser Government, of which the honourable member for Ryan was an ornament, which budgeted only $1m a year for re-equipping the Bureau, the Hawke Government has provided $3.5m for the Bureau's capital re-equipment program in each of the last two years. Mr GOODLUCK —May I offer my congratulations, Madam Speaker. I hope that your stay in the chair will be very fruitful. That is the reason I gave you the apple yesterday. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that most low income families derive most enjoyment from the use of the family car, even if it be the most inexpensive available? Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that his Government will reduce the price of petrol to the ordinary families of Australia, not just the farmers, who instead of benefiting from his Government's policies are paying through the nose at the petrol pump? Mr HAWKE —I accept the sincerity of the honourable member in putting his question. I just say that it is a pity that in the period in which he was a member of the previous Government he was not associated with doing much more for the ordinary families of this country and was part of a government which presided over the disintegration of prospects for so many low income families in this country. I assure him that we will be taking all these matters into account when we make our decision. I am sure that it will be a decision which will be greeted with approval by the people of Australia as a whole. Mr SCOTT —I refer the Minister for Foreign Affairs to the fact that this is the United Nations International Year of Peace. Can the Minister advise the House of Australia's program of involvement in this United Nations International Year of Peace? Mr HAYDEN —A budget of $3m has been set aside for the total programs which are associated with the International Year of Peace, which is a United Nations program, and 1986 is the International Year of Peace. In this financial year an amount in excess of $2m has been allocated in support of the promotion of the International Year of Peace. Some of that money is being provided for the production of educative materials, including a video for schools and other interested bodies. Some is being provided for works which will promote the cause of peace. For instance, the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation is conducting research into theories related to the nuclear winter, the concept that the Southern Hemisphere would be as devastated as the Northern Hemisphere in the event of a major nuclear attack because of the toxic fallout and the environmental disintegration which would take place in this part of the world as much as in the Northern Hemisphere. Some of the money is being provided for the purposes of promoting community involvement. In this financial year $500,000 has been provided for that purpose. Of that amount, $200,000 will be allocated for grants to national projects and $300,000 for State and Territory grants. A fairly wide range of community initiatives are being supported. An advisory council has been set up at the State and national level to assess applications which have been made. An amount of $200,000 has been provided by the Government to the Australia Council in 1985-86 to fund involvement in the IYP by visual and performing artists. A completely separate function has been a recently taped what I might describe as television spectacular involving the honourable member for Warringah and myself. It is a Hypotheticals program which will go to air at some time in the near future. It involves a fairly wide panel of people who are concerned about this issue and an extensive range of views are put forward. I have the uneasy feeling that members on my side of the House will applaud the performance of the honourable member for Warringah and members on the other side of the House may well applaud my performance, in which case neither he nor I will have promoted our own ambitions greatly. Nonetheless, we went about the task with great commitment. Mr IAN CAMERON —Madam Speaker, may your term in the honourable position of Speaker be a long and rosy one. I ask the Treasurer a question concerning the disastrous state of the Australian economy and in particular the trade balance. I wish to know in Australian dollar terms, exactly, what amount the Treasurer is paying Queensland Mines Ltd not to export uranium from Nabarlek in the Northern Territory, thus making our balance of payments situation that much worse. Mr KEATING —What we are seeing at the moment in the Australian economy is the substantial change and rebalancing of the economy from an almost exclusive reliance upon the primary export sector to a situation in which it resembles once again a modern, sophisticated industrial economy. The industrial wasteland which emerged from the years of coalition rule, with the absence of a wages policy, the overvaluation of the exchange rate and the erratic application of monetary policy, has done nothing other than destroy our manufacturing structure, leave us totally susceptible to imports, see the country hooked on imports through the 1970s, and now see the terms of trade declining in the primary export sector, not only-- Mr Shipton —I rise on a point of order. I refer you, Madam Speaker, to the Standing Orders, particularly chapter 11 on questions seeking information. I referred yesterday to standing orders 142 and 145. I submit to you that the Treasurer's answer to the question is not relevant. The honourable member for Maranoa asked a question about Queensland Mines Ltd and the Treasurer has not mentioned Queensland Mines Ltd once yet in his answer. I ask for your ruling. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member for Higgins that the question of relevancy is sometimes a matter of opinion. I presume that the Treasurer is getting to his answer in his own way. Mr KEATING —The honourable member for Maranoa inquired about the balance of payments and the state of the Australian economy. Opposition members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Will honourable members on the front bench on my left remain silent. They will heed the Chair. I draw their attention to standing order 303. Like the honourable member for Higgins, I have been reading the Standing Orders. Perhaps the Opposition front bench members would all like to read clause (e) of standing order 303. Mr KEATING —Not only was the Government left a disastrous fiscal inheritance by the former Government, with the economy in negative growth for the first time in 30 years, but also we were left a disastrous trade position. Indeed, the current account deficit in 1981-82, in the days of the former Treasurer, was 6 per cent of gross domestic product. The question relates to the balance of payments in the current account. What we are seeing now, by the floating of the exchange rate and the fall in the value of the Australian dollar, is the chance to put the Australian economy on its most competitive path in 20 years, to see a resurgence and renaissance in Australian secondary industry and structure and to see the Australian secondary structure again emerging as a sophisticated player in the import-export competing scene. The result will be that over time we will end up with the kind of economy that we should have always had. I might just add that the question was prefaced by comments about the `disastrous Australian economy'. The so-called `disastrous Australian economy' has now delivered nearly 5 per cent of economic growth on average for three years, has provided employment for-- Mr Ian Cameron —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I am concerned that the Treasurer does not seem to have very good hearing-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —Not only have we had three years of strong non-farm growth in the economy at 5 per cent, but we have had 9 per cent employment growth, a re-establishment of investment in industry and, of course, unemployment declining from 10 1/2 per cent to just under 8 per cent-- Mr Slipper —I have a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is obvious that the Treasurer has not heard the question because-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer heard the question; I heard the question. In his preface, the honourable member for Maranoa referred to the Australian economy. The Treasurer is being quite relevant. Mr Shipton —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: You have just ruled on the basis of the preface to the question. Had the Treasurer referred to the preface in his answer, that would have been within the meaning of relevance within the Standing Orders. It is fundamental that, for an answer to be relevant, it must go to the centrepiece or the substantial nature of the question-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has gone to both the centrepiece and the introduction. There is no point of order. Mr KEATING —I do not think I need to say more about the relative state of the Australian economy. That has been lauded by every international forecasting group, by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, by the International Monetary Fund, by the Conference Board in New York and by almost every respected international commentator. If honourable members opposite want to deny that, they are simply denying facts. Perhaps I could use this opportunity on the balance of payments question to make this point: On the question earlier about the balance of payments, in the revision of the six-monthly figures issued today by the Australian Statistician it is shown that import value increased in the six months to December and this was due heavily to investment goods. In the six months to December, despite increased retail sales the value of imported consumer goods has remained unchanged. This is true of both quarters, indicating both that the volume of consumer imports is likely to have fallen and in consequence that the depreciation of the dollar was beginning to bite. By contrast, there has been a strong increase in imported investment goods over the six months, again in both quarters. The Statistician has noted that about three-quarters of the December quarter endogenous import increase was in investment goods, and the same applied to virtually the whole of the September quarter increase. This is a reflection of the strong investment recovery that is under way, which in itself is a product of the new competitiveness of Australian industry both in Australia and overseas. In referring to the Statistician's Bulletin issued today, I note that he says that the 8 per cent fall in seasonally adjusted exogenous imports largely reflected the fall in imports of fuels; seasonally adjusted endogenous imports rose 9 per cent, with about three-quarters of this rise attributable to investment goods; and consumption goods showed little change from the previous quarter. This simply confirms what the Government has been saying about the change which is taking place in the underlying balance of payments and it damns as economically illiterate the interpretations by Opposition members about L-curves, their failure to understand the operation of the market, their denial that a 25 per cent depreciation in the exchange rate will change the balance of payments and their total failure to comprehend the fundamental and important changes that are taking place. Mr GEAR —My question also is directed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the proposal by the present Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia to legislate in that State to allow income splitting for taxation purposes. Can the Treasurer inform the House which government would bear the financial impact of this policy? What is the Government's response to it? Mr KEATING —I made it clear in the election campaign that the Leader of the Opposition in Western Australia was proposing a set of illegal arrangements for issues of policy over which he would have had no control as Premier. The whole proposal was a farce and a hoax on the Western Australian public. Mr ALDRED —My congratulations to you, Madam Speaker, on assuming your new office. My question is directed to the Special Minister of State. Can the Minister confirm that the report on fraud against the Commonwealth, commissioned following the Review of Australian Federal Police Resources, details precisely the $300m per annum that is lost through social security fraud and the fact that 1,000 new fraud cases are being perpetrated each week against the Government, which is now proposing amnesty, albeit the reduced amnesty operating from today? How does the Minister reconcile the report with recent statements made by the Minister for Social Security suggesting that social security fraud is not a serious problem? Will he table the report? Mr YOUNG —I thank the honourable member for his question. Firstly let me say that the report that I had put together in my Department came on top of an earlier report which I requisitioned from both the Australian Federal Police and my Department about police resources in Australia and which has already been made public. According to the report done mutually by those two departments, an extra 1,400 AFP people would be required to overcome all of the problems we are facing in Australia. Breaking that down, it showed-- Mr Aldred —I am talking about the report that followed. Mr YOUNG —I ask the honourable member to be quiet for a minute. He has been away for a few months. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has asked his question. Mr YOUNG —It showed that something like-- Mr Aldred —Stop avoiding the question. Mr YOUNG —What is the Opposition's tactics committee doing? The only people left unemployed in Australia must be the people on the Opposition's tactics committee. Fair dinkum. I ask honourable members whether they have even seen a Question Time like this. Mr Cadman —How are we going for relevance now? Mr YOUNG —Honourable members opposite talk about the economy, interest rates, petrol and what is going to happen and they have Boofhead asking about the Belconnen Mall. So much for the great national issues. I ask honourable members to let me finish and I will tell them what happened. Mr Aldred —Stop avoiding the question. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce will be quiet. Mr YOUNG —Bring back Andrew, for God's sake! Honourable members opposite are eventually getting back to his policies. It reminds me of the old American dance, the hokey-pokey; you put your left foot in, you take your left foot out; you put your left foot in and you shake it all about. Mr Cadman —How are we going for relevance now? Mr YOUNG —Honourable members opposite do not know which policy to follow. They do not know whether to follow the Liberal policy in Tasmania, the Liberal policy in Victoria or the Liberal policy in South Australia. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is the fifth answer that has not been relevant. The Ministers really must come back to being relevant. Madam SPEAKER —I am sure the Special Minister of State is intending to do that. Mr YOUNG —If you mob want to interject all the time we will give you a bit of curry about it. Mr Howard —Don't you start that. Mr YOUNG —If you want to bust up Question Time you can. It is your Question Time. Mr Howard —You will get a few more quorums. Mr YOUNG —I am trying to answer questions sensibly. I am not going to put up with your hocus-pocus. We can read your tactics from over here. You want to upset the Parliament because you have got nothing to ask. You bunch of boofheads. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. I now ask the Special Minister of State to answer the question. Mr YOUNG —Madam Speaker, I was answering the question and giving the details to the honourable member when honourable members opposite started interjecting. Even though they ask questions and want the information they want to abandon Question Time. Mr Howard —Get on with it. Mr YOUNG —Honourable members opposite do not seem to have any rhyme or reason to their questions. The report said that we needed an additional 1,400 members of the Australian Federal Police to overcome all the problems with which we were confronted. I looked at the report and spoke to the people who had prepared it. A number of those people required by the Australian Federal Police were required to deal with the problems of drugs in this country. Honourable members will know from the priorities tabled in this Parliament late last year that the Australian-- Mr Aldred —I am not talking about that. I am talking about fraud. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce is out of order. If he interjects again I will name him. Mr YOUNG —Honourable members will know from the priorities set by this Government that drugs are the No. 1 priority set for the Australian Police. Mr Aldred —That is not the question. Madam SPEAKER —I name the honourable member for Bruce. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the honourable member for Bruce be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 64 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 11 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D. P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E. Lee, MCharlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth, R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Martin, S. P.Cross, M. D. Mayer, H.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B.Darling, E. E. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Mountford, J. G.Duncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S.Free, R. V. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Hand, G. L. Snow, J. HHawke, R. J. L. Staples, P. R.Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C.Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E.Hollis, C. Uren, T.Howe, B. L. West, S. J.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Adermann, A. E. Howard, J. W.Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Katter, R. C.Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B.Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T.Cameron, Donald Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Ewen Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ian Millar, P. C.Carlton, J. J. Moore, J. C.Cobb, M. R. Nehl, G. B.Coleman, W. P. Peacock, A. S.Connolly, D. M. Porter, J. R.Conquest, B. J. Reith, P. K.Cowan, D. B. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fife, W. C. Sinclair, I. McC.Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N.Fisher, Peter Smith, W.Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M.Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J.Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W.Hawker, D. P. M. Watson, DavidHicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dawkins, J. S. Burr, M. A.Morris, Peter Jull, D. I. Question so resolved in the affirmative Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Bruce is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The honourable member for Bruce thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Special Minister of State to complete his answer to the question. Mr Sinclair —What are you hiding? Mr YOUNG —What am I hiding? Mr Sinclair —Yes, I would like to know. Mr YOUNG —The right honourable member for New England wants to know what I am hiding. It is said that he was at the Tamworth country and western music festival singing his latest song entitled Do They Have Cheque Books in Heaven. I did ask for a report on the question of fraud, because I was looking at the resources of the Australian Federal Police. I can tell honourable members that that inquiry disclosed what the Minister for Social Security has been saying. The big problem of fraud in this country lies not with payments from the Government but with payments to the Government. According to the people who prepared my report, over 99 per cent of people say that the fraud applies to that area of government and not to overpayments. The Federal Police do deal with all serious questions of fraud relating to overpayments. The actions that have been taken by the Minister for Social Security are commendable and have the support of every decent-thinking Australian. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members I present the Corporate Affairs Commission annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 43 of the Criminology Research Act 1971, I present the Criminology Research Council annual report for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Criminology Research Act 1971, I present the thirteenth annual report of the Australian Institute of Criminology for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 30 of the Human Rights Commission Act 1981, I present the Human Rights Commission Report No. 17 on the Passports Act 1938. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 33 of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Act 1977, I present the annual report of the Commonwealth Legal Aid Council for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 115 of the Family Law Act 1975, I present the annual report of the Family Law Council for 1984-85. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 6 (2) of the Australian Science and Technology Council Act 1978, I present the Australian Science and Technology Council's report on telecommunications research and development in Australia. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members I present the Department of Foreign Affairs annual report for 1984-85. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 16 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, I present the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority annual report for 1984-85. Mr HOWE(Batman-Minister for Social Security) —Pursuant to section 122 (1) of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, I present the annual report of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation for 1984-85. Mr JOHN BROWN(Parramatta-Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism) —For the information of honourable members I present the Australian Institute of Sport annual report for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —For the information of honourable members I present the Parliament House Construction Authority annual report for 1984-85. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Territories) —Pursuant to section 24 (3) of the National Capital Development Commission Act 1957, I present the twenty-eighth annual report and financial statements of the National Capital Development Commission for 1984-85. 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; and, to the Australian Government. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out that a comprehensive ban on all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time would be a vital first step towards: inhibiting the addition of more and more sophisticated and destabilising nuclear weapons to the world's arsenals; arresting the extension of the arms race to outer space; upholding the provisions of existing treaties and agreements. Your petitioners humbly pray that: 1. The Australian Government-(a) take new initiatives to encourage all member states of the United Nations-especially the governments of nuclear weapon states-to conclude at an early stage a treaty banning all nuclear weapon tests in all environments for all time (b) Call on all nuclear weapon states to declare an immediate moratorium on all nuclear weapon tests pending conclusion of a CTB. 2. All Federal members of Parliament and senators make strong representations to the Australian Government to act towards these goals. And your petitioners as is duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Robert Brown and Mr Tickner. 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 Cadman and Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Milton and Mr Shipton. 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 in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's ``White Paper'' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital Gains Tax Hidden Death Tax described as ``Capital Gains Tax after death'' Gift Tax Increased Company Tax Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately reject these tax proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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: 1. The Federal Labor Government's retirement income policies are piecemeal, inconsistent and make no provision to encourage people to save towards their retirement; 2. The Government's proposed assets test legislation is iniquitous and, if enacted, its effects would be discriminatory. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: 1. Scrap its proposed assets test legislation; 2. Either institute a broad inquiry into Australia's income and taxation systems or await the outcome of the Senate Standing Committee on Social Welfare's work on this matter; and, 3. Following the report of such a wide inquiry institute a retirement income policy which is fair and equitable, that encourages self-provision and which will be non-discriminatory. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. 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 video and other pornographic material; and (b) The increased tendency to highlight as 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. 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, Parliament House, Canberra, ACT 2600. The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: That we, the undersigned, are greatly concerned by, and totally opposed to, paying a licence fee to operate a marine band radio which is carried in any craft, and which may be relied upon to summon assistance in emergency situations. We wish you to rescind the Regulation under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1905, which prescribes this fee. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Federal Commonwealth Government of Australia will protect us from payment of this fee, and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. 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 they are opposed to the introduction of the Kerin Plan for the Australian Dairy industry which would destroy the livelihood of many thousands of dairy farmers. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will reject the Kerin Dairy Plan. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Downer. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we, the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: We deplore the tax threshold of $5100, as the proposal adversely affects welfare recipients and low income earners. We urge that the figure be $7500 to enable these citizens to have some chance to live with dignity. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Duncan. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petitions of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth; That the Federal Government's report recommending aged pensioners pay for prescribed drugs be not acted upon. The aged are more likely to be using prescribed drugs than others and this outrageous suggestion will only deprive the aged pensioners of money they need for living expenses. Due to any increase in cost of prescribed drugs, pensioners may not be able to have prescriptions filled. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that no action be taken by the Government on this matter and that free drugs remain available to the aged. by Mr Halverson. 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 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 citizens respectfully showeth that: According to the Senate Select Committee report 1 million sheep have died during export to the Middle East in the last 5 years. At least 2 per cent die on each voyage, in addition to the large numbers which may die as a result of particularly adverse conditions, for example 40,000 due to fire, 15,000 due to cold at Portland and 15,000 recently due to humidity near Jedda. Beyond the mortality figures, all sheep endure the stress of the voyage and the cruelty of halal slaughter (which has recently been banned in Britain). Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should accept the findings of the Senate Select Committee. In particular: 1. to phase out the live sheep export trade over 5 years and to substitute for it a refrigerated sheepmeat trade, 2. in the interim, to give the Australian Agricultural Health and Quarantine Service responsibility for the welfare of export sheep in Australia, including the power to stop abuses, 3. in the interim, to implement the Senate Select Committee's recommendations regarding the improvement of current conditions and husbandry practiced. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. 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 consistent with our Christian faith, being concerned for the natural environment and the responsible and nurturing use rather than exploitation of the earths resources ask that the Wet Tropical Rainforests of North Queensland because of their rare, ancient and irreplaceable nature be protected for the long term benefit of mankind. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray that the Parliament of Australia will: (1) Immediately nominate the region for the World Heritage List and protection under the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983. (2) Give full support to the implementations of the recommendations of the Commonwealth Working Group on Rain Forest Conservation including the full funding proposed by Mr Cohen for the program. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Keogh. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their habitats be carried out. Your petitioners also humbly pray that Commonwealth Government funds will be made available for research into the disease Chlamydia Psittaci which is killing the koala. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Ms McHugh. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth do humbly pray that the Commonwealth government: 1. uphold the principle that the seeds and cuttings of plants are a public resource and a common heritage to all and that accordingly seeds should be freely available to all, freely multipliable, able to be sold, exchanged, exported and imported by anyone who wishes. This is seen as a matter of national food security. 2. Recognise that plant breeding is a highly co-operative venture often involving private enterprise at the very last stages after basic seed collection, storage, and research has been publicly funded. 3. In view of the aforementioned paragraphs, recognise that any system giving `property' rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises is inappropriate and unjust. 4. Recognise that legislation establishing plant patenting schemes overseas has had serious adverse effects namely: (i) a slowing-down of scientific information exchange and exchanges in basic plant breeding materials, that is, germ plasm, (ii) subordination and/or curtailment of public breeding programs, (iii) farmer unrest at seed prices, (iv) monopoly control of seed production and sales has passed into the hands of giant petrochemical and drug corporations also marketing crop chemicals, (v) increased uniformity of crop varieties leading to a vulnerability to pest and disease attack. 5. Reject any proposal to legislate for any system such as the drafted Plant Variety Rights Act, which gives exclusive ownership rights over seeds to individuals, organisations or enterprises. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth objection to the Metric system and request the Government to restore the Imperial system. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully show their desire to stop the spread of Paterson's Curse. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Honourable House (the Government) act to implement the biological control of Paterson's Curse. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Porter. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the honourable members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion, 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 in Parliament assembled. The humble 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 Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable 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: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Shack. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan T.V. stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial T.V. operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has announced its intention to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, currently the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government has no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in this manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but is handing over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (ie, set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to prevent this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the electorate of Fisher respectfully showeth that: Whereas the present Government of the Commonwealth of Australia has purported to present the Title Deeds to Ayers Rock in Central Australia, in reality the joint property of the people of the Commonwealth to an Aboriginal Land Council on 26 October 1985, Whereas opinion polls and statements of representative groups, Members of Parliament and respected individuals show clearly that the Commonwealth Government had no mandate from the citizens of the Commonwealth to act in such a disgraceful manner, Whereas the present Government claims to be totally opposed to apartheid (separate development) in South Africa but purported to hand over Ayers Rock to an Aboriginal Council in support of a policy of apartheid (separate development) which has been shown to be detrimental to the Aboriginal people of Australia, Whereas it is pursuing this policy making it a crime for most white and many Aboriginals to enter, without permit, large areas of the Commonwealth designated apartheid (i.e., set aside for separate development), contrary to our democratic traditions and experience of freedom of movement for citizens of all racial origins within Australia, Whereas Australian citizens have no present means available to them to prevent this violation of their natural rights to unfettered common ownership of, and access to, a treasured natural asset. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Seek means available for the protection of the people's interests to reverse this outrage and preserve the democratic traditions of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of ABC listeners and viewers showeth that the autonomy and non-commercial independent broadcasting services of the ABC is in jeopardy because the ABC is currently having to bear additional costs involved in the AUSSAT satellite operation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that: 1. The Government restores $20 million to the ABC's budget for 1985-86 to ensure that the services the ABC provides the Australian public are maintained and improved, particularly in terms of educational and rural programs, and that ABC staff are not needlessly retrenched. 2. The Government will not introduce corporate sponsorship or any form of advertising into the ABC since this would destroy the independence and autonomy of the ABC. The non-commercial independent broadcasting service provided by the ABC is fundamental to Australian democracy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hand. Petition 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 furthermore 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 Hurford. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in the assembled parliament. The humble petition of concerned members of the Swinburne Student Union in the electorate of Kooyong, respectfully pray: That the levying of Overseas Student Charge for all Overseas students is a form of academic fees and should be abolished; That the quota system for overseas students be abolished to increase the rate of participation and equality of opportunity in education for all people. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Peacock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: We, the undersigned, citizens of the City of Tamworth, and surrounding region in the State of New South Wales, hereby humbly pray that the Federal Government release that part of the premises known as the `Peel Barracks', Cnr Peel and Darling Streets, Tamworth as would be sufficient to allow the citizens of Tamworth and the surrounding region to establish a Community Centre incorporating an Army Museum and an activities co-operative. We, the undersigned, hereby humbly pray that the Federal Government views such a release as a Bicentenary Gift to the people of the said region. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sinclair. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limit 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 ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right of Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundament requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade union. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Fisher respectfully showeth: That we deplore the discriminatory tax proposals as outlined in the Government's `White Paper' and the Government's preferred option on proposed new and widened tax proposals as so outlined, namely: Capital gains tax, Hidden death tax described as `capital gains tax after death', Gift tax, Increased company tax, Employer taxes on employees' employment benefits. All such taxes will discriminate against and inhibit progress, growth and employment throughout the nation. They will attack hardworking people who have built up their assets; they will discourage thrift; they will inhibit development; they will treat unfairly all who plan for the future; they will cause trouble and expense in arriving at the value of their assets; they will discourage industry and punish achievement. We ask that the tax proposals be rejected. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government 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 Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of 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 remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. Petitions received. Madam SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government's discrimination against rural Australians and its failure to adopt policies to reduce the crippling impact of the financial crisis facing farmers. 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 HUNT(Gwydir)(3.03) —The cost-price squeeze facing farmers in rural communities has intensified into a major crisis since this Government came to office in March 1983. World prices for many of our commodities have fallen. With the bulging subsidised surpluses in the European Economic Community and in the United States of America and with the prospects of a trade war, prices are likely to fall further. But that is only half of the story. The Hawke Labor Government has systematically discriminated against rural Australians. It has ripped $442m from the farmers and $648m from rural communities in general in its Budgets and mini-Budgets. The Forward Estimates indicate that the Department of Primary Industry's budget will be cut by a further 12.5 per cent in 1986-87, so Labor's axe is poised again. Needless to say, only one other department will be treated as severely, and that is the Department of Trade, at a time when our balance of trade is deteriorating month by month. The two departments which are fundamental to our export earnings, to our major export industry, agriculture, have been singled out again by the Hawke Labor Government. This Government is bankrupting Australia in an even more spectacular fashion than the Whitlam Government ever did. It is discriminating against the farmers of Australia in an even more cruel fashion than the Whitlam Government ever did. Time and again the Government's economic decisions have accelerated the transfer of resources from country Australians to other sectors when the rural sector can least afford it. Farmers and small business operators are shouldering a disproportionate burden of the monetary policy of pushing interest rates to record levels to stop the dollar falling to its real level. The banks have estimated that the Government's monetary policy is adding 6 to 7 per cent to interest rates, forcing them up in some instances to 23 per cent to maintain the dollar above its real level. The Government boasts that it has freed up the financial system. Nothing could be further from the truth. This dirty float is protecting Labor's accord with the Australian Council of Trade Unions. The farm and small business sectors are footing a huge share of the bill. Yet the exchange rate has now fallen to its lowest trade weighted level ever, in spite of the monetary policy protection given the accord. It is an unmitigated disaster. World fuel prices have fallen and consumers in every Western country except Australia are receiving the full benefits of the fall in those prices. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) refuses to tell this Parliament whether he will abide by import parity pricing now that the change favours the consumers-the biggest per capita users, of course, being the farmers and the fishing industry. I warn the Government that if it does not return the full benefit of the fuel price drop to them it will incite a rural revolt. The tax reform package of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has torn at the heart of rural land values and rural and small business incomes. The ultimate madness of these actions is that all Australians will suffer in the years to come. How can Australians repay a foreign debt which has more than doubled in two years-it is probably close to $80 billion, with interest payments the third largest item in the Federal Budget-if our major export industries are bled dry? This Government is destroying the ability of this nation to repay those debts. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics, the Government's advisory body, has been warning the Government and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) of what is happening to the country regions: The Bureau, at its recent Outlook Conference, gave a further grim warning to the Government. While the ACTU is demanding a retrospective wage rise across the board, average farm incomes this year will slide to 18 per cent of the average wage. Wheat and other crop growers will suffer a minus 10 per cent average real rate of return to their capital. The real rate of return to farm capital generally is estimated at minus 6.2 per cent. Mr Hawker —How much? Mr HUNT —Minus 6.2 per cent. The Minister, in defending the Government's damaging monetary, wages, fiscal and tax policies, suggests that average figures do not paint a true picture of the rural crisis. The Government has tried to blame world commodity prices. It seeks to ignore the domestic costs. Now it has removed the departmental head. It is outrageous that the Government has made the Secretary of the Department of Primary Industry, Mr Duthie, a scapegoat for the failure of Labor's rural policy. The Prime Minister barely disguised his attack on one of Australia's most senior and highly respected public servants by stating that this change would mean greater efficiency. The Government must stop making scapegoats. If any- one is to blame it is the Minister, who has failed to kick a goal for the farmers of Australia. I return to the most outrageous action the Government has yet taken in deferring a decision on a full flow-on of the benefits from falling world oil prices. Farmers and fuel users begrudgingly accepted the import parity pricing policy because of the explosion in world oil prices in the 1970s. Yet today the import parity price is $US28 a barrel while the actual spot prices have crashed to as low as $US15. In Europe a fortnight ago some were predicting a fuel price drop of between $10 and $15 a barrel. Since November the retail price of fuel in West Germany, for example, has come down by 10c a litre. How can the farmers of this nation compete with farmers whose exports are subsidised, with fuel prices that are reflecting a fall in world oil prices and yet the flow-on has not occurred in this country? Today the Government's rural members of parliament have stated, according to the media, that there should be no special consideration for farmers even though a full flow-on of the fuel price cut is unlikely. May the people of the rural areas of Australia not forget this Government because it has let them down. Our farmers are amongst the hardest hit fuel users in the Western world. The Prime Minister is on public record as having said that some fuel price cut can be expected-we were told about 3c a litre in a leaked report last night. The denial of the full benefit to farmers will come as a cruel blow on top of all the other discriminatory actions of the Government. Wheat growers using an average of 24,000 litres of fuel a year would save $1,680 in a year from a 7c a litre price cut, a saving of $1,680 when their average income this year will be minus $3,700. Struggling sugar growers would reduce their average income loss of $13,000 by $1,100, but they are not likely to receive the benefit of the flow-on. The Government has provoked an unprecedented anger amongst farmers, anger that could lead to serious civil disorder. Honourable members should not underestimate it. The Western Australian election result has forced the Minister to prepare a policy review paper for Cabinet later this month. The Opposition calls for positive and urgent measures to restore the resources that have been ripped away from farmers. It is outrageous that the Minister is running around inferring that there needs to be a shake-out of farmers as a solution. The truth of the matter is that with the quarantining of farm losses and with a capital gains tax hardly a farm in my district that has been put up for sale has been sold. The government has locked the people in to their difficulties. There are ways and means of this Government coming to the aid of the farm sector of Australia. I believe that the Government should acknowledge the advice that it has received from the Director of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Dr Stoeckel, who has been bold enough to go public on a range of measures that should be implemented to try to overcome these problems. I will quote from Nigel Austin's article in the Bulletin of last week. He stated: The blueprint encompasses savings to the rural sector of hundreds of millions of dollars. Included are savings on fuel-$140m annually; a reasonable reduction in tariffs-$150m; savings in transport and handling-$150m initially; and bounties on chemicals-$20m. They are realistic proposals, but it is extraordinary that the Director of the BAE is giving up and having to go public to get his message across. Dr Stoeckel stresses the critical importance of adjustment taking place at a proper speed. How on earth can it take place with a quarantining of farm losses that we expect to see in operation with a capital gains tax? The Government's economic and anti-farm policies are threatening the family farm and the vital export industries and, in the long run, the standards of living of all Australians. Honourable members should not forget it. Throughout last year I warned the Government of the need for a series of actions to avert a national crisis. I submit a 14-point plan which the Government could implement to avert a serious disaster: Pass on immediately the full benefits of the lower oil prices to the community, including embattled farm, fishing and timber industries; the abolition of fuel price indexation; the removal of sales taxes on fuel and lubricants used on farms and fisheries; the restoration of a more equitable fuel freight equalisation scheme, which the Government has gutted; scrap the Government's quarantine farm losses proposal and the capital gains and fringe benefits taxes on the farm sector; back off the 3 per cent productivity superannuation deal which neither the farmers nor small business will tolerate. If ever there was proof that the centralised wage system is inequitable, this general productivity proposal is proof. The Government could also implement greater flexibility on wages policy to take account of industry and capacity to pay; change the economic strategy to ease interest rates; implement a clean float of the Australian dollar and not the dirty float that we have got at present; an immediate injection of substantial additional funds for debt adjustment carry-on purposes and reconstruction; the replacement of tariffs on agricultural chemicals, farm machinery and parts with bounties; the abolition of export inspection charges which this Government has increased by 200 per cent to produce the steady predictable cuts for tariff protection and the restoration of the tax benefits of the income equalisation deposits scheme which the Government has gutted in its first year of office. How can the honourable member for Calare (Mr Simmons) sit there in comfort knowing that that was done? On the subject of trade, the Government should launch a major assault on world markets and, in particular, lead the fight in the new round of talks on the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to have agriculture brought under the rules of GATT. The Government's response to the fall in world fuel prices will test the real attitude of this Government. Unless there is an immediate change of approach our farm industries will suffer on a scale not seen since the 1930s depression. This year Australia's relatively few farm businesses, about 170,000 in all, will set in train a production cycle worth $15.5 billion to the Australian community. It is an income of great significance to Australians, but the farmers will receive only a 7 per cent share. I do not think it is understood by the Australian people generally how important agricultural exports are to this nation. A total of 70 per cent of its products are exported overseas and very few imports are required to produce them. The viability of the farm sector remains of vital importance to all Australians. If the Government lets them down it will let all Australians down. Farmers are simply asking the Government to get off their backs. They simply ask for what has been taken away and to ease the burden of government imposts at a time of difficult overseas marketing conditions. Mark my words, Mr Minister: Watch out, if you do not do the right thing by them. Mr McVeigh —Why do they hate farmers? Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(3.18) —Mr Deputy Speaker- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Before the Minister begins, let me say that if the honourable member for Maranoa interjects again he will be warned. Mr Ian Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. I must say I am a bit struck dumb by the fact that I have hardly uttered a word since I have been in here. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Maranoa shall not test the Chair. That is not a point of order. If he does that again he will be named as well. Mr McVeigh —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. For your guidance, it was I who committed that mortal sin. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Groom may be willing to confess to another sin. However, I saw the honourable member for Maranoa interjecting. Mr McVeigh —With respect, I interjected. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —If the honourable member for Groom also wishes to confess, I will warn him at a later date as well. Mr KERIN —I thank the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) for the moderation in his comments. This is far too serious a debate to trivialise it with point scoring at a political level. It is a pity some of his back bench also did not take this debate as seriously as he obviously did. Before I answer the points raised by the honourable member in his speech, point by point, I would simply like to take him on, first of all, in terms of what he alleges is the discrimination against rural Australians. Mr Hodgman —It is true. You hate farmers; you hate Tasmanians. Mr KERIN —This Government does not discriminate against any Australian. The thrust of our activities is and will remain to govern fairly for all Australians. Mr Hodgman —Disgraceful! Mr KERIN —We do not have the word `hate' in our vocabulary like you do, you fool. We acknowledge the seriousness of the farm debt servicing situation in some industries, and I will expand on those facts later. We acknowledge also the adverse effect this is having on the morale of country towns and businesses. I have been at pains to say that it does not help for me to run around like a chook with its head cut off, screaming: `It's a crisis, it's a crisis'. I, above all people, have to reflect the true position, which is a balanced one. Simple-minded simple solutions might make everyone feel good and get nice articles in the newspaper, but they do not work. I must give away thoughts of simple fixes because there are none except those that will make the situation worse in the long term. The simple solutions were those so beloved of the National Party and previous governments; those that are in part responsible for the state of agriculture today. This Government has acknowledged for months the seriousness of the situation in some areas. There is undoubtedly a severe problem facing a number of rural industries and producers. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has quoted some of the figures from the recent National Agricultural Outlook Conference. Those figures come out every three months. The real net value of rural production is projected to fall by 24 per cent in 1985-86, due mainly to projections with respect to the revenue from wheat and the effect of the United States Farm Act as it comes into place. That will cause problems for many individuals, but it does not apply to all farmers. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that some 7 per cent of farmers will be at risk in financial terms in 1985-86 and the risk measure is for farmers who have lass than 70 per cent equity in their property and are also faced with negative farm income. This figure is up from 5 per cent about a year earlier. While this represents a large number of individuals-some 12,000 farms-it by no means indicates a massive crisis across the entire sector. The reason for this is that conditions are diverse and across the sector and within industries in the whole sector. Farm cash operating surpluses are forecast to increase to 10 per cent in beef in 1985-86, in contrast to the overall fall. There is a wide distribution of debt across the sector. Twenty-eight per cent of farmers have no debt and a further 18 per cent have less than $20,000 debt. These people are net lenders to the rest of the community and if they have their funds free they will actually benefit, for example, from higher interest rates. On the other hand, 12 per cent of farmers have debt levels exceeding $150,000. There is a crisis, but it is only for a number of people; it is not a crisis for the sector as a whole. We have to develop policies that are sensitive, as well as some policies right across the sector. Far from discriminating against farmers, the Government has adopted positive policies. It reduced the inflation rate of farm costs from 11 per cent in 1982-83 to a forecast 7 per cent this year. If the previous Government's 11 per cent inflation rate had continued for the past three years, farm income this year would be $1.1 billion lower than is currently forecast, or about 33 per cent. We floated the currency, resulting in a depreciation of the trade weighted exchange rate by some 25 per cent in the last year. If the previous Government's overvalued exchange rate-the previous Government deliberately followed a policy of overvaluation of the exchange rate-had continued, farmers would be some $2 billion, or well over 50 per cent, worse off. We reformed the statutory marketing authorities to improve marketing. As a result the Australian Wheat Board, for example, is achieving record sales and record shipments. In terms of the flexibility we have given it to raise money overseas on international markets, the reforms we have put in place have saved tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for the industry already. The Opposition does not like to talk about world markets. We do not use those as an excuse. The Opposition does not like to talk about them because it would expose the Opposition's weaknesses. The fact is that the decline in world commodity prices in 1985-86 explains over 90 per cent of the decline in farm incomes. We have reformed research and soil conservation arrangements. We took specific cost reducing measures in last year's Budget in the areas of tariffs on inputs and fuel prices, and through other portfolios, such as Industry, Technology and Commerce, and Transport, we have acted to reverse the previous Government's high protection policies and blithe acceptance of cost imposing inefficiencies. I have indicated previously that I will be bringing a further submission to Cabinet on future measures to bring further gains in these areas. My Department and I started last November to develop this package of policy options. This package will be before Cabinet in a couple of weeks. We have been approached by farmers and rural people, as is obvious-it is in the newspapers daily. I had the Canowindra Seven to see me yesterday and I will see the Livestock and Grain Producers Association this afternoon. There is no way that anyone can really say that the Government does not understand or is heartless or unfeeling towards the rural sector. Understanding is one thing; finding the right solutions is quite another. We must protect those in the greatest need now without stopping necessary structural change in some of the farm industry. We must ensure the future of the industry but without allowing the farm sector now to bear more than its due share of the pain of adjustment. When I speak like this I will be accused of not appreciating the psychological stress on those farm men and women and their families who are in dire straits, or the trauma being experienced by families. I appreciate it-I have seen it, I hear about it daily. The Government cares. All industries in the turmoil of change throw up victims. I know this, but I will not be diverted from the proper course, the balance between short term assistance and long term development. We have been developing a range of policy responses since before Christmas. Cabinet will consider them and all Australians, not just rural people, will benefit when we take balanced and long term policy decisions. No Australians will benefit from the wrong responses; the sorts of responses apparently sought by the lunatic fringe in agro-politics, the sensationalism of parts of the media and those who would politicise our present problems. It does no credit to people in the agro-political organisations when they one day want $5 billion and an immediate end to secondary industry protection, three or four days later they send down a bill for $3.6 billion and an unspecific accord; then, I am told, a week or two later they have another list of demands on the way. I must say also that demands and threats that the farmers will stop all our exports and bring the economy to its knees do not do much for the thinking farmers, nor do the thinking farmers back that. It took 25 years for the previous governments to get the Australian economy into the mess we inherited in 1983. We now have an economy that is growing faster than any other in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and we have created 600,000 jobs in less than three years. That is of benefit to the farm sector because the domestic market is the best market for many of our agricultural industries. It took 25 years for previous governments, dominated by their Country Party farmer members, to give us the hotch-potch, knee-jerk reactions which they trumped up as being agricultural policy. In the time available to me I will comment on some of the charges of the honourable member for Gwydir. I emphasise that we understand the present situation. We will not react in an ad hoc way or take on board simple-minded simple solutions; we will take correct political decisions. We sympathise with those being squeezed. We have taken significant initiatives and we have additional policy responses in train. We will not overreact or take the wrong decisions. The honourable member for Gwydir in his opening remarks acknowledged the world price situation and said that there will be a 12.6 per cent-do not hold me to the figure-cut in the forward estimates of the Department of Primary Industry. Part of the reason for that is that in the last Budget we paid to the wheat growers $100m, which was their money. Then it became a book item. If we deduct that $100m, as we must, from the forward estimates, they will show an increase. Other assistance comes within the areas of other Ministers' portfolios. We do not know yet what the full bill will be for the recent decisions on di-ammonium phosphate and mono-ammonium phosphate fertilisers but the amount will appear under Senator Button's portfolio. So it is very difficult to measure total assistance to the agricultural sector just by looking at the estimates of the Department of Primary Industry. In my speech to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics Outlook Conference, I said that it is very important for us to have some understanding of the realities if we are to find the real solution. We hear a lot of nonsense and see a lot of confusion about some of the key macro-economic variables that the Government has to deal with in managing the economy. At the end of the day the number of demands coming from the rural sector can be reduced to two. There is either the big subsidy or compensation argument, or there is the argument that we have to direct the whole Australian economy-our total production and total economy-in such a way as meets exclusively the basic interests of the primary industry sector. There are all sorts of variations to that. People are saying in terms of the second collection of policy options that we should scrap the accord-that is wipe out the incomes policy that has delivered such beneficial results to this economy-that we should not continue to bear down on tax avoidance, that we should not move towards needs based social welfare systems, that we should not have consistent industrial policies in place and that we should not continue with Medicare. In other words, they are saying that we should go back to the old overall approach to the economy. The Government clearly rejects that proposition because it believes that we must continue to have domestic growth in the economy. We cannot do anything in a country such as ours unless we get the people back to work. We have to direct our policy approaches to each and every sector. I would like to turn to the whole confusion about the relationship between interest rates and the exchange rate. The policy concerned with the present level of interest rates is not directed so much at holding up the exchange rate as it is to tempering the rate of domestic growth in the economy which is higher than we expected and, more importantly, to squeezing down on imports. Those who would say that the interest rates have to be deliberately brought down-that is, by an expansion of money supply-really have to answer one question. That question is: Why is it that when the exchange rate eases up interest rates ease down? I am not saying that the policy is incontrovertible, that it will never be changed. However, that relationship between interest rates and the exchange rate is of crucial importance to the rural sector. It seems a nonsense to try to misrepresent that relationship. The accord is not a disaster, as people are saying. The accord has given us an 11 per cent drop in real unit labour costs in this country since 1983. Opposition members interjecting- Mr KERIN —It is true. Of course, part of that drop is the result of some flow-on from the wage freeze. If one looks at any data on the growth of real wages in this country one can see the occasions on which wages were indexed and non-indexed. It is interesting to note that under the previous Government, wages were non- indexed for two years. In those years-1980-81 and 1981-82-real wages rose by nearly 4 per cent and by over 4 per cent. In 1983-84 during the accord, real wages, taking into account some of the effects of the wage freeze, dropped by 4 per cent. In the next year they rose by less than 2 per cent. In the present year they will rise by something less than one per cent in real terms. That is why we have a drop in real unit labour costs in this country of some 11 per cent. That is why we have another 600,000 jobs and that is why profitability is being restored to this economy. In time, investment will flow from private business and that, too, will stimulate the economy to the benefit of the farmers. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr FIFE(Hume)(3.35) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to the elevated position you now hold. Despite what the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) has just said, the Government has discriminated against rural Australians in a very cruel and vicious way. It has removed incentives to produce. By its own decisions it has added to the cost of farm production thus further reducing the viability of Australian farmers. It has taken decisions that make it more difficult for those who choose or need to leave the land to sell their farms. It has caused extreme anguish and torment to countless numbers of farmers and their families who are facing economic ruin. In my view, the Government has acted with malice and has failed dismally to adopt new policies to reduce the impact of the financial crisis facing Australian farmers. The Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), has detailed on behalf of the Opposition many of the sins and omissions of the Australian Labor Party regarding its handling of the rural crisis. If he had had more time he would have provided the House with more alarming information. My colleague listed a 14-point plan of action that the Government should follow immediately to ease the economic burdens of farmers. They are all responsible proposals. Most can be implemented quickly and this positive action by the Government would restore a little of the confidence of farmers and people who live in the country. For 18 months, the Opposition and farm organisations have been drawing the Government's attention to the parlous state of Australian agriculture-even to the extent of holding massive demonstrations in Canberra and elsewhere in Australia. Throughout all of this period the Minister for Primary Industry has been insisting that farmers were merely `caught in the downturn of a cycle and would recover'. At last he has conceded that there are real and fundamental problems and that the rural families of Australia are facing a financial crisis. However, we have still seen no proposals to meet the situation. Today he said that there is a crisis for some. He said that according to the Bureau of Agricultural Economics 7 per cent will be at risk, that is, up to 5 per cent more than last year. He said that 12 per cent have debts of over $150,000. Is the Government going to wait until that 7 per cent becomes 14 per cent and the 12 per cent becomes 24 per cent? He said that he and his Government care. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put it to you and to the House that the proof and the extent of the Government's caring will be shown by what it does in relation to fuel pricing. Far from developing crisis management measures to assist farmers, the Labor Cabinet has been among the most significant causes of the present crisis. The Labor Party has a philosophical and psychological hang-up about farmers. It does not like them as a group. It would like them all to become peasant farmers. This attitude, of course, is not new. As well as once telling farmers that they never had it so good, former Prime Minister Whitlam once said that people live in cities and peasants live in the country. After the Second World War, the New South Wales Labor Government's closer settlement policy was to design farming blocks as small as possible. The result of this disastrous and mean policy is part of today's rural economic problems. Many of these blocks were barely a living area at the time and are now, of course, far too small. On election to government, the Whitlam and, indeed, the Hawke administrations, moved with indecent haste to cancel programs developed by Liberal and National party governments to assist farmers. To add insult to injury, late last year during the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights the Government rejected an Opposition amendment which was designed to protect the rights of people who had freehold land. After all that, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) says to farmers, their wives and their families: `Trust me'. The men and women who work in the country areas of Australia do not trust this Government and cannot understand why the Labor Party treats them with contempt. What is referred to as the rural crisis is now of great national concern. Not only are farmers affected, but the crisis is now also seriously affecting country businesses and people who are employed in these undertakings. In time the large cities will feel the impact as the industry that is responsible for about 40 per cent of our overseas earnings is flattened by Hawke Government policies and low world commodity prices. In the country the demonstration of concern is taking on a new dimension. Next Tuesday morning a public meeting of women will be held in Junee, in the Hume electorate, to determine ways and means of getting positive action from the Government. Not all in attendance will be farmers' wives; there will be women from all sections of the community. One of the organisers of the meeting, Mrs Margaret Alston, told me this morning that the meeting is being called out of frustration and anger. She said that some families are in a desperate financial position and they are not going to go down without a fight and without the support of the wider community. Farm costs have been pushed up by record high interest rates. During last year interest rates rose to their highest real levels since the Great Depression over 50 years ago. Current interest rates of 20 per cent or more are sending farmers and small businesses broke. When the Labor Government floated the Australian dollar the Opposition welcomed the decision. As shadow Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) said: The dollar float imposes a new discipline on the Government. The Government can no longer `fudge' the exchange rate in order to protect it from the consequences of inappropriate and irresponsible domestic fiscal monetary and wages policies. The Leader of the Opposition was right on target. The Government trumpeted the float and said it was content to see the Australian dollar find its own level. When the dollar went down because the market lost confidence in the Government's economic policies, the Government panicked and tightened the money supply, forcing up interest rates to a record high level. The Prime Minister is all over the place on the issue. A week or two ago he said that he thought US72c or US75c was the appropriate level for the Australian dollar. Today, he qualified that statement. At present it is about US68c and at an all-time record low when measured against the Japanese yen and the German mark. On 24 January on the Mike Carlton program on 2GB the Prime Minister said: The conditions for a downward movement in interest rates has emerged. The weakening of the Australian dollar since the Prime Minister's US72c to US75c valuation has made the likelihood of any sustained fall in interest rates as remote as ever. The Prime Minister has been caught out again and it is bad news for farmers, home borrowers and small business. This demonstrates clearly that the Government has lost control of the situation. The failure to pass on the benefits of falling world fuel prices represents yet another broken promise on the part of the Government and higher than necessary fuel costs for Australian users. For farmers it is another slug, an unnecessary input cost, and a further indication of the Government's mean attitude towards people who live and work in country areas. The Deputy Leader of the National Party (Mr Hunt) pointed out very clearly that wheat growers using an average of 24,000 litres of fuel a year would save $1,680 in a full year from a 7c a litre price cut. For those farmers who have no alternative, or judge that they should leave the land, the task is now more difficult because of the decisions of this Government. The Labor Government's discriminatory tax package, with a capital gains tax, quarantining of farm losses, and a fringe benefits tax, makes farms far less attractive for people with capital to invest who would otherwise be interested in purchasing farming property. The Treasurer's answer to the question asked today by my colleague the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) concerning extensions of family partnerships that own property is further evidence of the Government's intention to widen the capital gains tax net on a `gently gently catchee monkey' basis. Not only has the Government let down the industry upon which this nation was founded and which is responsible for about 40 per cent of our overseas earnings, it is also delivering a severe blow to individuals and families who live in country areas- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CUNNINGHAM(McMillan)(4.46) —The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) and the honourable member for Hume (Mr Fife) today have attempted to paint a picture of discrimination. Right now we are watching their colleagues leave the House in the middle of this debate. They are not interested, of course, in the rural sector and in seeing the debate through. They are not interested in listening to members on this side of the House, who now hold 22 out of the 41 rural seats. We represent more seats in the country than do Opposition members at any time. We also have the ear of the country and we are listening very carefully to what it has to say. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) in his speech in this House today clearly outlines the Government's concern. We are concerned with the problems being faced by the rural sector because of the downturn in many of the world markets. We are also concerned to see that discrimination-the word those opposite used in the matter of public importance today-is eliminated. I put it to members of the Opposition that they should have a good think about just where they stand on this, which farmers and which rural people they purport to represent. For many years their policies have discriminated, putting farmer against farmer, rural person against rural person. How many of the farmers whom those opposite say they represent have been able to take advantage of some of the Opposition's own tax evasion measures, which went to the Pitt Street and Collins Street farmers so that they could transfer some of their income across to losses on farms for which they paid inflated prices. Such prices are way out of reach of the ordinary farmer and have created enormous problems for young people who have attempted to get on to the land. Those opposite should go out to their electorates and talk to the farmers who are in diabolical trouble. They are in trouble for one reason-they have a low equity and a high debt on their properties. They have a high debt because they paid excessive capital prices for farms, attempting to buy properties in competition with people who were coming out of the cities and using the land for taxation evasion purposes. Those people who will be out the front tomorrow, those people who attempted to demonstrate in my electorate last week, have one thing in common. They have lost confidence in the members of parliament who claim to represent them. They have lost confidence in the farming organisation which they put in place to speak on their behalf. I take the House back to 12 months ago when the Minister for Primary Industry attempted to assist an Australia-wide industry with proposals to deregulate the dairying industry and put it on an economic footing. Who opposed that in this House? Who opposed it in the Senate? It was the National Party of Australia, and the Liberal Party of Australia had to go along with it. The cockies' friends opposed the Minister's proposals. They put on a big demonstration in Warragul in Victoria when the Minister for Primary Industry went there to explain the proposals. What have the Victorian farmers done now? They have told their National Party leaders: `Pull your heads in. We will have a special conference and vote on whether we want the Kerin plan'. They did that and they sent a message back to John Kerin and the Labor Government saying that they do want that deregulation process, they do want this legislation put through. Those opposite are out of touch with the constituency they claim to represent, and that is one of the real problems of the dairying industry and other rural industries. (Quorum formed) Members of the Opposition have taken up some of our time in which to put the case on behalf of the rural people, but I will continue on this line of discrimination. For the benefit of honourable members I wish to relay a couple of cases that have come to me and in which, quite clearly, there has been some discrimination. We have attempted to change the discriminatory practices which were put in place by some conservatives. I had a visit from two groups of people who were involved with one property in my electorate. One was a genuine farmer who had 100 acres. He was leasing 200 acres of land next door to him from the State Electricity Commission. He had an economic unit. He was paying $20 an acre rent for that land. Those fine market forces about which honourable members opposite talk about were in operation. Two investors came in. They were able to get a tax reduction which would be paid back at the end of the financial year. What did they do? They did their figures. Their accountant advised them that they could pay $30 an acre rent for that land because they had the benefit of this tax lurk. Those people made a bid to the SEC and took over the 200 acres. They put the genuine farmer out of business. They made him unviable and, in the finish, he had to walk off. The investors then stepped forward. They want the taxpayer to subsidise their tax cut to push up the price of land. Which farmer is the Opposition defending-the genuine one or the tax evader? Two groups are involved. I think it is time that honourable members on the other side of the House decided which members of the farming community are genuine and whom they really want to support. We on this side understand. We know that if we put the economy into the proper perspective we will get the economy going again. The group which will be outside this Parliament tomorrow has given a message not only to the Government but also to the Opposition and the Opposition's organisations. Let me inform the House of a few of the things that we have put into operation. On this side of the House we hold 22 out of the 41 rural seats. We have the vote in the bush. Last December the Primary Industry and Rural and Provincial Affairs Committee set to work and, with the support of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), we established a task force which is going around Australia. We are not going around talking big publicity and big demonstrations. We are getting the message from the Australian people. Mr Ian Cameron —It has taken you a long time. Mr CUNNINGHAM —It has not taken us a long time. We are working quietly and efficiently. The people of this nation know that we are doing that. We hold 22 out of 41 rural seats. After the next election we will hold 30 seats, including Maranoa. Perhaps that is extending it a little further than is possible in one go. Even if the honourable member for Maranoa produces flowers all the time he will eventually lose popularity, especially if he continues in the way he is going at present. We on this side of the House are genuine. Our Minister is possibly well named when it is said that he is the Bob Hawke of the bush. The organisations out there listen to him. If one looks at yesterday's newspaper one sees that the President of the Country Women's Association talked to the Prime Minister. That association was quite happy to deal with the Labor Government. This is the new attitude in rural Australia today. Honourable members opposite can stop talking down the economy. They can stop talking down the rural sector. We will talk it up. We will work darned hard to lift it up. At the next election not only will we hold 22 rural seats but we will not be able to fit them in on this side of the House, because the economy will be on an even keel. We will do to the Opposition what happened to the Liberal Party in Western Australia. It will be rejected. It will continue to be rejected if it carries on with its stupid policies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The discussion is concluded. Motion (by Mr Hayden) proposed: That the House take note of the statement relating to foreign policy made in the House by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 26 November 1985. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(3.56) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) made the statement in November last year, shortly before the House rose. Straight after he made the statement I took the opportunity to reply at length on the failures of this Government's foreign policy. It is not my intention today to go over that same ground. Regrettably though, nothing that has happened in the three months since November has indicated that anything has changed from the criticisms that the Opposition made only a few months ago. The Government's foreign policy continues to be marked by the same weakness and factional compromise. It continues to be marked by a lack of any broad vision of the values that underpin Australian foreign policy and by a spurious even-handedness which makes no distinction-did someone say `good'-between countries whose interests and values are complementary or similar to ours and countries whose policies conflict sharply with our interests. It continues to be marked by an inability to stand by our friends or to understand the role we ought be playing. It is a foreign policy of neglect and increasing isolation. It is an abject, self-serving, faction motivated, puerile foreign policy. The Government continues to take absolutely no action over ANZUS. Our most basic defence treaty remains in some form of legal and operational limbo. The fact remains that Labor has made no attempt to try to mediate, to work for a solution to the crisis, and has done nothing to try to dissuade the New Zealand Government from proceeding with its anti-nuclear legislation. To see how hollow the words and how irresolute the actions of the Hawke Government have been one only has to listen to the New Zealand Prime Minister himself. It is David Lange who has acknowledged that Australia would be `considerably aggrieved' by what has happened. It is David Lange who said that `the Australians have been absolutely consistent; they have not been intermediaries' and Australia has been `conspicuous in not advocating any position'. Mr Campbell —Very proper. Mr PEACOCK —The honourable member says: `Very proper'. This is my country's and his country's most basic defence treaty. It is unravelling and he thinks it is proper to do nothing. Nothing typifies the more abject lack of interest about our fundamental treaty than that form of interjection. No wonder David Lange was moved to respond, when asked whether Australia was an honest broker: `I was going to say that it was neither honest nor broker'. So much for the honourable member's interjection. We are not talking about some scrap of paper here. We are talking about the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policies for 30 years. The fact is that we still do not know the Australian Government's position on the New Zealand legislation. We still do not know the Australian Government's position on the proposal by the United States of America for a review of the pact should New Zealand proceed with the legislation. We still do not know the Australian Government's view of any proposal to suspend New Zealand from the ANZUS Treaty. The reason why this Government is determined to muddy the waters, to confuse and to obfuscate over ANZUS is patently clear. It has put the successful management of Labor Party factional concerns ahead of the successful management of the national interest. It is time the Government came clean and clarified the legal and operational status of the Treaty. At the end of this debate I hope the Foreign Minister takes the opportunity to answer these questions. What we do not want is his usual nonsense accusing us of bashing the New Zealand Government. We are not bashing the New Zealand Government. I find its policy repugnant, but I am not bashing it. What the coalition is talking about is commonsense diplomacy where we put Australia's interests first, not the Australian Labor Party's or the New Zealand Labour Party's. While talking about commonsense diplomacy, I also hope that the Foreign Minister can assure us that the Government has not been stabbing New Zealand in the back. The Foreign Minister has yet to make any comment at all on the statements following the recent visit by the United States congressional delegation led by Mr Stratton. Perhaps the Foreign Minister can tell us what Mr Stratton meant when he said: On the basis of conversation with leaders in Australia it might be possible to suspend New Zealand's membership in the (ANZUS) Pact. The Government might tell other people one thing in private, but it has not told the Australian people; and it is their treaty, their basic cornerstone of defence, which has unravelled before our eyes. The Government might say one thing to visiting United States congressmen, but this Parliament and the public are entitled to know. We have heard nothing. The Defence Minister (Mr Beazley) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have been hiding behind spokesmen and the Foreign Minister is saying nothing. The reality is that this Government does not want ANZUS debated in this country because it knows that its record will not stand examination. It has allowed our basic treaty to unravel and it has not lifted one finger to stop it. As this matter moves on to its finality in New Zealand, when that legislation passes no amount of arguing will stop this three-country treaty from having one leg of it knocked from under it. No amount of arguing that this was simply a matter between the United States and New Zealand will wash with the Australian people. This was our treaty as much as anybody else's and no country in the world had a greater capacity to exert some leverage or some purchase on the situation as it unravelled than Australia. But leftist pressures and the fears of those who are not in the Left of that pressure ensured that we did nothing. A decision not to do something ought to be as well thought out as a decision to do something. It was not thought out in this case, it was mere fear of the factions. Let me now look at another critical issue facing Australia, namely, the Philippines. Here again the Government's record is one of inaction. We should not fool ourselves about the importance of a stable Philippines-that speaks for itself-and the consequences for our security of the possibility of an eventual communist takeover. It is still too early to comment on the results of the Philippines election and how Australia should respond. One thing, though, is very clear, and that is that we will have to make crucial judgments about this election. Yet once again we had inaction from the Australian Government. It refused to send any official observers to see what would happen. It ignored a bipartisan call-Labor, Liberal and National Party-from the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence of this Parliament to send observers and it ignored repeated calls from the Opposition to do the same thing. It is patent nonsense to suggest, as the Minister has done, that the presence of observers was susceptible to allegations of unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of the Philippines. The Philippines Government and official Opposition both made it clear that observers were welcome. Formal invitations were not being issued; but, if one were sufficiently concerned to go, one would have sought an invitation and gone. That is the normal thing in international diplomacy. If a country wants to participate, its ambassador or a member of the mission advises that government and an invitation is sent. It happened with others. I was able to send Senator Hill, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to participate in an observer team. There was an official team of congressmen from the United States who went on the President's behalf. It was made clear that those who wanted to go and observe could do so. But, oh no, we did not want any part of it again. What will happen? Only this morning the Foreign Minister was being asked to comment on the elections themselves. Correctly, at this stage, he says that we will have to wait. But whose advice will he rely on? He cannot rely on his own government-appointed advisers who went there; he will have to rely on others. They may be sane, sage men and women. But why did we not have our own observers other than Senator Hill? He is a significant figure in the Opposition ranks, but why did we not have the Government's own appointed persons there to give it the advice over and above what the mission may report? The Government will have to make determinations on the nature of those elections; yet it refuses to have any part of it because it means that it can work out a deal within the Labor Party, its factions and members of the Left who would like to see significant changes in the security relationships between our country and the Philippines. Once again the Government has abstained from any activity. The coalition is very concerned that what has happened in the Philippines is the worst possible outcome. Equally though, we do not believe that we can walk away from that country. Geography alone rules out such an option. Security considerations compel a continuing interest. Let us also take a look quickly at the other main recent issues, where again the pattern is all too predictable. International terrorism has now become one of the greatest threats to the fabric of democratic societies. It is an attack on the rule of law and on the basis of civilisation. Australia cannot take refuge in silence or inaction. Yet this is what this Government has done again. It refuses to take any sort of lead in confronting terrorism. In the Achille Lauro incident the Acting Prime Minister was forced to make a humiliating backdown from his indications of support for United States actions. Instead, at the urgings of the Foreign Minister, he said that he simply `understood the matter'. More recently, when it came to confronting Libya, the Government again opted out. The Government must be under no illusions about Libya's use of terrorism as an instrument of state policy; yet it continues to be prepared to sit back and do nothing. In yet another area the Government's continuing failings have come to the fore. The propaganda exercises are to the fore on the question of disarmament to placate groups in, and on the fringes of, the Labor Party. The Foreign Minister's various efforts at appeasing the peace movement could succeed in creating a Frankenstein for his Party's National Conference in Hobart later this year, and to hell with the national interest. Just work out the deals for the Party. Already this year, Australia has adopted a spurious even handedness in Geneva. We have been President of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, which ignores our position in the western alliance and the historical reality of the Soviet military build-up. After almost a year the Government is still refusing to respond formally to the Weinberger invitation to participate in strategic defence initiative research. On top of all this-the unravelling of ANZUS and all those factors that I have mentioned-this week we have had Senator Gareth Evans's renewal of the Foreign Minister's threat to close down North West Cape were it to develop a first strike capability. I do not comprehend the Government. Its basic treaty is falling apart; yet its closest ally, the United States, is being called into question by the Foreign Minister reiterating through his representative in the Senate that the Government may close the bases down if it determines that the United States is developing a first strike capability. This does just not add up. The coalition reiterates its belief that disarmament policies must be based on consistency and credibility, and that one cannot negotiate on disarmament questions from a position of weakness. It is because deterrence must be preserved in a viable form that we support the necessary decisions to technologically upgrade, and we support research with the strategic defence initiative. Finally, we have had the Foreign Minister's refusal to involve himself in the ban on South African Rotary students by the New South Wales Government-a ban which is bigoted; a ban which is ignorant. Is there anything more abject than that? It is justified on the basis that it contributes to the Government's foreign policy and is analogous with the Government's policy on sporting sanctions on South Africa. The Foreign Minister should have told the New South Wales Government that this was completely wrong, that the Rotarian students did not come to Australia as representatives of South Africa, but came as representatives of the ideals and aspirations of Rotary International. These children are the victims of the intolerance and bigotry of a New South Wales Labor Government. The decision will do nothing to increase the pressure on South Africa for reform. To the contrary, such a decision is likely to be counter-productive. It is no business of the State Government to interfere in the conduct of foreign policy. What has happened since my reply to the Minister's statement in November has been a continuation of all the same themes, weaknesses and inconsistencies of the previous three years. The reality is that what we are seeing is nothing less than a major transformation of Australia's foreign and defence policies. There is nothing dramatic about the way this is being done except in relation to ANZUS. Rather it is almost like a campaign of attrition. It is a brick by brick demolition of Australia's traditional role in the world. The Government ought to be condemned for its inaction, its weakness, its inconsistency and its endangering of Australia's security-particularly over ANZUS. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(4.11) —Before I move on to the few remarks which I am going to make during this short 15 minutes I would like to say that once again the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), has come into this House and spoken about ANZUS as he did when he initially replied to the statement of the Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden) last year. Although the honourable member has had about one hour's worth of reply, at no stage during this debate or at any other time in this House has he said what he would do. We might be able to drag a horse to water but we cannot make him drink. This Government has done a lot in the course of the ANZUS ruckus. However, actually changing New Zealand's policy is for the New Zealand Government as a sovereign state to do. What would the honourable member opposite do to change that? He has not offered one solution in the hours he has been on his feet in this Parliament. I would like to concentrate my remarks today on the Pacific and South Pacific region. The Pacific is a very complex and very exciting region. Mr Ewen Cameron —Mr Deputy Speaker, I think the honourable member needs an audience; so I call your attention to the state of the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Indi will recall that I warned the honourable member for Groom about prefacing his points of order. Mr Ewen Cameron —I am sorry. I did not hear it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. (Quorum formed) Mr CHARLES —I will revert to the subject of ANZUS seeing that honourable members opposite do not want to hear about solutions. They are inept. As I have said, in the hours which they and their spokesman on foreign affairs have had, they have been unable to put any solutions forward. This Government has consistently and continually put forward its policy in regard to ANZUS. It does not back away from the fact that it disagrees with the New Zealand policy. It has spoken on that on many occasions. The situation is that New Zealand, being a sovereign state, makes it own decisions. I hope that it will now and forever continue in that course. It so happens that on this occasion we disagree with its policy. We would hope that the three members of ANZUS are able to get together to find a successful solution to the problems that exist now. As I have said to my American friends, in some respects some of the problems have come about because at the initial stage when New Zealand came forward with its policy the United States jumped in, I believe, a little too quickly and forcefully. The United States is now backing away to try to let the waters calm down. I think the United States might have helped the situation a little more if it had done that initially. The ANZUS problem would not be any better today if, heaven help us, we had had a conservative government. Look at the botch-ups we had from one end of the world to the other during the 30 years of coalition government. Let us look at the South Pacific nuclear free zone. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was introduced to the South Pacific Forum by this Government. It was held in high regard and has been passed by the South Pacific Forum recently. Nearly all members of that Forum have signed that Treaty. It is a step forward. It puts the situation in the Pacific today into concrete form. It ensures, among other things, that there is no nuclear testing or dumping of waste in the Pacific. Mr Ian Cameron —Talk to your socialist friends about that. Mr CHARLES —If the honourable member wants to come forward and say that he agrees with the dumping of nuclear waste and the testing of nuclear bombs and missiles in the Pacific that is fine. I ask him to put that to the people of Australia. I assure the honourable member that members on this side of the House do not agree with him; nor do the majority of states in the Pacific. In fact, Vanuatu, which has not signed the Treaty, has not signed it because it is not strong enough. Mr Ian Cameron —It is French, socialist. Mr CHARLES —For the information of the honourable member, Vanuatu is an independent country which these days the French Government has nothing to do with. However, I am sure the honourable member will catch up. Like other honourable members opposite he is a few years behind what is happening. I come back to the South Pacific. I think an important thing that has happened in the Parliament is that the Joint Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee has decided, as its next reference, to inquire into Australia and the South Pacific. I will have the honour of being chairman of that inquiry. We have sent several hundred letters already. Mr Peacock —We are all holding our breath. Mr CHARLES —I hope the honourable member is able to participate in the inquiry. I will give him plenty of flexibility and latitude to participate in that. Several hundred letters already have been sent to every part and nation of the Pacific and throughout Australia asking for submissions. The incredible interest that has already been shown in this inquiry which has not yet even officially started augurs well for its success. As I mentioned earlier, the Pacific is a complex region which not many people understand. It is an area of different personalities, different cultures and traditions and different ways of life. Some Pacific states face inherent economic problems as they march towards the twenty-first century. In regard to personalities, the changing face of the Pacific was emphasised recently by the election of Mr Paias Wingti as Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea. Mr Wingti, university educated and a man only in his mid-thirties, has the potential to be a force in Papua New Guinea and Pacific politics for a long time. I was fortunate enough to meet the Papua New Guinea Foreign Minister, Mr Vagi, on his recent trip to Australia. Like the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea he was born in the post-war period and looks upon life and the role that his country will play in the world today a little differently from some of his predecessors. Papua New Guinea is changing rapidly, with the advent into government of the younger generation of well-educated people. Various cultural groupings in the Pacific, such as the Melanesians and Polynesians, also have great influence on day to day occurrences in the Pacific. There is a unity amongst some of the people of the region that crosses international borders. Their heritage and traditions go back a very long way into history. The July edition of the Pacific Islands Monthly in its editorial stated: Newcomers to the Pacific have frequently made the error of assuming that just because island people are friendly, smiling and hospitable, that their affairs tend to be uncomplicated and serene. Nothing could be further from the truth. The editorial went on further: No Australian or New Zealand politician has anything like the complexities of floor-crossing, no-confidence votes, clan-allegiances, tribal enmities and racial sensitivities, with which an Island leader must deal virtually every day. That sums up quite succinctly the position in most parts of the Pacific. Unfortunately, the intricacies and various power plays in the Pacific are not understood by many. Further, having spoken to a number of United States Congressmen and others in positions of political importance, both on a recent trip to the United States of America and here in Australia, I am a little surprised at the lack of knowledge of Pacific matters of many of our American friends and at their lack of understanding of why certain decisions are made and how they are arrived at. However, I am sure that they are not alone. It would also be fair to say, notwithstanding what I have just said, that there are a number of people in positions of influence in the United States, both within and outside the Congress and the Administration, who are making a concerted effort to learn and understand more about the Pacific region and its people. Excluding Australia and New Zealand, the biggest state in the Pacific and one of Australia's closest allies is Fiji. Since independence Fiji has had a fine record of management and stability under its Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. However, with the introduction into the Fijian political arena of another new political force observers will be watching carefully to see that this very important country does not have a period of political instability because of any new political developments. However, if I were to predict the future, which is a hard game in the political world, I believe that Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara will be at the helm for some time to come. With regard to New Caledonia, hopefully it is moving towards a peaceful and true independence. In contrast with previous French governments, the Government of President Mitterrand has made a genuine move towards independence for New Caledonia. While this move should have been made much earlier and different policies should have been instituted by earlier administrations, we cannot change the past. We must look at the position in New Caledonia today. I congratulate President Mitterrand on his constructive moves towards independence for the territory. That process must continue, and independence must be achieved within the next few years. If there is a change of government in France and that new government halts this process, it will move New Caledonia down one path and one path only-the path of bloody revolution. That will occur as sure as I am standing here today. Independence is inevitable and, therefore, a peaceful and true independence incorporating all the different groups within the territory is essential. I wish the French President and his people all the best in their moves to bring to the territory of New Caledonia the solution of which I have spoken. Another issue I wish to touch on is the important issue of tuna fishing. There has been a lot of discussion about tuna fishing, a lot of unrest because of the tuna fishing policies of the America tuna fishing association and the Americans' attitude in general to tuna fishing and their belief that they are able to fish wherever they want to and whenever they want to. In recent times, we have seen moves towards a solution. Various meetings and conferences have been held between all the interested parties-the Americans and the Pacific states, and I believe that Australia has been represented. Another recent meeting in Hawaii just a few weeks ago brought the possibility of a solution a little closer. However, that is still some time away. Whilst I believe the American Administration wishes to find a solution acceptable to all the island states as quickly as possible, there are other forces such as the Van kamp and Star-Kist corporations behind the scenes that do not want an early solution to the tuna fishing problem in the Pacific. Failure to find a solution would be a political disaster not just for the island states but for the United States and the Western alliance in general. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has already signed a tuna fishing agreement with Kiribati. Unless a good, acceptable solution is found for the benefit of the island states, not just for one tuna fishing association in the United States, there will not be peace in this important area in the near future. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(4.26) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in the statement we are debating and in many other statements, has perfected a technique of balancing the factional pressures on him by saying one thing but moving in the opposite direction. He does not really speak English, or if he does it is a sort of dialect of English; he speaks in Haydenese. He probably has little choice. He is the Foreign Minister in a Labor government which has to satisfy its various factions with their conflicting foreign policy programs. But at least we should see clearly what he is doing, or what he is trying to do. For example, he says in typical Haydenese that his Government supports the ANZUS Treaty and that it disagrees with the New Zealand Government. Of course, he will do absolutely nothing about it, and pleads with the United States Administration to pretend that nothing serious has happened to ANZUS. I quote from his statement: I do not intend to review the course of events in the United States-New Zealand relations over the past 18 months- One could say in passing that of course he does not want to do that; it would open up too many issues. He goes on: I do wish to make some points about the ramifications of these events . . . The Australian Government recognises the serious implications for the United States and New Zealand of their disagreement. There was no reference to any serious implications for Australia. The Minister continues: 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. Apparently, the only suggestion of any influence on New Zealand is one of force, which of course is not in issue. The statement goes on: It trivialises a serious matter. It ignores the fact that New Zealand is a sovereign nation-- no one has ever challenged that-- proud and independent, whose prompt response at any attempt to use this bully-boy tactic-- that is how the Minister describes any attempts to influence another country-- would prove how mindless and counter-productive it was. What has happened is that one of the three countries who joined in the Treaty-a treaty which is Australia's most fundamental treaty and was solemnly adopted by the parliaments of the three countries-has withdrawn from it, has damaged the Treaty, has withdrawn from any serious commitment to the Western alliance, and it has espoused a sort of isolationism to the cheers of Moscow. It has done this under the pressure of the Moscow-leaning left wing of New Zealand Labour. The United States has to decide what its policy towards the New Zealand Government should now be. As I have said, the Foreign Minister has done nothing to influence the New Zealand Government. To do so, he says, would be to be a bully boy, it would be primitive and stupid. In other words, any attempt to influence the New Zealand Government has been ruled out in advance on those ridiculous grounds. The Minister not only does not attempt to influence the New Zealand Government, to draw New Zealand's attention to the full ramifications of its actions, but also goes on, speaking as a South Pacific expert, to ask the United States to do nothing. `Cool it', he says, adopting the pose of a statesman; `If we do nothing, if we pretend nothing has happened, it will all come good in the end'. Of course, the Minister has to do this because the left wing of his Party is delighted with the New Zealand Government's decision and has sent it messages of congratulations and encouragement. In fact, it would like the Australian Government to adopt the same posture. If the Foreign Minister were as serious about ANZUS as he says he is and tried to influence the New Zealand Government-not by adopting bully-boy tactics which are not in question, but by drawing New Zealand's attention to the full implications of what it has done-and if he also tried to influence the United States in the same direction, he would enrage his own left wing, and he dares not do that. That is why there is no real government sponsored ANZUS debate in Australia in light of this crisis. The Foreign Minister is terrified of the idea of a debate. All members of his Party will adopt this view: `Cool it. Put our heads in the sand like ostriches and it will all go away. We can pretend to be statesmen and dress it up in Haydenese'. I hope the United States Government rejects the Foreign Minister's advice. That advice-to pretend that nothing has happened and to do nothing about it except to exclude New Zealand from naval exercises-if adopted, would have disastrous consequences. If we hope that in due course the New Zealand voters will see the folly of their Government's actions and vote it out, the certain way to ensure that that will not happen is to pretend that New Zealand's withdrawal from ANZUS has made no difference, that the ANZUS Treaty, which incorporates New Zealand in its title, remains untouched and that New Zealand's defences are basically unaffected. The only way to influence New Zealand voters so that they will in due course throw out their present Government is to make it plain that the New Zealand Government has abrogated ANZUS and that the only sensible course of action is for Australia and the United States to enter into bilateral negotiations for a new treaty. Further, if the United States now accepts our Foreign Minister's advice and does nothing about New Zealand's abrogation of the Treaty, this will obviously be noted by other governments around the world which are under pressure from their anti-American Left and they, too, will soon adopt the New Zealand path on the grounds that the United States will not take any action in this regard. Ultimately the Western alliance will be far more seriously damaged than it has been by this irresponsible New Zealand measure. But we cannot discuss this in government terms because it is presented in Haydenese, which says one thing and moves in the other direction. Mr Peacock —A bit like Hawkespeak. Mr COLEMAN —A bit like Hawkespeak, yes. Another example of Haydenese is seen in his remarks about the Middle East. The Foreign Minister in his statement expresses his `profound concern' about `the bitter turbulence engulfing Israel, Lebanon and the other nations'. It is, of course, a matter of profound concern. But what has the Foreign Minister done about it? He is encouraging the turbulence that he condemns or is concerned about. He does this particularly by stepping up criticism of Israel. When in opposition he was a bitter opponent, we all remember, of the then Government's decision to join the Sinai peacekeeping force. The House will remember that the Foreign Minister when in opposition called the Begin Government the greatest threat to peace in the world today. He dismissed the Sinai peacekeeping force-the Multinational Force and Observers-as dangerous to Australia, dangerous to trade and as something that should not be required except under United Nations auspices, even though there was no possibility of United Nations sponsorship because of the Soviet veto. In government he felt obliged to praise the Sinai peacekeeping force in very strong terms and then turned around and committed Australia to withdrawing it from Sinai; withdrawing it from the only peace agreement in the Middle East. More than that, on United Nations committees and on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Australia under this Foreign Minister is adding to the bitter turbulence that he deplores by supporting the most extreme and mendacious anti-Israel resolutions. For example, at the recent UNESCO conference in Bulgaria, the Australian Ambassador, Mr Gough Whitlam, voted for two odious anti-Israel resolutions moved by the Soviets and the Arabs. They were hardy perennials which had been on the agenda over the years, and they had always been voted against by Australia, but not now. One of them condemned Israel for its archaeological work in the old city of Jerusalem, presenting it as the act of barbarians, despite the fact that UNESCO had approved the work earlier on. Only after the work was completed did the UNESCO conference decide to condemn, or try to condemn, the work that it had encouraged and approved. Another resolution condemned Israel for closing a university that had become a base for Palestine Liberation Organisation terrorism. As I say, these were perennial resolutions which Australia had always opposed in the past, but not now, under this Foreign Minister. No wonder Israel feels a cold wind blowing from Australia, as Israelis put it to me last year. Australian citizens are now being targeted for execution by Middle East terrorists. Yet it has taken over 10 years, since the infamous Iraqi loans affairs, for the Australian Labor Party to expel from its ranks one of Australia's chief apologists for the terrorist states, Mr Hartley. It is worth noting that the major ground used to justify the expulsion of Mr Hartley from the ALP was not his outrageous foreign policy statements, but his disagreement with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Premier Cain on the issue of deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation. Another example of Haydenese is in relation to South Africa. Although the Foreign Minister talks of working towards a more positive and constructive relationship with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, there will be no constructive relationship with South Africa. I spent a couple of weeks in South Africa late last year. I was invited there by the South African Tourist Commission in my capacity as editor of Quadrant magazine. I spent a good deal of time talking with politicians of the Opposition party, opposition editors, officials of opposition sporting organisations, and with students and academics, black and white, as well as with what one might call ordinary South Africans. The one thing one can say about South Africa is that it is a country in which one does not have delicately to raise questions on politics. Within seconds of meeting a South African, he raises the political questions. There is an almost universal commitment to or acceptance of the need for change, for power sharing, however that may be done in an ethnically complex country. But reform, against the background of the frightful events of recent times, is the agenda. There are two things that can slow down reform. One is sanctions and disinvestment, with all the consequent hardships and destabilisation that they imply. The other is the boycotting and isolation of all reform movements, individuals and organisations in South Africa. But these are the two policies which the Foreign Minister espouses. In the true spirit of Haydenese he calls for reform but adopts policies which undermine or weaken them. I know he is not responsible for the fatuous decision of the New South Wales Minister for Education, who is banning exchange visits by South African school students-the very people we want to influence in a liberal democratic way-but that decision is a perfect example of Haydenese. There are many other examples, from the Philippines to Cambodia. He speaks of his concern for human rights in Central America, but has nothing to say about the attack on them by Sandinista pre-totalitarians in Nicaragua. In an article in this morning's Age the courageous editor of La Prensa calls for support from the outside world. He states: Solidarity with the free world is the oxygen necessary for our continued existence. The Australian Foreign Minister has never shown any inclination to supply that oxygen. Let us turn to some major and fundamental issues: The role of the USSR and its relations with the West and its allies. The Foreign Minister says, in Haydenese, that we are not neutral; we are part of the Western alliance. But when it comes to the crunch we get, at the first stage, the doctrine of moral equivalence, the idea that, balancing every evil in the USSR, there is some evil in the United States of America, so they are equivalent-a sort of Haydenese neutralism. If Russia attacks Afghanistan the Hawke Government deplores it, but it is equally quick to deplore United States intervention in Grenada, without any consideration of which action more advances democracy in the world. It says: `The USSR is an unpleasant regime, but we have to live with it'. So we get no demands, such as those that are made on South Africa, that the Soviet bloc nations adhere to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the Helsinki Accords or to the USSR's Bill of Rights, however comic it may seem that it should have one. We get no persistent call for the USSR to allow its citizens to emigrate and no persistent comment on continuing Soviet persecution of its peace movement. Six months ago, for example, Dr Brodsky was gaoled for peace activities. Last year Kiril Popov was arrested for peace activities. During the summer two 17-year-old girls were incarcerated in a mental hospital for trying to join in a demonstration with some visiting Dutch peace activists. The USSR remains a totalitarian state. There is no better word for a state which has total powers over all aspects of the life of its people. But our Government would, it seems, not dream of saying so. But when it comes to commenting on US activities, it is not so reticent. When it comes to significant decisions, it is those with an anti-American bite that are adopted, such as the decision to refuse to allow the US to use Australian airfields or ports to refuel while monitoring the flight of an inert US MX missile in 1985. The basic point about the Australian Government's policy is that it is designed not to strengthen the Western alliance, but to appease the ALP's left wing and the peace movement generally, no matter how dangerous this movement is in its constant undermining of the Western alliance and of the concept of deterrence which has kept the peace for so long. The peace movement should be exposed as a threat to peace. Its advocacy of unilateral disarmament is only encouragement to aggression. The more concessions made to it, in armaments or in morale, the weaker the Western alliance becomes, the more likely an attack on it becomes. The Government is giving encouragement to unilateral disarmament. It is doing this in the programs it is sponsoring in the International Year of Peace which will flood the country with the sorts of illusions which it is the duty of a responsible government to combat. And it is doing it in its cancellation of the PADEX defence fair in my electorate. More importantly, it is doing it in its unremitting hostility to President Reagan's strategic defence initiative which, if successful, will make nuclear war obsolete. This hostility even includes cancelling Australian research with the electromagnetic rail gun. What it would call its most positive peace achievement is the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which will have no effect on French testing-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(4.41) —The honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) has attempted to coin a new word-`Haydenese'. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) is entirely capable of defending himself and I am sure he will when he sums up this debate, but I think a more accurate use of the term `Haydenese' would be a description of witty and intelligent comment. I would also like to make one other comment on the honourable member's remarks; that is, thank God for the peace movement. Without the peace movement Reagan would not have met Gorbachev, we would not have Gorbachev's proposals and we would not have the signs of hope in the arms race that we do. The statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs covered scores of topics. I want to concentrate on just one of these, the international economic environment, and touch on one other, the arms race. There is little discussion of international economic issues in Australia apart from attention generally narrowly focused on our own trade and balance of payments. The world is increasingly economically interdependent and the state of the economies not only of North America, Japan and Western Europe, but also of the developing and communist countries, particularly in our region, have a strong influence on us. At present we are in the midst of a period of severe, chronic disorder in the global economy, illustrated most dramatically not only by the shocking famine in Sub-Saharan Africa, but also by the massive Third World debt and by the current slow growth of Western countries. For example, since 1973 economic growth rates in most Western countries have averaged about half the rates of the previous decades and there was a severe global recession in 1982 and 1983. The mutually reinforcing full employment strategies of the 1950s and 1960s gave way in the mid-1970s to beggar my neighbour deflation. One country's attempts to restrain demand in order to control inflation reduced growth of its imports, causing falls in exports from other countries. Mutually reinforcing deflation became entrenched. The effect of recent unco-ordinated attempts by single countries such as France, the United States of America and Australia to break out of slow growth using expansionary fiscal policy has led to large deficits in those countries' current account balances. The strong stimulus from the massive US Budget deficits since 1982 has assisted many countries exporting to the US, but even that stimulus had less impact last year and the US growth rate fell to 2 1/2 per cent in 1985. Several major factors are currently retarding global recovery. Major Western European countries and Japan continue to be cautious about stimulating expansion. Non-tariff barriers to trade have been increasing throughout the last decade in industrialised countries. Commodity prices are deeply depressed, in some case to the lowest level for 50 years, largely because of the slow rate of growth of demand in Western Europe. The US Budget deficit has both great benefits and costs, the principal cost being that, when linked with the pincer of the Federal Reserve's tight monetary policy, interest rates have been kept extraordinarily high. This has caused impossible and quite unsustainable problems for many developing countries. Third World debt totalled over $US700 billion in 1984. Almost half of the total interest bill of developing countries during the period 1980-82 was directly attributable to the increase in interest rates in that period over the levels of the late 1970s. The juxtaposition of unprecedentedly high interest rates with the steep drop in commodity prices has caused staggering foreign exchange losses for most developing countries. From the end of the 1970s the climate of official and private banking opinion in Western countries opposed further lending to the South and aid stagnated, so developing countries were forced to sharply contract domestic demand, to reschedule their debt or to default. Third World deflation reduced growth rates to the stage that in 1983 output in developing countries actually fell. This also transmitted deflationary impulses to the West through reduced demand for exports. For example, during 1984 total Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development exports to developing countries were $US46 billion below their 1980-81 level, resulting in a loss in Western countries of two million to three million jobs. As well, in 1983-84, $US164 billion of official and bank debt was rescheduled at the Paris Club. The South cannot service or repay its debt, because the West will not buy its exports, and Western exports to the South have fallen because the only option for developing countries is either severe deflation or default. Australia is fortunate to be located in the region with the fastest growing developing countries. Estimated growth rates in East Asia have been 5 per cent in recent years and China has grown by around 10 per cent in each of the last two years. However, each of the dynamic newly industrialising countries in East Asia experienced severe recessions in 1985-Singapore's output, for example, falling for the first time in 20 years. The stagnation of demand for their manufactured exports in the US was a powerful influence, combined with high interest rates and with depressed commodity prices. The immediate global prospects are for continuation of slow growth. The OECD predicts economic growth of about 2 1/2 per cent per annum until the middle of next year, while the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development forecasts 3 per cent growth this year for the world. Two major changes since these forecasts were made will have complex effects-the passing of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill in the US, which aims to reduce and eventually eliminate the US Budget deficit, and the collapse of world oil prices. The reduction of the US fiscal stimulus will remove the principal global engine for growth of the last two years, but the decline in oil prices will reduce inflation and lift effective demand in oil importing countries in the West and South so that in the short term the net effects are likely to be positive. These forecasts and events show that severe problems will continue unless there are new initiatives. The only immediate sign of hope is a shift in US Administration policy shown by the Treasury Secretary Baker's proposals announced at the World Bank annual meeting in Seoul for renewed lending to developing countries. Another important change is President Reagan's announcement in his State of Union address last week. He stated: We've begun co-ordinating economic and monetary policy among our major trading partners. But there is more to do, and tonight I am directing Treasury Secretary Jim Baker to determine if the nations of the world should convene to discuss the role and relationships of our currencies. It is noteworthy that Jim Baker is given the power to determine what the nations of the world should do. It is significant that after several years of support for such a conference from President Mitterrand, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers and the Economic Committee of the Socialist International the US Government is at last recognising the benefits which such a conference offers. Mr Muldoon also called for such a conference, but his unrealistic suggestions should not be allowed to discredit the idea. An essential foundation for global recovery is recovery in the West. To be fully effective this requires co-ordinated action by all Western governments. United States monetary policies should be relaxed to reduce interest rates and to allow the overvalued United States dollar to depreciate. The stimulus to demand in Japan in particular, but also in Western Europe, should be increased. The fiscal stimulus in the United States should not be allowed to dissolve. In combination, these measures would increase aggregate Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development demand, reduce interest rates and correct exchange rate imbalances by reducing the value of the United States dollar and increasing that of the yen. Opportunities for this type of co-ordinated action are already available through meetings of the Group of Seven. It might be effective if new institutional arrangements were established to make the co-ordination more effective. Faster aggregate economic growth in industrialised countries would increase the volume of exports from developing countries and perhaps also increase commodity prices, but that alone would not be enough to allow developing countries to service and repay their debts as well as to increase the per capita incomes of their peoples. A range of other immediate and medium term steps are required. These include renewing and increasing the flow of private and official credit to debtor countries; resumption of the issuing of special drawing rights; authorisation of increased World Bank and International Development Association lending; increasing overseas development assistance; allowing the write-off and restructuring of debts for the poorer and most indebted countries; and reforming the International Monetary Fund. Reform of the IMF is essential. At present it has an asymmetrical, deflationary bias because deficit countries are required to constrain domestic demand in order to correct current account imbalances, but little action is taken with surplus countries. The effectiveness of the IMF in improving exchange rate stability must be increased. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs said in his statement, factors affecting the international economic system are largely beyond the control of a country such as Australia. Nevertheless, we have some influence which could be used for encouraging reform of the international financial and trading systems. It is important that we use what influence we have effectively to achieve global economic recovery, relief of poverty, malnutrition and disease, and so sustain improvements in the living standards of peoples everywhere. An important contribution Australia can make which is entirely under our control is our own overseas aid. That is a significant addition to the resources of developing countries and is particularly important at present in the drought-stricken African countries, to the developing countries with large debts, and to all low income countries with development plans. Therefore the Minister's announcement in November that the decline in Australia's aid during the last couple of years will be stopped and `the real level of official development aid' increased in all future years is welcome. To summarise, global reflation is required in the context of planned co-operation between like-minded governments, so that the competitive beggar-my-neighbour deflation of the last decade is replaced by mutually reinforcing better-my-neighbour recovery to the mutual benefit of all nations. I want also to touch on the economic consequences of the arms race, because the profligate waste of resources on military expenditure is one of the causes of the current chronic economic problems. The world spent in the order of $US800 billion on military activity in 1984 and the rate has been increasing. The economic consequences of this military expenditure are, on balance, destructive. The principal damage is the opportunity cost of investment and consumption forgone to make way for military expenditure. A second major opportunity cost is the diversion of scarce scientific personnel into military research and development. The cost of this diversion of creative scientific talent is a permanent loss of dynamism in non-military research and development. The contrast of the United States with Japan in the imaginativeness of civilian innovation is rapidly apparent to consumers in Australia. Military expenditure also is a less effective stimulus to employment than other more labour intensive forms of public expenditure. It also tends to stimulate inflation. All these factors contribute to reducing the rate of economic growth in countries with high military expenditure. The contrast between the economic performance of Japan and, say, the United States is due to many factors, but the low level of military expenditure in Japan-less than one per cent of national income-is certainly a contributing factor. In view of these costs it is surprising that military expenditure is so high and that it is increasing. The reasons are complex and certainly include the power of the military-industrial complex's lobbying, the momentum of research and the real and/or perceived threat of aggression. Military expenditure is the symbol of political responsibility for national security. Political arguments about commitment to national security are commonly about the proportion of national income allocated to military activity rather than about the more important but complex issues of defence strategy and appropriate armaments. Reduction of military expenditure is an extremely complex task involving confidence-building between the superpowers, negotiation of effective arms control and disarmament agreements, and more rigorous and careful targeting of defence strategy. The Australian Government's strong support for disarmament is contributing to this task. For example, when I visited the United Nations General Assembly in New York in October, I was impressed with the vigour with which Australia's representatives were arguing the case for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. Increasing military expenditure is a symptom of the hostility between nations, but also adds to the threat of global Armageddon. Never before in peace time has there been such massive spending on weaponry. The availability of that weaponry increases the danger that it will be used. Therefore it is crucial that maximum pressure be put on both superpowers to reduce their military expenditure. Success with such a goal would release desperately needed funds for constructive economic and social programs. This goal is one aspect of the moral sensibility of which the Minister spoke in his statement. It is a goal which requires the support of every person concerned for peace. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(4.56) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I begin by congratulating you on your election to your high office. Mr Peacock —Did you vote for him? Mr DOWNER —No, I did not vote for him. The year 1986 has been designated the International Year of Peace and I would like to address my remarks to the Government's so-called disarmament policies, as expressed in the statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), and their relevance both to Australia's security and our goal of global peace and stability. All Australians, regardless of age and political complexion, are committed to the goal of peace. No political party or political movement is the sole custodian of peace and peace policies in this country. The Liberal Party of Australia is as much part of the peace movement as the People for Nuclear Disarmament and the Nuclear Disarmament Party and all their factions. The differences are only about the means of achieving the end-that of peace. The Opposition believes its passion for peace can be satiated only through the maintenance of an effective balance of power and deterrence. The Australian Democrats, the Nuclear Disarmament Party and their various factions and splinter groups just shut their eyes to the world and hope that its changes will have vanished when their eyes open. The Government, while professing from time to time to support the concept of peace through security, while professing to support the ANZUS alliance, the Western alliance, and I suppose the United States, in fact is schizophrenic. On the one hand it understands the strong community support for ANZUS and the policies of peace through security. On the other hand, it is anxious to win the approbation of the so-called peace groups. The Government fears the electoral consequences of the Nuclear Disarmament Party, but it is crippled by its own internal factionalism. The Government's public statements on peace and disarmament often are made in consultation with the pollsters rather than consultation with its conscience. Yet behind the rhetoric of the Government there is a clear direction to its foreign policy decisions and its peace policy. It is a government quietly shuffling towards neutrality and non-alignment, while all the time trying to hide its true intentions-intentions which lack public support-behind the veil of conservative rhetoric. This unspoken ambition of the Government needs to be understood by all Australians and needs to be rejected. The actions of the Government, not its words, reveal its underlying commitment to neutrality; only occasionally do its words actually reveal its actions. Thirteen years ago, during the famous roller-coaster years of the Whitlam Government, Mr Whitlam told the then British Prime Minister, Mr Heath, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London that his ambition was to make Australia the leader of the non-aligned movement. Such a fantastic and absurd ambition was dismissed at the time as arrogant nonsense. However, it was a guide to the Labor Party's true direction and, since 1983, that direction has resumed. One has only to look at a series of examples to show what the true direction is today of the Government's policy. The centrepiece of the Government's Pacific policy, that region so vital to Australia's security, is a South Pacific zone of peace. The Government has introduced no other serious initiative in that region. Indeed, as far as I know, the Minister for Foreign Affairs has not strayed into the Pacific beyond Papua New Guinea and New Zealand. It is a region, however, which over the years has been a peaceful and successful region through the balance of power and effective deterrence. Australia almost exclusively has been the guardian of the interest of the Western alliance in the South Pacific. There are great dangers in that region-the buildup of the Soviet Navy, the use of Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam and instability in the Philippines. Yet, the Government has in effect turned its back and promoted only the South Pacific nuclear free zone. I regard that as a very clear example of the direction of the Government's foreign policy and its shuffling towards neutrality. The approach to ANZUS and the whole issue of New Zealand and New Zealand's involvement in ANZUS, which has been well documented by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), is yet another example. On the part of the Government, it is a policy of negligence. Instead of going out to try to persuade New Zealand to support ANZUS and to support the security of the Western alliance in the region, the Government has done virtually nothing. It has been stunned into inertia by the club of the Left. We saw the same sort of approach by the Government on the MX missile issue where the Government refused to allow United States of America planes to refuel in Australia and denied beds to United States servicemen who wanted only rest and recreation in our country. The Government has also pursued this shuffling towards neutrality in the United Nations. It voted for the nuclear freeze in the United Nations contrary to the position taken by nearly all other nations in the Western alliance. It denied that there was any danger of the United States having strategic inferiority to the Soviet Union, especially in the field of intermediate range nuclear weapons which, of course, presented a very real danger to the continent of Europe, particularly Western Europe. On another occasion the Minister for Foreign Affairs made the quite alarming statement that the United States bases in Australia would have to be withdrawn unless the United States Government made positive developments in the disarmament negotiations-a statement subsequently abandoned by the Foreign Minister but a statement which, however, revealed the true attitudes of this Government towards the United States and towards the whole issue of the Western alliance. Closer to home, one can look also at the International Year of Peace program and the way that program is so far developing. There again, we can see a government which is not dramatically leaping to neutrality but a government which is shuffling in that direction. The publicly funded programs for the International Year of Peace are going to run up a bill of approximately $3m. This expenditure would appear to be designed once more to promote neutrality. In my own State of South Australia the so-called advisory council has now met and has put together a series of recommendations which have now gone to the Minister for approval. Amongst those recommendations is a proposal that taxpayers fund something described as a peace bus. The peace bus is to be manned by the People for Nuclear Disarmament-people whose whole attitude to the issue of defence, deterrence and international security is at variance with at least the rhetoric of the Government but perhaps is closer to the underlying theme of what the Government is about. Similarly, there is to be a peace officer who doubtless will be employed to promote the interests and views of peace groups. We have the very controversial issue of peace studies being established and promoted through the education system. Once more, there is the very real danger that those peace studies will be used simply to promote one point of view, the point of view again of what some people describe as the peaceniks. However, the greatest failure of all by the Government so far in its approach to the International Year of Peace has been its failure to make a case for ANZUS and its failure to make a case for the Western alliance. It is letting support in this country for the Western alliance and ANZUS die through neglect just as it did in New Zealand. Seventy per cent of Australians have been born since the Second World War. Few people in Australia now remember the world of the Cold War in the late 1940s and the 1950s. Mr Staples —What do you know about it? Mr DOWNER —Few people remember the Korean War. Few, of course, would remember the Cuban missile crisis. It is true, of course, that I have no clear memory of the Korean War or the Cold War. However, unlike some honourable members opposite who choose to interrupt, I have at least taken the time to find out something about these times. However, for one reason or another, the vast majority of people in the Australian community may not be interested in these issues and the way they have developed. Consequently, when they look at the security institutions which evolved from these events-institutions such as ANZUS and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation-they do not see those institutions as instruments of peace which is, of course, what effectively they are. There is an urgent need for the Government to go out into the Australian community as a government and explain the importance of the Western alliance, the importance of NATO and the importance of ANZUS so that the community knows that these things are not threats to its security and stability but are things that will guarantee and store up its stability and security. Unlike some of the peace groups and, I am afraid, some members of the Labor Party, we on this side of the House understand the obvious fact that nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented. Our starting point is a world with nuclear technology which must be harnessed to secure peace and prosperity, not unleashed to destroy mankind. They are the only practical options. There is no third option of a world without nuclear power and weapons. Such a situation will never exist again, desirable as some people think that may be. Unlike the Left of the Australian Labor Party, unlike some of the peace groups, we on this side of the House also understand that peaceful co-existence within our own shores demands the existence of a system of order, the rule of law, democratic institutions and so on. Internationally, peaceful co-existence also requires some sort of order. Attempts to establish order through supranational authorities such as the United Nations and the World Court have, of course, so far proved relatively ineffectual. Sadly, but realistically, the only tool available to maintain order between in particular the competing philosophies of liberal democracy, Marxism and militant Islam is deterrence. Unilateralism would destabilise the present delicate global order with potentially disastrous consequences. Effective deterrence, on the other hand, is based on a balance of power which leaves neither side or no side vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike. There is no doubt that it lead to substantial arms arsenals. Those arsenals are currently far too large and that is a cause for very great concern. However, it is not the large arsenals themselves which cause wars; it is a breakdown in international order. France and Britain, for example, co-existed between 1815 and 1914 with massive arsenals which, for most of that period, were directed towards each other. But they never fought each other in that period. Indeed, ironically, at the end of that period they ended up admittedly fighting but as allies on the same side. In other words, weapons are a symptom of tension between nations but they are not themselves a cause of that tension or a cause of war. Disarmament is a necessary process if we are to redirect some of the $800 billion that is annually spent on weapons perhaps to assist developing countries, as was suggested by the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore). However, agreement on a new order with a supranational authority may well be an impossible dream. Sadly, deterrence is the only alternative means to guarantee peace until that dream is realised. That is why ANZUS is so vastly important to Australia. That is why our isolated and vulnerable part of the world needs security ties with the United States. It is why we need the security of involvement in the Western alliance. They are the reasons those things are so vital to this country, and these are the messages that the Government should be propagating through the International Year of Peace. ANZUS and the Western alliance will secure our peace in this country; not a lot of phoney and naive policies that have been promoted by so-called peace groups and by the left wing of the Labor Party. These are the messages government-funded peace officers should be propagating through the community. These are the messages that peace studies in this country should be propagating, and these are the messages which should be persuasive in this country through this International Year of Peace. But, instead, those messages about the importance of ANZUS and the Western alliance have been ignored and the Government is surrendering our security in the interests of its policy of creeping towards neutrality. No one would deny the statements of the Foreign Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that Australia is apparently committed to ANZUS, that it is committed to the Western alliance. But when one looks at the actions of the Government, at the actual implementation of its policies over the last three years and during the period of the Whitlam Government, one can see that the true direction of the Government is towards neutrality, towards-perhaps in the years ahead-dragging Australia into something such as the non-aligned movement. That was Mr Whitlam's ambition when he was Prime Minister, an ambition which was greeted with horse laughs around the world, but an ambition which perhaps should be thought about and recognised by the community because I believe it is one of the underlying desires of this Government. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(5.11) —It is interesting to follow the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) who was taking us down the track, as some of his colleagues did previously in this debate, of reflecting on the Labor Government's commitment to ANZUS and to the Western alliance. He suggested in the closing stages of his speech that we were going down the road towards neutrality, that we had some hidden objective that was behind the thrust of the Australian Labor Party activity over a considerable period. I suppose that one of the pertinent things he said was that there are a lot of people who were not around in the days of the Second World War and Korea, and through many of the things that happened in the days of the Cold War. It would not do any harm to remind the honourable member and the House that it was the Labor Party that established the American alliance. I was a young boy in 1942 when John Curtin made that celebrated appeal, without any inhibitions, to the United States. The people on the same side of politics as the honourable member for Mayo criticised that approach to the United States by the Curtin Labor Government because in those days patriotism was determined by the British connection and not by the United States connection. John Curtin was attacked in this House by people on the coalition side who suggested that making an approach to the United States was in some way reducing our association with what was then called the British Commonwealth-and by some people the British Empire-and is now called the Commonwealth of Nations. At the end of the Second World War the Labor Government sought to bring about a Pacific pact. Initially there was a treaty between Australia and New Zealand. Then, for a considerable period, our very vigorous Minister for External Affairs, Dr H. V. Evatt, the then member for Barton, pursued with the United States the idea of a Pacific pact which would involve the United States and other Pacific countries. That Pacific pact idea was rejected by the United States-there being strong isolationist trends in the United States-and many people felt that America was going back to its pre-Second World War policies. When the American Government decided to enter into what was then described as a soft peace treaty for Japan, it became necessary for America to come to arrangements with other Pacific nations in order to ensure that they would be protected against the resurgent Japan. ANZUS arose from that situation as did the pact between the United States and the Philippines and other arrangements. In whatever policy document one looks at from the various national conferences of the Australian Labor Party from that period and since that time, one sees that the Labor Government is committed to an association with the United States and New Zealand through ANZUS. We were sceptical about the South East Asian Treaty Organisation, the Manila pact, which was designed to contain communism in South East Asia. Whilst that pact is in place, the formal organisation disappeared more than a decade ago. Through all of that period the Labor Party has not only paid lip service, but also it has struggled vigorously to make the ANZUS pact a reality. That does not mean that we should be subservient to the United States; it means that we should be an equal partner in the alliance because however close our relations are with the United States, Britain, New Zealand and other countries, we have our own point of view, we have Australian interests to protect, and we have our own perspective. So, there have been occasions when we have differed with the United States on the assessment of some particular situation, but our views have been conveyed to the United States discretely, and they have been treated with respect. It is one of those things which are obvious to those of us who have a great deal to do with both United States diplomats and visiting congressmen and serving personnel who have come to this country, or those of us who have gone to their country in recent times, that Australia's views are treated with respect, that this is very much an active alliance which means a great deal, not only to people in this country but also to people in the United States. Again, the same trend comes through from people on the other side when they talk about the recent decisions made by the New Zealand Government to reject visits by war ships which are either nuclear powered or nuclear armed. Of course it has been very clearly said by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) and by other Government spokespeople that Australia differs from New Zealand in regard to policy positions. We are asked to be the bully-boys in this situation, to interfere in the internal political processes of New Zealand and to try in some way to heavy the New Zealand Government into changing its policy. If we were-again I make it clear, as previous speakers on this side have, that the views of the Australian Government have been very clearly conveyed to the New Zealand Government over this period-to enter into internal New Zealand politics, any chance of the New Zealand Government altering its position on nuclear-armed and nuclear-powered ships would be made much more difficult because New Zealand does not see itself to be under the same threat from Asia as we have seen ourselves to be under many times in the past. New Zealand is a lot further away and, quite frankly, it has a different view towards the whole nuclear question because it is much closer to where the French are testing nuclear weapons in the Pacific. It would be quite wrong for Australia to go beyond what it has done within ordinary diplomatic circles. Our activities in the Pacific have been misrepresented by the honourable member for Mayo and others. It was suggested that on the matter of peace we are reacting only to pollsters, that we are really about neutrality and non-alignment, and that there is something shoddy about the South Pacific zone of peace concept. I was interested in what the honourable member for Mayo had to say about the buildup of the Soviet Navy in the South Pacific. I must say that I have not heard of that. I have heard of the Soviet Navy being involved in Cam Ranh Bay. I have heard of Soviet fishing vessels being involved in parts of the South Pacific, and they are not alone in that. But I have not heard of any significant buildup of the Soviet Navy in the South Pacific, and I do not believe that there is such a buildup. Our whole attitude towards the International Year of Peace has been canvassed. We have done a great deal about peace. I am proud to be a member of a Labor government which, on coming into office, normalised its relationship with the Soviet Union which was strained over the period of its intervention in Afghanistan. The Labor Party did not agree with the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. It is perfectly obvious to us, as I think it is obvious to all thinking people, that if we are going to do something about winding down the nuclear stockpiles, the basic trust of that will come from some agreement and some accommodation between the two superpowers. We have normalised our relationship with the Soviet Union and we have used our very firm and friendly relationship with the United States to endeavour to influence the superpowers back to the discussion table. We know that during the last year that has happened and it is about to happen again in Geneva. It is a very worthwhile endeavour. It is always easy to suggest that talking about peace is in some way unpatriotic or moving towards isolationism, neutrality or non-alignment. Comment has been made about $3m being devoted to activities to discuss peace initiatives in the present year, the International Year of Peace. It is suggested that some of that money is going to a peace bus, peace offices and the like and that instead government peace officers should go around, in effect, putting to the people of Australia the Government's attitude towards the ANZUS Treaty and towards our connection with the Western community of nations and the like. We would have no credibility if we did that alone. During this period, just as throughout the period of this Government, the Labor Party will be putting its strong commitment to the Western alliance and ANZUS and will be continuing our commitment to deterrence. At the same time, there is nothing wrong in encouraging discussion on peace. We are not a militarist country. We are not a neutralist country. In fact, one of the things in which the Labor Government can take great pride is the fact that we have steadily increased the amount of resources devoted to defence. We have given a lot of attention to many of the very severe problems in that area which we inherited from our predecessors. I believe that the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs was a balanced statement about the achievements of this Government since March 1983. I pay tribute to the Foreign Minister for the dedication that he has shown and the hard work that he has done throughout the world, but in particular in our region, in making personal contact with Ministers for Foreign Affairs, other politicians and prominent people in public life in order that Australia might have a more vigorous and a better informed foreign policy. Mr Bilney —All the Opposition does is criticise. Mr CROSS —That is right. Without any doubt, the honourable member for Oxley (Mr Hayden), as Minister for Foreign Affairs, has been one of the most dynamic Ministers for Foreign Affairs that we have had. I remember that during the last debate we had of this kind the Minister was criticised for spending so much time abroad. I am cognisant of the fact that the Premier of Queensland, the Honourable Sir Johannes Bjelke-Petersen, has criticised him from time-to-time for spending time overseas when he should be at home. It is funny but the Minister for Foreign Affairs has a particular function to travel overseas if he is to live in the real world. There was some comment in the previous debate about the fact that he had not gone to the Pacific as much as he should have. I note from the material that was circulated to us earlier in the week that he proposes to make a comprehensive tour of the Pacific later this year. That is typical of his previous activity. I believe that the document that was put before us last November-the speech that the Minister for Foreign Affairs made-indicates that Australia, with its traditional associations, is playing a constructive role within its own country, in our region and throughout the world. I am very proud and happy to be a supporter of a Labor Government which is playing such a constructive role. Mr SHIPTON(Higgins)(5.24) —At the outset I wish to take this opportunity, which is my first opportunity of doing so, to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your election as Speaker. That is sincere. We share electorate boundaries. We share the city of Caulfield. I think it is fair to say that notwithstanding our different approaches to politics we serve the people of Caulfield in a bipartisan way. I look forward to continuing to work with you in that regard. I noted your comments when you took this high office that you would be fair and impartial-I have confidence that you will be-and I also look forward to your future definitions of the word `relevance' as contained in the Standing Orders. Regarding the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) last year, I say at the outset that there has been some speculation as to whether the Minister wishes to continue as Minister for Foreign Affairs or whether there is to be a reshuffle and he will be transferred to a domestic portfolio. I am sure that not knowing whether the Minister who made the statement which we are debating will continue in that office does create some uncertainty in our international relations. I open my comments on the debate itself by referring to the ANZUS alliance. I commence by referring to a report by the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, which was a bipartisan report, although subject to a minority report on one aspect, tabled in this place in 1982. The report stated: The Committee would emphasise, also, that the security links between Australia and the United States spring from shared values, compatible institutions and objectives and continuing popular support within the Australian community for ANZUS and the wider Western Alliance. I think that those comments in that report sum up the importance of the relationship with the United States of America and New Zealand under that ANZUS alliance. Let us look at the words `shared values'. They mean democratic institutions, parliaments, equality and freedom before the law-values that too often in this country we take for granted. We fail to realise that so many other nations do not have those values. They are very important shared values. They mean compatible institutions, parliaments, legal systems and independent judiciaries. They are very important. That is what the Western alliance is about. Many people in this country feel that Australia is a new country. In one sense, it is. We are coming up to celebrating 200 years of European occupation at the Bicentenary. I point out that we are, I think, the sixth oldest democracy in the world. The only European countries that have a continuous democracy in the sense that we have, in the form of this Parliament, are the United Kingdom, Sweden and Switzerland. Every other constitution in Europe is newer than Australia's. I think that we should be proud of that democratic tradition and background. It is one of those shared values about which I talked. The ANZUS Treaty is central to Australia's security. It is fundamental to it. I see it as part of the total umbrella of our membership of the Western alliance. Under the ANZUS Treaty, relations, and good relations, with the United States are critical. This Government is operating at two levels. Outwardly, the Government is trying to say that all is well with the United States alliance, but underneath this all is not well. I think that the United States must be concerned, as I am, about the influence of the Left in the decision-making process of this Government. As I said, the Government is operating at two levels. On the surface it has one stance, one position. It is a government of appearances and false perceptions. It is very much a government of public relations and of trying to manipulate and manage the media. Outwardly, it is giving a pretence of support and friendship to the United States, but underneath, in its decisions, one can see that it gives in to the factionalism of the Left. I refer to the Government's decisions, or lack of decisions, on the strategic defence initiative of the United States-its failure to support the strategic modernisation program of the United States-and its withdrawal from participation in the testing of the MX missile, but I will come to that later. It would also prove my point to say that the Government should have taken an initiative with New Zealand when New Zealand took its position on the visits of United States nuclear ships and on nuclear weapons opposite the United States. Australia should have acted as a friend of both the United States and New Zealand, and mediated. Australia should have sent a signal. We should have tried to seek a solution to the difficulties between New Zealand and the United States. We have had an admission by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that ANZUS is no longer operative and we have this pretence that New Zealand's withdrawal makes no difference. That is not so. Instability is being created in the Pacific region as a result of New Zealand's actions and the failure of the Australian Government to do anything about them-failure to take an initiative and failure to mediate. This picture that I have just painted adds up to a failure by this Government to give a total commitment to the shared values which I mentioned earlier and which underpin our relations with the United States and the Western alliance. This Government fails to give a vision or to have any picture of Australia's role in that Western alliance and what it should be. As I said, the Prime Minister's admission that ANZUS is no longer operative is an admission of failure and of failure to act. The resultant vacuum which has been created and the instability which has arisen from this failure to act have led to a Soviet buildup in the Pacific and an increasing Soviet presence there. That is very dangerous indeed and I am sure that it is just what the Soviet Union wants. I quote the defence adviser to the Government, Mr Paul Dibb, who said last year: 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 . . . Mr Paul Dibb is now an adviser to the Government and what he referred to in that statement has actually happened. The Soviet Union must be laughing to see the ANZUS alliance system disrupted. That is exactly what has happened as a result of New Zealand's actions and as a result of the failure of this Government to take any initiatives or to do anything about them. I referred earlier to the MX decision of the Government in which the Prime Minister caved in and capitulated to the Left of his own Party, to the anti-United States element within it. He reneged on a commitment to the United States Government to offer refuelling facilities in, I think, New South Wales. The US Government intended to test these missiles and send planes out to monitor the tests, and we refused to let it land aircraft in Australia. We refused to allow the crews of those aircraft to have accommodation. We also have refused to endorse President Reagan's strategic modernisation program. This is a very important program because it was intended by President Reagan to counter the Soviet superiority in nuclear weapons. It was an attempt to restore the balance and to give deterrence to the United States. It also was intended as a general Western deterrence against the Soviet Union. Here we have another back-out by the Prime Minister, who failed to endorse the strategic modernisation program during a visit to the United States. In fact, he had a couple of lines endorsing the program taken out of the joint communique. This strategic modernisation program is a fundamental strategic policy of the United States. How embarrassing it is for an Australian Prime Minister at the last minute to back out of an endorsement of this important policy which is basic to Western security. The strategic defence initiative is yet another case. We failed to support that; in fact, we have not replied to United States Defense Secretary Weinberger's invitation to participate. We have failed to recognise that the Soviets have their own version of a strategic defence initiative and we have failed to give support to the United States. We have failed miserably. Is this what the Australian people want? Is this in the interests of Australia? Is it in the interests of the shared values of the Western alliance? Of course not. It is a dangerous course of action that this Government has undertaken and is embarking upon. As I said, it is outrageous and negligent that the Government has not responded to Defence Secretary Weinberger's invitation to participate, which was issued last year. If we did participate, it would give us some influence with the United States and would enable us to keep up with the latest defence technology. Also, we might benefit financially by having Australian firms participate. Recently, we have had a comment from Senator Gareth Evans that the Government would close down the North West Cape base if it thought that that had a first strike capability. This is the scene of relations with the United States, relations with Washington, at present under this Government. It is outrageous. Yet, on this very day, I believe, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is in the United States trying to negotiate with the United States Administration on the United States farm Bill. Here we have a government on the one hand taking these anti-United States actions to which I have referred and then on the other hand going to Washington cap in hand and saying `Please help the Australian farmers'. Is the Government's attitude to the United States in the interests of Australian farmers at this time of crisis? Of course it is not. We keep on criticising the United States and failing to stand up for those shared values that I have mentioned. We keep failing to support the United States in its fundamental policies, such as strategic modernisation and strategic defence initiative, on the one hand; yet, on the other, we expect the American Administration to help us when we run into difficulties with United States legislation. I give credit to the United States that it has not raised that point. That is fair enough and the United States deserves to be congratulated. In relation to the US farm Bill, I believe that it is imperative for the Australian Government to act by sending an all-party parliamentary delegation to Washington to lobby the Congress on possible changes to that Bill. If there is any possibility of Congress changing the farm Bill, individual United States congressmen and senators must be aware of Australia's interests. One important way of doing that is to send a parliamentary delegation. In the matter of foreign affairs, relations between parliaments-in this case between the United States Congress and the Australian Parliament-are very important. The previous speaker mentioned that there had been a number of visits by United States delegations. I think there have been three visits by separate United States delegations to Australia in the last few weeks, but there have been none from here to the United States. It is very important that Australian parliamentarians should go to the United States, to Capitol Hill, to lobby and to put the Australian point of view. The fact that United States senators and congressmen had little understanding of the United States farm Bill's impact on Australia when it was debated shows a real need for closer links between this Parliament and the United States Congress. It also shows how inadequate this Government's efforts have been in promoting Australia's interests on Capitol Hill. The fact that the Trade Minister is now trying to minimise the effects of that Bill on our primary industry is evidence of the Government's failure to take proper action and to make proper representations at the time that Bill was being debated in the United States. It is very important that Australian parliamentarians should go to Washington on behalf of Australian farmers to put their point of view. I refer now to the situation in the Philippines. It is in the interests of both Australia and the region that we have a stable government in the Philippines. It is too early to predict the outcome of the election. Events there must be of concern. I criticise the Government for its failure to send an observer team to the Philippines elections. That was negligent of the Foreign Minister. It was very dangerous. I believe that the Joint Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence-a distinguished committee of both Houses of this Parliament-could well have sent an observer team. It wanted to do so, but the Government refused to make funds available. I also wish to refer to the attack by the Foreign Minister on the Government of the Philippines in November last year. I think that the Minister was being very dangerous. He embarked on a dangerous course of action because as a result of that-this received little publicity-the Marcos Government has ensured that the Royal Australian Air Force will be denied access to Clark Field, which is the big United States air base in the Philippines. That is very dangerous. I understand that the RAAF does not use Clark Field very often at this stage, but the implications are enormous because there is one other United States base facility-the Subic Bay naval base-which is very important to the Australian Navy for refuelling and for taking part in joint exercises. It is very important that we have access to that as part of our activities in this region. I believe that the statement by the Foreign Minister has jeopardised Australia's relations with the Philippines. If the Marcos Government continues in office in the Philippines, we are prejudiced. Currently we are denied the use of Clark Field and we are placing at risk the ability of the Australian Navy to use the Subic Bay facility-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Before I call the next speaker, I wish to thank the honourable member for Higgins for the comments he made. We have worked closely together, in harmony and friendship, and I am sure that we will continue to do so. Just to throw one more stone into the pool on relevancy, let me say that the honourable member might cast his mind back to several times in the House when we have had a very narrow debate on a Bill on dried fruit or wheat and honourable members have been able to persuade the Chair that, although they are talking about bluefin tuna fishing or sugar cane, they are in fact being relevant to the Bill. It is a matter of opinion. Mr BILNEY(Kingston)(5.40) —Madam Speaker, as this is the first occasion on which I have spoken since your election, might I add my congratulations to the many you have received. I think we have seen already that you are a woman not only of charm but of steel. I believe you will handle the deliberations of this House wonderfully well for a long time to come. In addressing my remarks to the statement we are debating, might I also congratulate the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on what I believe is a very wide-ranging and sensitive exposition of Australian interests and foreign policy which shows a genuine understanding of the complexity and delicacy of relationships in a disordered world, and a genuine understanding of Australian interests and the concerns of the Australian people and how those interests and concerns might be advanced and protected in that world. The statement also is a record of genuine progress in giving effect and expression to those concerns of Australians. Apropos of some remarks made earlier in this debate, the statement is written in English, which is a welcome change from some of the turgid monstrosities one has seen put down in the past passing for statements of Australian policy. In all, I believe the statement repays reading, and I believe the Minister is to be congratulated on it. There are certain issues on which I would like to concentrate. The first of those is not one I would have chosen initially to address, but since every Opposition speaker has alluded to it in a kind of crude and insensitive way I thought I should at least begin by talking of ANZUS. Their problem with the ANZUS Treaty is that the coalition parties have regarded it for so long as their private property that it is difficult for them to come to terms with the fact that the stewardship of ANZUS is now in the very best of hands. I noticed that one of the speakers on the Opposition side, the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman), spoke of the attitude of the Australian Government to the difficulties with New Zealand as being, in his words, to `cool it'. For my part, I believe that is a very reasonable approach at this stage. There is nothing the Opposition would like better than to exacerbate and provoke a conflict within this important relationship, to its detriment and to the detriment of all those peoples who depend on it. The use by the honourable member for Wentworth of that phrase `cool it' reminded me of a letter I received just yesterday. It is a copy of a letter sent by a bipartisan group of United States senators to the President of the United States and to the Prime Minister of New Zealand. The signatories to that letter are Democratic senators David Boren of Oklahoma, John Glenn of Ohio, Albert Gore of Tennessee and Sam Nunn of Georgia and Republican senators Warren Rudman of New Hampshire and John Warner-the former husband of Elizabeth Taylor-of Virginia. They addressed themselves to this very problem of relations with New Zealand arising out of New Zealand's policy towards the visits of nuclear warships. They ended by saying: While trying to resolve the dispute, ``as they say in the vernacular, `let's cool it for a while,' and pull back from the precipice. Let's try again to find a way out,'' I might add that the letter is addressed not to the Prime Minister of Australia but to the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of New Zealand. It is perfectly clear that Australia disagrees with the New Zealand policy. It says so in those words, in the statement we are debating. We disagree with the policy New Zealand is following. That is not to say that we believe the best way to resolve the problem is to provoke the kind of confrontation which members of the Liberal Party would wish us to do and which they were very good at in their time in government. One has only to remember Vietnam to see how much they felt that a punch-up was the best way of resolving situations which are much better resolved by quiet diplomacy. If that amounts to benign neglect then I add that greater statesmen even than my good friend the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) have followed policies of benign neglect to the ultimate benefit of the situation they were handling. It is not widely remembered that the first government in this part of the world to ban visits by nuclear-powered vessels was the Australian Government. I refer to the Liberal Government led by Billy McMahon, which in 1971 banned visits by nuclear-powered vessels. It did so for reasons which I think many Australians would have understood at the time. There was not an adequate safety regime, for one thing, and there was not an adequate compensation regime for another. Nevertheless, that ban stayed in effect for, I would say, about four years. It did not lead to the end of the ANZUS alliance and it was amicably resolved. This attempt to blow up the current difficulties within the ANZUS relationship into some kind of major crisis is one which the Government rejects, which I reject, and which I believe will be capably handled by the approach which the United States senators from both sides of politics have urged on the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, namely, to cool it and try to find a solution. I believe that solution will be found. I turn now to some other questions of great importance which are addressed in the Minister's statement. The first of those concerns Australia's relationship with the Association of South East Asian Nations. That relationship, I notice, has not been mentioned by any honourable member opposite but it is a cornerstone of this Government's approach to affairs in our region, and, indeed, more widely. It is a matter of some pride to me that that relationship was first formalised by a previous Labor Government when Mr Whitlam, as Foreign Minister, instituted a system of consultations with the states of ASEAN and with ASEAN as an entity, and that relationship has continued and grown stronger since. We need to remember that the ASEAN region is one of great economic vitality and one where great progress is being made. It is a region which will continue to surround us, whether we like it or not, from now to the end of time. It is important to get it right with ASEAN. Within Australia there is widespread and justified concern at the situation which now unfortunately obtains in the Philippines. I personally have a great deal of sympathy with the Filipino people. I spent three years there, indeed, I was married while in the Philippines. I share that great sympathy which there is in the Australian community with the poverty and misery of many of the Filipino people, with the denials of human rights and the abuses of ordinary people by various groups in the Philippines-which are well documented, I might add, by the Amnesty group. The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong, accused the Government of inaction in relation to the Philippines. That is a charge I reject. Only last year the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence set up an inquiry into ASEAN, and I am privileged to be chairman of that inquiry. We have received a large number of submissions from people in the Australian community, from a wide variety of groups and individuals, including the substantial Filipino community in Australia, which numbers over 20,000 people. The Committee will be conducting hearings in capital cities over the course of the next couple of months at which ordinary Australians and concerned people generally can express their views. I might add that that is an indication of the fact that as a government we are not scared to expose our policies to widespread discussion in Australia. We are not scared to listen and we are not scared to consult, nor are we scared to stand up for certain values in our dealings with other countries. I think it is clear that those values are expressed very well in the statement by the Foreign Minister when he mentions his concern at the deteriorating situation in the Philippines. He said that there was dissatisfaction with the political and economic record of the Marcos Government, that there were human rights abuses by some organs of the Government and extensive economic injustice resulting from its inaction with regard to the privileges and the political powers of its wealthy oligarchic patrons. One cannot be clearer than that. We would be wise to recognise that the situation in the Philippines has led to great problems and that in many ways the result of the recent election, or perhaps the non-result, could lead to the worst of all possible worlds. There have been widespread allegations of fraud and intimidation of voters at the stealing of the election, as it has been termed by Mrs Aquino. I believe that we shall have to display great sympathy for, forbearance with and concern for the Philippines over the weeks to come. I believe that whichever contender emerges as victor from the current process will need to bring about as rapidly as possible some very considerable changes in the social and economic situation of the poverty stricken masses in the Philippines if that country is to have a future which is not very depressing and is not anarchic. The Filipino people deserve much better than that. I turn to a couple of other subjects. I was very pleased to see the emphasis given in the Minister's statement to relations with China. Again, that is something which has not been mentioned by any member of the Opposition who has spoken in this debate so far. I believe that the Australian Labor Party, both in and out of government, deserves credit for its non-ideological approach to foreign affairs which has borne great fruit. Let us not forget that for 23 years, from 1949, when the revolution succeeded in China, to 1972, successive coalition governments treated China as though it did not exist. It was not until the Labor Government, very early in the piece in 1972, recognised the Chinese Government that the very fruitful relationship we now have with China was brought into being. That was something the Opposition criticised. I remember that when Mr Whitlam went to China in 1971, Mr McMahon, that great exponent of foreign policy, said that Chou En-lai had played Mr Whitlam like a fisherman plays a trout. I will maintain silence on that comment except to say that very shortly afterwards it emerged that Henry Kissinger was in China at the very same time arranging a visit by President Nixon. To say that Mr McMahon had egg on his face is an understatement. It is now the case that we have a very firm relationship with China. For the first time, bilateral trade with China topped $1 billion this year. We consult with the Chinese on a great number of questions. The visit of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) last year was a great success. I believe that we shall see further benefits of a political and economic kind flowing from that visit. That leads me to mention very briefly in the time left to me the question of Indo-China. I very much commend the active policy of personal involvement by the Foreign Minister in the search for a peaceful solution to the problem in Kampuchea. The situation in that country has resulted in misery for hundreds of thousands of people. It has produced, amongst other things, the great flow of refugees to this country and others. It has caused continued instability in the Indo-Chinese region and increased entanglements by the super-powers which our country, along with many others, does not wish to see. It is a thankless task to try to get the parties together to resolve this exceedingly difficult problem, and the Minister has not received too much in the way of thanks for the efforts he has made. I commend those efforts, and I believe we have to recognise that progress will be slow, but in my view, it would be criminal for us to abandon those efforts towards a peaceful solution in Indo-China, and I do not believe we are about to do so. I have not been able to mention the great question of disarmament, which, quite rightly, is the first priority of this Government or the response which this Government has made to the Gorbachev initiatives which, again, I believe, are commendable and right; nor have I been able to expand on my pleasure at seeing the place given to economic questions in the Minister's statement, which are easily some of the most important questions in an increasingly economically interdependent world. However, my colleague the honourable member for Fraser (Mr Langmore) covered that subject extremely adequately in his address. I conclude by saying that I believe that this statement is one of the best expositions of foreign policy that I have seen put down in this Parliament. I commend the Minister and I commend the Government. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.56) —Madam Speaker, I commence by joining other members of this House in congratulating you on your elevation to your exalted office and wish you well in it. I am surprised that a man as well versed in the art of diplomacy as the honourable member for Kingston (Mr Bilney) should have found nothing to criticise in the statement put down by his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). As we know, the honourable member for Kingston was a distinguished representative of Australia in several diplomatic posts; yet he has found nothing to criticise in the statement put down by his colleague the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I believe he should at least have noted that the Hawke Government took office in March 1983 and it was not until 26 November 1985 that it produced a comprehensive statement on foreign policy. It took about 2 1/2 years to produce a comprehensive statement. In a sense, the statement proved quite successful because it attracted very little interest and it had little quality which would attract continuing reference. The problem for the Government in foreign policy is that it has always attracted the ideological Left-that body of anti-Americanism in Australian politics which has its base in the Australian Labor Party. At the Labor Party Conference of 1982-a conference that was chaired by the present Foreign Minister-the Left of the Labor Party was vigorous in committing Australia to a foreign policy bias in support of Vietnam but very critical of the Association of South East Asian Nations and of any resistance to Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. The Foreign Minister came to his office with a type of diplomacy that required him to import that bias into our relations with South East Asia. He set about that business, attacking in the process, United States policy, Thailand, Malaysia, Japan's self-defence decisions and, of course, he added criticisms of Britain. This was the diplomat whom the honourable member for Kingston has seen fit to praise so highly. The honourable member mentioned that no honourable member on this side of the House had brought into the discussion any reference to ASEAN. The sheer fact is that the Foreign Minister, in his early days in his job, put Australia's relationship with ASEAN under very great strain indeed because in the context of criticism of friends, he portrayed Vietnam in the best light, apparently with the intent of inducing Vietnam to change direction. It is very clear that any diplomatic efforts to improve relations with Vietnam would have gone off more smoothly if the Minister had not chosen at the same time to attack Australia's friends in and outside the region. Naturally enough, that process is not referred to in the Minister's statement. He merely says and to a degree quite misleadingly: 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. In the last few days, we have seen how our Treasurer (Mr Keating) and Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) are trying to avoid facing up to the reality of the effect of the Hawke Government's economic decisions over the past years. They are doing this by blaming the Fraser Government for the nation's woes. Perhaps they are trying to copy the Vietnamese who continue to blame the `30 years of war' for the economic failures of their administration since 1975. Efforts have been made to get Australia to give foreign aid to Vietnam on the basis of that argument. The fact is that Vietnam has an agricultural economy geared to producing basic food, particularly rice. The Vietnamese have had a disastrous policy of collective agriculture. Collectivisation of agriculture has never worked in any country in the world, and the program has had to be modified even to achieve sluggish results. In that context the Soviet Union gives aid to the amount of $1 billion a year and, in return, ties Vietnam into the Soviet defence net. The permanent basing of Soviet submarines and air power at Cam Ranh Bay and Da Nang justifies, from a Soviet viewpoint, financial support of Vietnam. It was always a piece of naivete for the Foreign Minister to argue in this House that Australia should try to create the conditions for Vietnam to turn aside from her dependence on the Soviet Union. It is clear that Vietnam's effectiveness in overcoming international resistance to its penetration into Cambodia and Laos enhanced the growth of Soviet influence. The failure of the Australian Government to appreciate this point led it to question, in a public and most undiplomatic manner, the wisdom of a policy of resistance to Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. The Minister sought to exploit differences of approach in ASEAN about the handling of this problem. Differences about the direction of ASEAN policy do exist, but there was never an ASEAN interest in betraying the basic position that Vietnamese policy had to be resisted. The position in the statement before the House is as follows: The Australian Government has condemned Vietnam's invasion of Cambodia and will continue to do so. That is a welcome statement after the somewhat hair-raising experiences ASEAN and the United States went through during the first year of this Government's flirtation with Vietnam. In the Pacific the Government has revised its earlier position which was critical of the Fraser Government's emphasis on building relations with that region. Our foreign aid program under the Fraser Government was upgraded and great attention was paid to supporting the Pacific Forum's concerns about nuclear testing and its acute interest in a ratification of the Law of the Sea Convention. That the aid priorities of the Fraser Government, criticised by the early Hawke views, were not misplaced is evident today and is evident from the statement before the House. The Opposition has been very cautious towards the Government's push for a nuclear free zone. Having stirred up expectations, the Labor Government pushed aside the more cautious views of certain key leaders in the Pacific states. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was designed, quite simply, as a sop to the left wing and it is argued, but it is scarcely credible, that it may deflect France from its course of testing in the Pacific. It may have been a worthwhile sop to the Left, but one can bet one's bottom dollar that the agitation in the New Zealand Labour Party is to push for a treaty which does for the Pacific what New Zealand policy does for New Zealand. Certainly, the reported Soviet attitude that the Treaty does not go far enough is a message that the powerful New Zealand Left would agree with. The fact is that the Soviet Union has a deliberate policy to debilitate United States influence in the Pacific. We all know of the world significance of the United States Pacific fleet. It must cover the south-about route to the Middle East, where American power is, of course, of enormous consequence. We know too that instability in the Philippines is causing some real attention and concern to be given to the durability of the United States bases there. Following a Soviet naval buildup, the Soviet Union is matching United States Pacific fleet capability. Whilst Soviet base facilities in Vietnam are growing in importance and Soviet political influence in the South West Pacific is increasing, the United States is being put under political pressure by countries such as New Zealand and by the Left in this Labor Government. The problem for the United States in the Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is that, if it were to be adopted by the island governments of the United States territories in the Pacific, it could create difficulties for a fall-back to those territories were the United States to lose rights in the Philippines. There is a clear risk, therefore, that the Treaty could pressure the United States into falling back to Honolulu. It is in this context that the decision of the last Australian Labor Party Conference to curtail US interest in increasing the use of Cockburn Sound must be seen. The decision of the ALP Conference is thus a deliberate decision by the Hawke Government to narrow United States options in the event of United States failure to keep open bases in the Philippines. Let us now turn to the New Zealand decision on nuclear ships. It is abundantly clear that New Zealand is inadequately informed of Australian public reaction to its decision to render ineffective the full application of the ANZUS Treaty. New Zealand seeks to place great importance on upgrading relations with Australia as a substitute. Clearly, Australians are basically very strong in their view that ANZUS is basic to the security system of the Pacific. Australians are not happy with a situation in which New Zealand action is quite positively opening the door for an increase in Soviet influence in the Pacific region at a time when the United States position is under pressure. Australians generally are of the view that instability follows an increase in Soviet influence as night follows day. Australians I speak to are increasingly angry at the fact that the only consequence of New Zealand's position is a dangerous one. It weakens the basic solidarity of the South Pacific with the United States, in a changing world favouring the growth of Soviet power. New Zea- landers, it must be said, live in an unreal world if they misread the impact of their decision on Australia. We should point out that there is a powerful congressional interest in these developments. At the beginning of the year the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence was host to a group from both sides of Congress which expressed serious apprehension about the New Zealand policy. We all know that there are considerable pressures on Congress to raise further barriers to agricultural imports which could seriously affect imports from Australia and New Zealand. The Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) is in Washington at the moment, exercising an influence to minimise the effects of congressional protection pressure on Australian primary exports. In this, of course, he has the lively support of all Australians. The prospects for New Zealand to be well received in the corridors of power obviously must look pretty grim. Certainly most Australians accept and support with sincerity the grave obligations the United States has accepted on behalf of the free world to oppose the spread of Soviet power and influence. We want nothing better than that New Zealand should appreciate the relevance of New Zealand in the support that Australia is able to give to the United States and the significance of United States efforts to stabilise the power equation in the Middle East. It cannot be effective in the Middle East if, in the Pacific, it is distracted and its reputation impugned by a former friend and ally. The United States has had to tough out a very serious bid by the Soviets, under the leadership preceding Gorbachev, to dissolve American counter-response to the Soviet missile buildup in Europe. Since the change of Soviet leadership, prospects for an intelligent dialogue on arms reduction with the Soviet Union have opened up. The Australian Government should react wisely, I believe, to these developments, with neither a loose optimismn or an unreal scepticism. The Government should be more forthcoming in support of United States policy to research the strategic defence initiative. We have seen left wing elements and, sadly, the Australian Democrats in this Parliament try to blame the United States for any lack of progress in arms control negotiations. It is unreal to believe the United States should accept at face value any offers made by the Soviets. The critics of the United States seem to take that view. We are all deeply concerned about the accumulation of nuclear power, no matter which side of politics we stand on. One positive aspect is that the Soviet people likewise are deeply concerned and we should not despair of the fact that the popular demand for arms control will give rise to a demand for rational negotiations in the East, just as it has in the West. Recent moves by the Soviet Union to negotiate arms reduction at the highest level have raised hopes that the prospect for negotiations is brighter in the future than it has been in the recent past. I draw honourable members' attention to the positive developments in South Asia. Under wise leadership-the new Indian Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi is conspicuous in this regard-a new regional association has been formed. It includes India and Pakistan as well as the other regional powers and it could prove to be of enormous significance to the stability of the area. In Africa there have been grave problems. The loss of so many lives to famine has been paralleled by great cruelties which have been visited on the people of Uganda. There is, of course, the potential for deepening strife in South Africa as that nation adjusts to the necessity to bring itself to rid the country of apartheid. I mention one other point at this stage-that is, that the concept of an independent foreign policy in an alliance framework is a contradiction in terms. We are an aligned nation. We have not moved away from that proposition. What we seek and should seek to do is to think through situations and bring the force of independent judgment to them. But we cannot be both independent and aligned. We must bring that independent judgment to bear in the context of our alignment. I think the Foreign Minister tends to blur that situation in his statements on those points. I believe the statement is useful. When I was shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs I was continually calling for the Government to bring forward a statement on foreign policy that could be debated. The Foreign Minister, to his credit, has learned from his period in office. He was an utter disaster during those first 18 months, but time has mellowed him a little. Unhappy experiences have proved instructive for him. I welcome at least the fact that the Government, at long last, has brought forward a statement which has given this House the opportunity to bring its attention to an area which is of extreme importance to the future of the nation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(6.12) —Mr Deputy Speaker, may I congratulate you on your election to your elevated and esteemed position. I sincerely welcome this opportunity to speak today to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in this House on 26 November 1985. I welcome it for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the statement summarises very clearly the reasons for Australia's growing stature as a middle order nation on the international stage. Australia's international policies under this Hawke Labor Government and this Minister have led us further towards our correct place in international influence and, indeed, lifted our international self-esteem, security and sovereignty. The Hawke Labor Government and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have also moved us further towards a significant role in the development of peace far more quickly and far more substantially than has any other Australian government before it. The recognition of these developments and the growing pride and self-respect as a result of them are held not only by those on this side of the House. Despite what we have heard throughout this debate from those opposite, privately many of the more reasonable members on the other side will also acknowledge it. I hope that those who follow in this debate have the integrity to display their true feelings here today. More importantly, I know that the vast majority of Australians respect the actions of this Government and this Minister. Our international policies and actions are one of the major reasons for this Government's electoral popularity and a significant indicator for those opposite to heed- Mr Andrew —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to the state of the House. A quorum not being present and the bells having been rung- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! A quorum not being present, the chair will be resumed at 8 p.m. Sitting suspended from 6.18 to 8 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —A quorum is present. Mr STAPLES —The Minister in his statement declared the two paramount objectives of this Government in foreign policy: Firstly, in a highly volatile world it will protect and promote our security and our social and economic well-being; secondly, through this primary objective it will pursue a determined and independent role for Australia in the search for world order, peace and prosperity. By any comparison with previous conservative governments we are visibly and constantly achieving these objectives. However, our voice should be stronger because we are a privileged nation among nations. With justification, we can pride ourselves on the peace, democracy and prosperity we enjoy as a nation and a community. Compared with virtually any other country on this planet we have the greatest freedom not only to be a strong middle order nation but also to be a true leader in the vanguard of efforts for peace and international prosperity. Unfortunately, because of the extremist and subservient policies of decades of conservative governments in this country, our population has been conditioned to hide in our weaknesses rather than to explore our strengths for international peace and development. It is the responsibility of all Australians, through this Government, to accept this responsibility from our privileged position. I do not believe that we have done so yet, so I ask the House and all Australians to consider seriously this picture and the contrasts which can be drawn clearly from it. Annual world military spending is of the order of $800,000m. The economies of both the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are dependent upon their military spending, development and industries. Each of those superpowers and other major league militarist nations use peace and war to the same economic ends. It is their military spending which effectively kills millions of people every year without a shot being fired. People die before every tank, plane or other piece of military equipment leaves the assembly line of the factory in the USSR, United States, France, China or wherever. In the International Year of Peace Australians should consider that for every 100,000 humans on this earth there are 556 soldiers but only 85 doctors. Let us remember also that those doctors are not spread evenly around the world but are concentrated in those wealthy countries which amass those great armies against each other. Across the world, on average, every soldier costs $20,000 annually, yet only $380 is spent on every school-age child. The international trade in arms trebled between 1968 and 1982-a mere 14 years. Someone is paying for this, but who? The people who are paying for the arms trade and the military spending in the world today are the 800 million human beings living daily in the most dire poverty; the 870 million who cannot read or write; the 500 million who are out of work; the 130 million children without access to primary school. In fact, 2,000 million-about half the world's population-do not have access to a safe water supply, some to any water at all; 450 million live in daily hunger and malnutrition; and every year 12 million babies-virtually the population of this country-die before their first birthday. That is what the International Year of Peace is all about. What are the answers of the Australian people to those statistics? What are the answers of the members of the Opposition-the Cold War warriors, the raving Rambos-to those statistics? We have not heard them answer those statistics today and we are not likely to. Figures of that magnitude numb our minds and hearts. Eight hundred million people in dire poverty and 12 million babies dying before their first birthday are just printed figures until we put faces to those figures-our own faces and those of our children. The Opposition members come in here one after another and get up and rattle their sabres and wave their flags. They are as empty in their foreign policy, their disarmament and peace policies as they are in their domestic policies. They will need to do a lot more than put a new coat of paint on their headquarters in Barton-the headquarters that look like a gatehouse to the American Embassy-to dress up their act in this country. If we strip away the flags and uniforms, the minds of those in the Kremlin, the White House and the Pentagon and other militarists are all the same. The abuse of power by the superpowers of the world must be curtailed. People today will listen to Opposition members from one end of this debate to the other and will hear time and time again the `commies under the bed' routine and the `must be ready for war to keep the peace' routine, but not one real attempt to reduce effectively arms production and expenditure. Members opposite talk about international terrorism and most recently have focused on the madness of Libya. All that we see as international terrorism today is totally insignificant compared with the international terrorism of the United States, the USSR and their accomplices. What is real terrorism: A gang of extremists hijacking and killing 20 travellers or a nation invading another for strategic, religious or economic gain? What is the more despicable form of terrorism: To gun down people in an airport; for the United States for years, day after day, to drop bombs and napalm on children in Vietnam, children they never saw; to lay mines in the harbour of a country such as Nicaragua to break up its economy; or for the USSR to use chemical and other weapons in Afghanistan in a similar indiscriminate fashion? Opposition members deliberately took part in that war in Vietnam, that terrorism. They are just as much terrorists as Gaddafi, the Red Brigade or any other terrorist because day after day they condone the actions of the United States. Their condemnation of the USSR is not balanced foreign policy. I do not condone those actions of the United States, nor do I condone in any way the barbarism of the USSR in Afghanistan or elsewhere. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) said that he could not remember the Korean War or the Cold War, but he said he had read a lot about them. His youth and limited reading are no excuse for his ignorance or one-sided foreign affairs knowledge. He also criticised the development and implementation of peace studies. He, his colleagues and other misguided and blinkered people in the community understandably feel very threatened by peace studies. They are understandably threatened, not because there is anything to feel worried about but because their own view of peace is structured on who has the most planes, bombs, ships or soldiers and not on how nations across the world can learn to live together without the murderous military expenditure we see today. That is what peace studies are all about: Opening a new door to an understanding by all in the community about how to avoid conflict. It will surprise many people to learn that peace studies refer not just to nuclear war or disarmament but to other aspects of international and domestic peace and development. The honourable member for Mayo and his colleagues talk about human rights abuse in the USSR, but human rights abuse occurs in all countries. It occurs in Australia to women, Aborigines, the poor, the elderly and the young-indeed, throughout the community. Peace studies look at our own communities, at people and their problems. It looks at how we can learn to solve the problems in our own backyards. If we learn to live better with our neighbours and to see ourselves as a part of the world community, we are better prepared as individuals and as a nation to deal with our national and international obligations. I spoke earlier of the tragic imbalance between arms spending and the daily human poverty faced on earth. Many members opposite support in various ways respected non-government agencies such as Community Aid Abroad, Freedom from Hunger, the Australian Council for Overseas Aid and many others. Our whole community, especially our young people, responded magnificently to the Aid for Africa appeal last year. It is a great shame and a great disservice to the community that those opposite continually scaremonger and irresponsibly criticise peace studies. In peace studies we talk about development education as well. That is something that members opposite have not considered. This Government has some failings in foreign policy, but nothing that Opposition members have exposed today. In this debate they have exposed, as usual, their own failings yet again. I would hope that this Government will fight strongly for our sovereignty and will use the trust and good will which it has with the electorate to promote the greater understanding of peace issues and peace itself. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(8.09) —In determining Australia's foreign policy attitude to other countries in this world, I believe that we should never lose sight of three cardinal points: Firstly, we should aim to build better relationships between Australia and overseas countries; secondly, we should be consistent in our treatment of these countries, taking care to judge them all by the same standards; thirdly, Australia's foreign policy should be formulated on what we believe is right. We should not be influenced by what is the trendy thing to do in the United Nations or by what is the international flavour of the month. Building better relationships is obviously very important. It is done not just at government level but by the Government allowing the freedom of tourist exchanges, cultural visits, trade, sporting and a whole host of other contacts which lead to the better, more stable and peaceful world to which the previous speaker, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), alluded. We should do that as far as is reasonably possible, not only with our overseas friends but also with what might be regarded as our so-called overseas enemies. An example of a friend might be the United States of America, not that we would have gathered that from what was said by the previous speaker. An example of an enemy might be Russia. However, I believe it is in our interests not to shut ourselves off from Russia. If we become friendly with that country, there is less chance of conflict and more chance of peace. Also, there is more chance of understanding between both countries. If we trade with Russia, for example, the standard of living in both countries would be raised. We would become to some extent dependent on each other and that leads to a greater chance of peace in the long run. If Australia believes in freedom, it is wrong to deny Australians access to travel to and from such countries as Russia. Of course, this does not prevent our Government having a foreign policy attitude which can condemn another country for doing something of which we do not approve. We can condemn Russia for its occupation of Poland. However, short of a situation of war or a national security breach, we should quite rightly allow trade and visits between the two countries. By the same token, we should be consistent. If a country friendly to us commits an atrocity, all other things being equal, we should be as equally critical of it as any other country. In the final analysis we should judge other countries on their actions rather than their professed political philosophy. Though, generally speaking, we observe these principles, reasonably faithfully, unfortunately I believe we violate all of them when it comes to this country's attitude to South Africa. We have closed off many of our channels of communications with South Africa. I believe that it is ludicrous that members of this Parliament cannot visit two countries on our parliamentary passports-one is South Africa, and, of course, the other is Taiwan. We have gone to ridiculous lengths in this regard. For example, last year South Africans were banned from coming to this country to play in a Rotary golf tournament. We have also gone to ridiculous lengths to stop Rotary exchange students from attending schools in New South Wales. I am unsure why this Labor Government has chosen to single out Rotary, an organisation which is dedicated to fostering good will and fellowship between the citizens of all nations. However, this Government is doing everything to prevent that. Competition in some team sports played between Australia and South Africa such as cricket and rugby has also been stopped. The Government has vilified individuals with tax threats and other violations of civil liberties and is even talking about imposing more trade boycotts. Apart from the fact that we seem obsessed with chasing the Third World vote, why should we single out South Africa? Other countries are not only equally at fault but far worse. One only has to look at the example of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Afghanistan which was brought up by the previous speaker. Between April 1978 and now the population of Afghanistan has fallen 40 per cent. In 1978, that country had a population of 14 million, the same as that of Australia. Today, the population of Afghanistan is 8 million. The other 6 million people are either in exile or they are dead. The Russians slaughtered 27,000 people in one concentration camp at Poli Charki. I believe that such genocide and persecution far transcends anything that has happened in South Africa. The selective indignation does not end there. One only has to look at what has happened in Iran which until 1979 was ruled by the Shah. That leader had many faults-graft, corruption, the Iranian secret police and so on. The repression that took place in Iran sometimes even rivalled the day-to-day atrocities of its neighbouring states such as Iraq. That is how bad the situation was. However, the Shah had even worse faults which caused Iran to be singled out for a special campaign of vituperation. The Shah was friendly to the West and, in particular, the United States. To make matters worse, Iran had immense oil wealth and a well-equipped defence force situated in a very critical part of the world. With faults like those, naturally it had to go. Expert commentators emerged from everywhere at the call of duty to alert us to such evils. Newspaper editorials lashed out at the brutality of the Shah. Television footage filled our screens nightly of the wicked atrocities that were occurring. But, best of all, the Ayatollah Khomeini was discovered by Western intellectuals as Iran's saviour, a sort of latter-day Nelson Mandela. Naturally, the story had a happy ending. The Shah fled; Iran fell; oil production plummeted; mobs ruled the streets; `people's courts' dispensed justice; women were banished from sight; education for children retreated; the economy collapsed; the Press was banned; tourism stopped; people starved; and the Ayatollah ruled. It was the best of all outcomes. The West could be proud of the part it played. In fact, things are now so good in Iran that there is no need to mention that country's name in the media ever again. If only the leftwing of the Australian Labor Party could get the same result in respect of South Africa. On the African continent, the countries to the north of South Africa also commit atrocities. We have seen the brutal oppression that has been imposed on the opposition in Zimbabwe. Mr Slipper —You mean Rhodesia. Mr COBB —Yes, Rhodesia. I thank the honourable member for his comments. Perhaps the most horrific story of all in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe was told by Peter Godwin, a reporter of the Sunday Times who travelled into Matabeleland where journalists are banned. Apparently soldiers shot dissidents by the thousands in a torture camp at Balaghwe. They loaded them onto trucks every night for `many weeks' and dumped them down disused gold mine shafts. Sometimes bodies got snagged on cross supports inside the interior. After each night's dumping, explosives were used to cover the bodies with debris. When Godwin visited the area, he said that the stench of rotting flesh was unmistakable. Commenting on these atrocity allegations Mr Mugabe said that he was `very happy' at the way his soldiers were behaving. `They have performed a wonderful duty', he said. He went on to say: I can assure you that the troops have been very restrained and we are full of praise for what they have managed to do over such a short period. Father Gabriel, who runs a mission near the camp at Balaghwe, is an Austrian priest who lived through nazi rule in his home town. `The Gestapo', he said, `were gentlemen in comparison with the fifth brigade'. It is notable that our Government supported the recent tour by an Australian cricket team to Zimbabwe. We see the same situation in Uganda where there are endless rounds of mass murders under all governments. If one belongs to a black group which is not in power, one's life, if one can hang on to it, can be an absolute misery. The leader of Ethiopia is engaging in a policy of mass destruction of his people. However, because he is Marxist, our Government encourages sporting contact between us and that country's athletes. Millions of people have been expelled from Nigeria. That country's massive oil wealth has been squandered and poverty is rife for much of the population. The same story can be told in Zaire. Kenya has been responsible for the mass expulsion of Asians simply because the people are Asians. The situation is the same in Angola and Mozambique. The story goes on and on and on. So let us lay this charge of racism against South Africa to rest. South Africa is racist. However, that charge is certainly not unique to South Africa. All African states are racist. They all discriminate against someone. This is usually done on a tribal basis by blacks against blacks. However, it also occurs against Asians, Jews, whites and non-Muslims. The tribal racism is usually far more brutal than what occurs in South Africa. There is no genuine multi-racial society in the whole of Africa. Skin colour, racial origins or religious affiliation are of prime importance in securing elementary rights in all African countries. They all vary in the extent to which their discrimination is formalised or entrenched in their law codes and official philosophies. It pervades their political science or sociology courses at their universities. Tanzania has a sinister totalitarian doctrine called ujaama; Ghana has consciencism; Zambia has humanism; Senegal has negritude; and Zaire has mobutuism. All those theories reflect the appetites of the particular ruling racial group. Apartheid is South Africa's own special brand of racism. Such a theory does not divide South Africa from the rest of Africa. It is merely the typical local expression that we find right throughout that continent. It is also in several other countries around the world. Apart from this, there are some who regard oppression via racism as more repugnant than oppression via any other means. To put it another way, some say that discrimination based on skin colour is somehow more reprehensible than one based on nationality or belief. By this reasoning, a Russian shooting a Pole or Czech is not as bad as a South African white shooting, or even oppressing, a South African black. There are, of course, other considerations we should look at in foreign policy before we continue to castigate South Africa the way we do. It is not just simply white verus black. If we leave aside the diversity of the white population and the large coloured and Asian groups in South Africa, the black population itself is divided into at least 10 groups-the Zulus of six million people is the largest-but each group is divided into tribes. The Zulus are divided into 200 tribes; and even the smallest group, the Vendas, comprises 185,000 people divided into 27 tribes. Often, each tribe is divided further into clans. We have four main black groups of languages, 23 sub-groups and numerous dialects. Some groups cannot even converse with one another in their home language. The cultural differences are also very wide. South Africa has potentially more racial unrest amongst its black groups than any other country in the African continent. This is not an apology or an excuse for apartheid, but it does indicate the enormous problems that exist there and the need for gradualism. If we abhor, quite rightly, racism in the form of apartheid we should recognise that racism in any form is just as bad. `That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet', said Shakespeare. Of course, many believe that South Africa has been singled out not because it is uniquely racist, but because it is anti-communist and because its strategic importance is highly significant. South Africa leads, or is second in the world, in a whole range of strategically important high technology minerals-chrome, platinum, vanadium, not to mention gold and diamonds. South Africa and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics have between 93 and 99 per cent of the world's supplies of these minerals-virtually a total monopoly of the world's strategic minerals. It is obvious that if South Africa fell there would be one outstanding beneficiary from such an event. Let us not overlook the fact that tens of thousands of ships pass around the vital Cape route each year carrying much of the West's oil supplies, other minerals and goods. If that route fell into enemy hands the consequences to Australia's trade alone would be very substantial indeed. South Africa has its faults-horrific faults. However, it has done more for black people on the African continent, for all those faults, than any of the other 50 African nations. The standard of living for blacks in South Africa is the highest of any of those countries, measured from the point of view of money in the pocket or the degree of freedom. They are queued up on the border to get in. Hundreds of thousands have come in from more repressive countries and got jobs. There are more black-owned cars in South Africa than there are private cars in the whole of the Soviet Union. There are more black women professionals in South Africa than in the rest of the 50 African states put together. As I said, South Africa has its horrible faults, but compared with other countries it is often streets ahead. We should work for change through friendship and communication. We should have trade with South Africa. We should have sporting contacts with South Africa. We should drastically revise this country's foreign policy on South Africa based on those earlier principles I enunciated of friendship and consistency and we should do it independently of the stance other countries choose to take. Mr BEDDALL(Rankin)(8.23) —I take this opportunity to congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your high office. I ask you to convey my congratulations to the Speaker. After listening to the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb), I wonder why anybody would run for such a position. Unlike other members of the House you have to sit and listen. I think you have a great deal of forbearance. I rise in this debate as it addresses Australia's role in the world. Unlike previous governments, the Hawke Government believes that Australia has a role to play in international affairs as an independent nation within the framework of the Western alliance. Too many Australians overestimate our world role and its significance, believing that Australia alone can change the world. I do not agree with this perception. However, I do not downplay the role Australia can play as an honest broker. Australia is not an unaligned nation and nor should it be. Australia is part of the Western alliance and an ally of the United States. This is my Party's policy and naturally the policy of the Government. Whilst being a strong ally of the United States, Australia is not part of the United States. We have different needs and, at times, a different view of the global situation. As an independent nation, we reserve that right. It should not be forgotten that it was an Australian Labor Party government which forged this alliance under the prime ministership of John Curtin at the height of World War II. Australia faced the reality that we were no longer considered an important part of the British Empire, nor even were we high on the list of priorities of the British Government at that time. At the time of our greatest need and at the height of Australia's greatest danger Australia turned to the United States for help and assistance. This has been the foundation of Australian foreign policy ever since. The ANZUS alliance has been the cornerstone of Australian foreign policy and, at this time of disagreement between the United States and New Zealand, Australia is once more having to reassess the strategic importance of the United States alliance and the ANZUS agreement. Whilst the Government disagrees with the actions of New Zealand in banning United States warships, it does not, like the Opposition, seek to bully the duly elected Government of New Zealand. We believe that the United States and New Zealand should seek resolution of their differences in the spirit of ANZUS. Australia and New Zealand have shown through many conflicts that they are close allies of the United States, having fought at the side of the United States in every conflict since the First World War. No other nation has paid so dearly for the respect of the United States. We should, therefore, urge patience and understanding between the two governments. It is through this role as a friend and an ally that we seek to influence the United States in its attitude to other nations. We do not presume to dictate to the United States how it should determine its foreign policy. We only seek the same respect from the United States in how we determine our own foreign policy. As Australian parliamentarians, we have common bonds with members of the United States Senate and House of Representatives. Anybody who has met with United States members will appreciate the easy rapport that is established. This rapport is one of the most important factors in the creation of closer ties between the United States and other nations. It is in this context that I wish to mention the United States farm Bill. During the recess, I had the opportunity to meet several United States congressmen. I raised the subject of the farm Bill with them because I know the personal anguish that this Bill is causing many of my constituents. Most congressmen were unaware of the effects their farm Bill would have on Australia. I think that if this viewpoint is correct, it says something about our embassy in Washington. I fully appreciate that our embassy staff are fully occupied in the roles that they are playing. I also know that we have a liaison office to keep a watch on United States legislation. I believe, however, that it is imperative that Australia have a senior experienced politician as a diplomat to the United States. I say that not because I want the job or because I covet it, and certainly not through any dissatisfaction with the current ambassador. It seems to me that a politician would have some sway on legislation that will ultimately affect Australia. I give full credit to the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for the efforts they are making to downplay the role of the farm Bill and the consequences for Australian agriculture. It seems to me that it is too late in the day for Australia effectively to voice its disapproval of the farm Bill. I say this because of the nature of the United States congressional system. It is a fact that for any matter to become a Bill in the United States, it is subject to compromise, changes, and deals between parties, therefore, once it is law it is just about set in concrete. I would ask the Minister to examine ways in which Australia could seek to influence events before they become law. Given the nature of the rural difficulties at the moment, it would seem to be uppermost in importance. It may well be that a person selected for the embassy could be nominated from one of the rural organisations. I say this, not just in the United States context but also in the European context. The European Economic Community and its policies have great effect on Australia's position in the world and the balance of payments that we face. The overseas market situation for Australian goods is very grim, so warped, that a radical solution to embassy staff is needed. I would like the Minister to examine this proposal to see whether it can be implemented. The present situation is simply ineffective. It is too little and not sustained enough to present a case for our rural community. I also wish to mention the Government's policy on South Africa. As the honourable member for Parkes spent the whole of his 15 minutes trying to defend the Government of South Africa, I think it is pertinent that we address this issue in this debate. There is no doubt that the South African situation is very complex and very tense. I do not believe that unilateral sanctions are an appropriate form of retaliation. It is essential that Australia seek, where possible, to adopt a policy which will break down apartheid without rending South Africa and turning it into a blood-bath. The tensions within South Africa are already being reflected in the South African political life. The ruling National Party is coming under intense pressure to reform. The Botha Government has attempted to commence some reforms, however ineffective. Yet the National Party is under pressure from an extreme right wing and the more progressive parties in the Parliament. I would say too that many white South Africans are voting with their feet. It would be interesting indeed to ascertain the number of applications for migration from South Africa to Australia. These people are doing this because they have lost faith in the South African Government's ability to control events. I feel that it is important that Australia adopt a united approach in attempting to influence events in South Africa. Yet the current Opposition is preventing this. The Liberal Party has a number of different approaches, some of which water down the firm principled stance taken by the Fraser Government. The National Party, particularly elements of the Queensland branch, is unashamedly pro the most extreme elements in South African society. Such an approach does not take into account the political divisions already existing in the South African Government. Surely, as people concerned about human rights, we should be about reducing the inhumane aspects of apartheid. I also find it very strange that the self-proclaimed Christian Premier of Queensland has no hesitation in going in to bat for the South African authorities. There is no doubt that the Queensland Premier has, over the years, embarked on a campaign of denigration of coloured people in Queensland. It fails to impress me that he seeks to portray his demented views on the world stage. We find the Queensland Premier repeatedly identifying himself with the most excessive elements within South Africa. At no time has he ever spoken out for human dignity for all people in South Africa. I am appalled, and I believe all thinking Queenslanders should be, as should all thinking Australians, by the immoral positions adopted by the Bjelke-Petersen Government. There is no doubt that he is a puppet of the extreme right wing elements of our society who are active not only on the Darling Downs in my electorate but also throughout rural Queensland. I might add that the Queensland National Party also produced the Federal Minister who, because of his views on South Africa, served the shortest term ever. It also concerns me that sporting organisations are increasing their links with South Africa. I say that because Brisbane is attempting to secure the Olympic Games in 1992. I fear that, if Australia is seen to be weakening in its sporting links stance, European countries may use this as a leverage against Brisbane's case. The negotiations are under way at the moment and I would hate fears of a boycott to be a reason Brisbane is not selected. I urge all sporting groups to think of Australia's sporting future and Australia's bid to host an Olympics before they sign any sporting contract with South Africa. The recent rebel cricket tour of South Africa showed that sport and politics do mix in that country. The South African Government allowed as a tax deduction the cost of bringing Australians to South Africa. This brought immense criticism from its own people, and so it should have. This clearly shows the lengths to which South Africa is prepared to go to bolster its sporting links with other countries. I ask the Minister to continue his policy of patiently convincing sporting groups of the lack of wisdom in going to South Africa. I would like to turn now to South East Asia and what is termed the Pacific rim. The countries constituting this rim are in the forefront of economic growth in the world. These countries will be hurt by any trade war between the European Economic Community and the United States of America. There is a need for Australia to strengthen trade links with the countries of the Pacific rim. These links can be enhanced by the priority we give to our trade missions overseas. It is essential that experienced trade officials be placed to carefully explain Australia's position on trade matters. It is also essential that our leading foreign service diplomats in the Pacific Rim are familiar with the trade opportunities open to Australian manufacturers and primary producers. (Quorum formed) I thank my colleagues for their attendance in the House. As usual, very few members of the Opposition are in the House. I was addressing the problems facing our manufacturers and primary industries and how they can be assisted by our diplomatic service overseas. I now wish to turn to what I feel is something for the future. Given our geographic position, it is essential that Australia adopt a closer relationship with both South East Asia and the Pacific. Indeed, I would like to see the day when Australia considers itself part of the Association of South East Asean Nations, as well as part of a South Pacific community. Such a proposition makes sense given the increasing level of tourist contact and migration from these countries to Australia. I believe that this idea will gain acceptability because Australians increasingly are seeing themselves as part of South East Asia and the Pacific community. The old idea that Australia must remain the last outpost of British colonialism should be replaced by a closer identification with Asian and Pacific bloc nations. It is apparent that this area offers us greater room for increased trading opportunities. This is essential for the economic well-being of our country. It is only by developing closer economic and cultural ties with Asia and the South Pacific that we will overcome some of the misconceptions about our region which have bedevilled our foreign policy in the past. The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence has recognised this and has established a sub- committee on the South Pacific which is currently inquiring into the Philippines. With the situation that exists in the Philippines I do not think that it could be more timely for that inquiry and for this Parliament and its committees to play a role in trying to ascertain the position in those regions. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to the interest and activity the Minister shows in his portfolio. As an electoral neighbour of the Minister, I am aware that the Minister devotes himself fully to both his portfolio and his electorate of Oxley. The Minister may be delighted to learn that rural folk in the areas I inherited from him following the last redistribution speak very highly of him as a Minister and as a member. Those sentiments should be echoed by all members of this Parliament. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(8.39) —I am very pleased to have the opportunity of rising in the House tonight to follow the honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall). While I have a respect for the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) as a person, I know that the people in the Rankin electorate would under no circumstances vote for the Hawke socialist Government. In fact, I know that after the next election-whenever the Hawke Government decides to bring it on-the honourable member for Rankin will no longer be a member of this chamber. The Minister for Foreign Affairs is a genuine Labor man, unlike the person who temporarily occupies the position of Prime Minister of this country. We can respect the Minister because he is a Labor man. He is not an opportunist. The Foreign Minister presented his ministerial statement on 26 November 1985. As the Opposition shadow Minister, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said, he took a welcome if belated step to give the House an account of Australia's current foreign policy. What a disaster the Hawke Government's foreign policy has been since that fateful day on 5 March 1983 when it crawled into office. The Foreign Minister in his ministerial statement argued that his regime has two paramount objectives in foreign policy: The first aim is to protect and promote Australia's national interest in a highly volatile world; and the second is to pursue a determined and independent role as a middle-ranking nation in the search for a better world order. Who would deny the aims of the Minister? They may well be laudable, but there are clearly major problems for Australia in seeking to pursue a determined and independent role in a volatile world. In particular, there is a danger that the determined pursuit of independence can produce policies which are not clearly conceived and well developed and which may not serve Australia's national interest. Examples may be mentioned. In discussing Australia's relationship with the United States, our great ally-where would we have been in the Second World War without the United States?-the Minister noted: 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 . . . 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. What a sick joke! In its relations with the United States, the Hawke socialist Government has not displayed sober realism. It has at times sought to pursue policies which have not paid due regard to Australia's crucial alliance with the United States. The Hawke Government is an opportunistic government, it is an unprincipled government and it is a government which without doubt will be rejected by the people of this country at the next election. The Minister has claimed the Government has a commitment to arms control and disarmament-- Mr Cobb —That is a joke. Mr SLIPPER —It is a joke. The pursuit of genuinely bilateral arms control between the two super-powers is indeed of crucial importance, but the Government has at times inhibited United States efforts to promote arms control from a position of strength and security. It tries to undermine the efforts of the West while pretending to have an attitude of supporting the United States. It is a sick joke being perpetrated upon the people of Australia. Let us consider the case of the MX missile tests. This is a vital case. In order to be able to pursue arms control negotiations effectively, the United States-our great friend and ally-has to preserve the capacities of its own strategic nuclear forces. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased to have the support of the honourable member for Denison on this issue. The testing of the MX missile is important. Yet the Labor Party Government, which is temporarily in control of this country and which claims to maintain a strong and deep commitment to the United States, refused to provide assistance. It refused to provide access to airfields for United States monitoring services. Is that the action of a friend? Is that the action of an ally? Is that the action of a committed country which is trying to resist the onslaught of the Soviet Union and its allies? Mr Cobb —The Government kow-tows to Moscow. Mr SLIPPER —It does indeed. The Government claims to support the principle of nuclear deterrence while the super-powers pursue arms control measures, but inhibits the efforts of our main ally to preserve its own forces' nuclear deterrent capacities at a time when the Soviet Union is consistently improving its own nuclear forces. We on this side of the House, in the National Party of Australia and the Liberal Party of Australia, applaud the actions of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in floating the Australian dollar because that means that the international community is able to pass judgment on our economic performance, our political performance, and indeed on the way in which this Government is running the country. Since the Government was elected in 1983, there has been a complete and utter collapse of the Australian dollar. We have a situation in which our currency is no better than Monopoly money. It is tragic that this has to happen in order to help our export industries. Everyone will be pleased about the fact that our export industries are now a little more able to compete on the international market, but it is a shocking indictment of the Hawke Government that our currency has to become almost worthless for this to happen. Mr Cobb —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for his support. Another matter I wish to raise is the Government's promotion of the South Pacific nuclear free zone. This is certainly open to criticism. The South Pacific region has so far been relatively free from tension and conflict, but it borders on regions which are highly volatile-South East Asia and East Asia. The South Pacific nuclear free zone cannot achieve anything to limit the major practical problems facing the South Pacific states, such as French nuclear testing and the dumping of nuclear waste; but the treaty does impose limits on the capacity of Australia's ally, the United States, to continue to provide assistance for the security of the region. The treaty prohibits for all time United States or allied basing of nuclear weapons within the zone, whether the regional security situation for Australia deteriorates or not. Mr Hodgman —That is disgraceful. Mr SLIPPER —Quite correct. When our Prime Minister struts across the international forums trying to pretend that he is a world statesman, trying to undermine the position of the Western nations, he should be condemned and his Government should be condemned. Indeed, the Hawke socialist Government will be thrown from office at the next election. I thank honourable members on this side of the House for their wholehearted support for my speech. Let us look at comrade Lange and his cronies in New Zealand-those people who have taken control of what was once Australia's closest ally. These people, who came to power in New Zealand such a short time ago, have sought to tear up the ANZUS Treaty. What did this Government do? Did it say to the New Zealand Government: `We will not exchange defence information with you; you are no longer an ally'? No, it did not. It said: `We are sorry that you are no longer friendly with our ally the United States, but we will leak information to you; we will give you defence information; we will continue to treat you as an ally', even though comrade Lange and his cronies are playing into the hands of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. It is a disgrace that this Government, this transitory government saw fit to undermine our principles, saw fit to continue to provide comfort and succour to comrade Lange and his cronies, who are trying to subvert the situation of the West. It is a national disgrace and it is something that the Australian people will certainly not forget. Mr Cobb —This is a Churchillian speech. Mr SLIPPER —I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his praise. Further confusion and ambiguity about Australia's national interests are shown in the Government's policies towards South East Asia. Since 1983 the Government has pursued policies towards Vietnam and Indo-China which have sought to promote dialogue over the Cambodian conflict. In doing so, the Government has diluted Australia's previous firm support for the Association of South East Asian Nations in opposing Vietnam's occupation of Cambodia. We must remember that Vietnam is presently languishing under a communist government which is a firm and strong ally of the Soviet Union. The Australian Government's policies have caused concern to Australia's ASEAN neighbours without producing any clear evidence of greater flexibility or willingness to compromise on the part of Vietnam. How long will this continue? How long will this Government be able to parade itself before the Australian people as a government that is looking after Australia's interests? I wish to tell the House one thing: The people of Australia are not fools. They will see through this charade and they will react in no uncertain way at the time of the next poll. I wish to compliment my colleague the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) for his contribution in relation to southern Africa. He has shown a realistic approach. He did not defend the situation in South Africa, but he pointed out that there is no genuine democracy in the continent of Africa. That was all he did; he did not defend apartheid and he did not support South Africa. He simply said that there is no democracy in Africa and implicit in his speech was a plea to the Government of this country to be consistent. The Government of this country is not interested in logic. It is not interested in consistency. It is not interested in the ordinary interests of the average Australian. The Government's appraisal of Australian national interests in regard to policies towards South Africa is not only questionable; it should be condemned. The Government purports to condemn the policy of separate development or apartheid and the policies of the South African Government. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Rankin, mentioned that the South African Government has been making reforms. Certainly it has been making reforms. Mr Hodgman —Hear, hear! Mr SLIPPER —I am pleased once again to have the support of the honourable member for Denison. In fact those reforms in South Africa have to go further. Every reasonable person in South Africa supports those reforms. What we should be doing in this House is giving encouragement to the Government of South Africa to continue those reforms. It is a sad state of affairs that, the more the South African Government moderates its policies, the more condemnation is heaped on that Government by the people who control this country. This Government singles out South Africa. It does not worry about the Soviet Union. It has forgotten about Afghanistan. It has forgotten about Czechoslovakia. It has avoided discussing the way the Soviet Union managed to enslave half of Europe after the Second World War. It does not care because it considers Russia to be its ideological friend. The Government tries to unify the members of its Left but none of them is in the House tonight. Mr Hodgman —They are all at the Soviet Embassy. Mr SLIPPER —They may well all be at the Soviet Embassy. The truth is that the Government tries to bring together those factions in the Australian Labor Party by coming out and criticising poor old South Africa-which is attempting to take a reasonable approach and trying to water down and do away with its apartheid policy. The Government is not interested in that. It is interested in point scoring. It is not interested in the rights of South Africans. The policies of condemnation of South Africa do nothing to promote a realistic understanding of the country's internal problems and the methods that need to be adopted to alleviate them through negotiation. The Government also causes unnecessary difficulties in communication between Australia and South Africa. What about those South African people who have moved here? We had a strike by the postal union. The Government will not permit Qantas Airways Ltd to fly to South Africa. Instead Qantas flies to Zimbabwe, that country which Malcolm Fraser managed to help turn over to a Marxist government. We all know that Zimbabwe is a country with a shocking record on human rights. For no apparent reason our airline is not allowed to fly to South Africa, although airlines from most other countries do. Australia has a government-it calls itself a government-which is going nowhere. Mr Sharp —It is a rabble. Mr SLIPPER —The honourable member for Gilmore has called it a rabble. He could well be correct. The people of Australia should take note of the Government's shocking handling of foreign affairs and the way in which it has been refusing to consider the nation's interest. It has earned the condemnation of the people of Australia which will be shown at the next election when I have no doubt that the Labor Party will be swept from office in a landslide at the next election. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(8.53) —Since the early 1900s it has been predicted that the centre of the world's political and economic gravity would shift from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1903: The Atlantic era is now at the height of its development. The Pacific era, destined to be the greatest of all, is just at its dawn. In 1944, just after his triumphal return to the Philippines, General Douglas MacArthur told a group of war correspondents: The history of the world for the next thousand years will be written in the Pacific. Scholars, businessmen, commentators and policy makers worldwide say the Pacific century is here. Masao Fugioka, President of the Asian Development Bank, told the Swiss Institute for Foreign Studies in 1982: The Pacific is the ocean of tomorrow. We are witnessing the dawn of the Asia-Pacific era. What is the cause of the heady optimism? Japan's great economic growth and leadership has been well documented; so, too, has China's experimentation with capitalism and emergence as a world market. Perhaps less well known to much of the world have been the great economic strides of countries such as Singapore, Malaysia and South Korea. Many economists predict that by the year 2000 the Asia-Pacific region will by-pass both the United States of America and Europe to become the world's strongest economic entity. The term `Pacific basin' or `Pacific rim' generally refers to countries that border the Pacific Ocean, from Japan in the north to New Zealand in the south. It also embraces the islands of the Pacific and, across the ocean, Canada and the United States-often Chile and Peru in South America. The economic dynamism of this region gives it the world's greatest trading potential for the foreseeable future. Statistics illustrate this most dramatically. In 1983 Japan had the second largest gross national product in the western world, representing about 14.8 per cent of the total output of all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, and some 9.5 per cent of global GNP. Its share of global trade was 8.1 per cent. Its direct overseas investments amounted to $7.7 billion. The average prediction for average annual real economic growth in Japan over the next 10 years is 4 per cent. This would produce a per capita national income of $14,500 in 1993-almost equal to that of the United States. The growth rates of real GNP during the two decades 1960 to 1980 were Korea 8.5 per cent, Taiwan 9.6 per cent, Thailand 7.4 per cent, the Philippines 5.8 per cent, Indonesia 4.8 per cent, Malaysia 8.2 per cent and Singapore 9.2 per cent. The share of manufactured goods in total exports at the beginning of the 1960s was only about 15 per cent for Korea and Taiwan, and between 0 per cent and 5 per cent in the cases of Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. By 1980 manufactured goods accounted for more than 90 per cent in the cases of Korea and Taiwan, and 28 per cent, 24 per cent and 35 per cent in the cases of Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand respectively. In the period 1970 to 1981 rice production rose by more than 60 per cent in both Indonesia and the Philippines-from 13 to 22 million tonnes in one case and from 3 to 5 million tonnes in the other. A recent Japanese prediction is for an overall growth rate of between 6.5 and 8 per cent for the market economies of the region for the rest of the decade. By the end of the 1990s, the Association of South East Asian Nations gross domestic product may well be more than 40 per cent larger than Australia's GDP. The image of the East Asian region of mass poverty and backwardness is dangerously outdated. In an address to the Australian Council of the International Chamber of Commerce, Mr Geoff Miller, the then Acting Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs, said: The first thing we should do is welcome this peaceful economic progress. Starting with World War II and going on until the end of the Vietnam war Australia was repeatedly involved in wars and fighting in Asia-the Pacific war itself, in Korea, Malaysia, Borneo and finally in Vietnam. We feared Japanese imperialism, Chinese, Vietnamese and Malaysian communism, and Indonesian expansionism, and our soldiers fought many times, from the freezing mountains of Korea to the jungles of South East Asia, to defend us from these perceived threats. They were not always successful and our perceptions of those past days have in some cases considerably changed. But the important fact is that we now face, in a way which was not the case in the past, an Asia which is not at war, whose component countries are devoting themselves to peaceful pursuits and the prosperity of their people, and thus provide an environment in which we as an integral part of the western Pacific region can ourselves prosper in peace A former Australian Foreign Minister is alleged to have defined the goal of foreign policy as `the long term security and prosperity of the country'. Most people would agree that it is preferable to further foreign policy according to that definition through the pursuit of trade and other economic interchange than through military involvements of the kind referred to by Mr Geoff Miller. Whilst we share the confidence in the rapid economic development of the Pacific region, the strategic picture is neither simple nor serene. Tensions exist on the Sino-Soviet border and between China and Taiwan. There are territorial borders disputes between the Soviet Union and Japan. Tensions exist between North and South Korea. There is conflict in Cambodia and, not least, there is the rapid expansion of Soviet military forces in South East Asia, particularly in Vietnam. The Foreign Minister, in his statement to this House on 26 November, said with regard to the Government's foreign policy that it must: . . . maintain a level-headed appreciation of the limits of the power and influence which it has . . . A foreign policy which ignores this fact will be no more than words. Australia, by virtue of its size, geographic proximity to the Indian Ocean, South East Asia and the South Pacific and because of its military and political alignment, makes an outstanding regional contribution to United States strategic interests. Australia and New Zealand are formally aligned with the United States in the ANZUS Treaty and have traditionally provided the United States with close political support. Australia, especially, is a significant regional importer of United States technology and capital and it is a major exporter of raw materials and energy. Australia and, to a much lesser extent, New Zealand have traditionally facilitated the regional military requirements of the United States. Three joint facilities in Australia directly support the United States strategic posture. These are the naval communications station at North West Cape, the defence space research facility at Pine Gap; and the space communications facility at Nurrungar. These three facilities provide the United States with communications including command and control of ballistic submarines, signals intelligence, early warning and targeting information. As well, Australia and, until recently, New Zealand have provided United States military units with wide access to port and other land support facilities. United States naval vessels, including aircraft carriers and nuclear-powered attack submarines have been calling at the Western Australian naval base at HMAS Stirling on the average of one a month. Under a bilateral agreement, Australia provides the B52 aircraft of the United States Air Force with staging facilities in northern Australia to assist with the United States Air Force navigation training and ocean surveillance programs in the region. The Foreign Minister, in his speech to the House of Representatives of 26 November 1985, pledged a strong and deep commitment to Australia's alliance with the United States of America. He said: In reaffirming this commitment, we have the support of the Australian people, for there is a profound and wide-spread feeling for the United States in this country which goes beyond the normal calculations of common interest. He went on to say: 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. Australia was directly responsible for the security of its colony, Papua New Guinea, until the independence of the latter in 1975. Close security links have been maintained over the post-independence years. These have been maintained due to geographic proximity as well as Australia's continuing role as Papua New Guinea's principal economic and military aid donor. In February 1977 the Prime Ministers of Australia and Papua New Guinea issued a joint statement on defence relations. The second and key paragraph of the statement affirmed the importance attached by each government to continued defence co-operation and states the intention of the two as being: To consult at the request of either, about matters affecting their common security interests and about aspects of their defence relationship. This statement, together with an exchange of ministerial letters on 21 January 1977 and the Status of Forces and Supply and Support agreement of the same month, remain the formal basis for security co-operation between the two neighbouring states. While these documents fall short of a formal alliance, Papua New Guinea regards them as the basis of an Australian security guarantee. The Hawke Government-an authentic Australian government, for its part, has taken a direct interest in Papua New Guinea's security for a number of reasons: For example the sensitivity of Australian domestic opinion to geographic proximity and historic association; considerations relating to Australian credibility in the South Pacific; and the consequences of Papua New Guinea turning elsewhere for help and so undermining the ANZUS strategy of regional denial. Taken together, these considerations draw Australia closely to one of the few potentially destabilising issues in the region-that is, the border between Papua New Guinea and the Indonesian province of Irian Jaya. Running some 760 kilometres over poorly marked and some extremely rugged terrain, the border is the only land frontier in the South Pacific region. The integrity of the border is a sensitive issue to both states. Indonesia sensitivities stem from the wider concern to maintain the cohesion of a state which is geographically dispersed and is inhabited by heterogeneous people. Papua New Guinea's sensitivities, on the other hand, stem from the determination of a new and weaker state to maintain its sovereignty. On Papua New Guinea's part, there is also a strong element of sympathy for the ethnically related Melanesian people on the other side of the border. Mr Miller stressed the overwhelming fact about our relations with countries of the Asia-Pacific region. He observed that in a way that is unique for any country of predominantly European population, Australia is located among non-European countries which are steadily becoming stronger, more prosperous and capable when compared with ourselves. The Australian people therefore value the indefatigable efforts of the Australian Foreign Minister in building many bridges between Australia and other Pacific rim countries. His outstanding success in constructing closer friendly relations between Australia and Indonesia is to be applauded. Indonesia's size, proximity and potential give it a special strategic significance for Australia. With a population of around 156 million, Indonesia is the fifth most populous country in the world. It has significant mineral and natural resources. The Indonesian archipelago stretches across the northern approaches to Australia, thus commanding sea lanes of communication to Japan, China and other trading nations in east and South East Asia and major routes between the Indian and Pacific oceans and major air routes to Asia as well as Europe. Indonesia shares a border with Papua New Guinea, where Australia has important political, strategic and economic interests. The most immediate prospects for major economic co-operation between Australia and Indonesia lie in the joint development of the Timor Gap. Indonesia's determination to develop a steel industry may also hold long term prospects for Australian joint ventures, particularly given Indonesia's proximity to Australian mines and to the Kwinana plant in Western Australia. I believe that the Australian Government may need to provide funding for initial efforts to identify areas of possible co-operation as a means of redressing the deficiencies caused by the lack of historical and cultural ties between the two countries. Of particular interest is the Australian Government's sponsored training program. Under this program, 225 Indonesian post-graduate scholars and trainees are currently studying in Australia. They are undertaking training mainly in the areas of agriculture, education, mining, engineering, health services and public utilities. Fourteen Indonesian students are currently training under the program at the internationally renowned graduate school of tropical veterinary science at Townsville's James Cook University. In addition to training in Australia, increased emphasis is now being given to providing training courses in Indonesia, covering engineering, public administration and agriculture, designed to meet specific Indonesian needs. Over the past 10 years Australia has sponsored 24,000 students from all parts of Asia. These young people are among the technocrats and the intelligentsia who are making the Asian region so confident and dynamic. Australians have accepted the challenge to be involved in all aspects of a drive towards development and economic progress throughout the Asian region. Examples include Australian participation in the Australian school at Bataan and the general hospital at Rangoon. The Australian Foreign Minister eloquently summed up the reason for our involvement, in a speech to the Bangkok Foreign Correspondents Club on 3 August 1984, when he said: We are involved from the ground up in the drive towards greater development and dynamic growth in the Asian Area. We are involved in this way because this is our home too. Whatever ties Australia has had with the old world, the very future of our land, Australia, and our race is irrevocably locked to the destiny of the Pacific rim countries. We share with these countries the same Pacific Ocean first seen by Europeans when, on 25 September 1513, Vasco Nunez de Balboa climbed a hill on the Central American coast and took his first sight of that ocean, the cradle of a new civilisation to be. Let us therefore go forth to contribute our skills and goodwill to ensure that the Pacific region will be a safe and vibrant home not only for our children but also for the generations of Australians yet unborn. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(9.08) —Last year, as shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, I was critical of several aspects of the Government's handling of the complex problems of South Africa. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in the statement now before the House, in reference to the group of eminent persons established by the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, says: 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. I am pleased to note that rather more positive approach by the Government, because there is no doubt that it is time for the Western world to challenge South Africa in the most positive way. The National Party Government in South Africa has not responded to the United States policy of constructive engagement. On the contrary, both domestically and in its relations with Namibia and the bordering sovereign states of southern Africa, it has betrayed the confidence given it by the West. Its military activity on its borders and its refusal to deal with the genuine leaders of the urban blacks have created a recipe not merely for internal revolution, but for regional warfare with the possibility of super-power involvement. The National Party Government in South Africa is one of the most intransigent, repressive and brutal in the world. It has forfeited the respect of all decent people. If the non-racial, non-communist, essentially non-violent actions of current black leaders do not soon gain a commitment by the whites of South Africa to genuine discussions on constitutional reform, those leaders will be totally discredited in the eyes of the younger blacks. That was evident from many discussions which I had when I was in southern Africa last year and it has been confirmed by subsequent reports. As the Minister is in the chamber I would like to thank him and his Department for the assistance which they gave me. I particularly thank Messrs Etheridge, Pearce and Sparkes, who under the guidance of Ambassador Birch organised such a representative, stimulating and insightful program for me. We have the danger not so much of extremism from the Right which we read about but extremism from the Left. A blood-bath seems inevitable. But I cling to the hope that it is still not too late for the parties rationally to discuss political power sharing. The usual ambit claims are made, but the key to peaceful change lies in constructive, constitutional discussions by elected white politicians with blacks who are similarly chosen-people who are chosen by the blacks, not people nominated by the whites. Apartheid is a political system. It is designed to ensure that the white minority retains political power to dominate the non-white majority. Consequently, concessions to social or economic discrimination should not be misunderstood as being reforms to apartheid. No one would deny that progress has been made on the social side. No one would deny that there is much more to be done. I believe that President Botha intends to remove more social and some economic discrimination. But I do not believe that he intends to abolish apartheid as a political system. Indeed, he has further entrenched it in the Constitution by creating a tricameral parliament based on race, and excluding the blacks. There are separate chambers for mixed race or coloured people, for Asians and for whites. But the real legislative power lies in the white chamber and even greater executive power lies with the white state President. Had the experiment of a four-chamber parliament and the non-elected President's council been tried a decade or more ago, it might have evolved into a non-racial parliament. But it cannot succeed now. Not only would blacks not now accept a fourth chamber if it were offered to them-and the President says it will not be-but also the boycott of the polls by Asians and coloureds dooms even the tricameral experiment. That is especially true now that the coloured and Asian representatives have supported the state of emergency. They had less than 20 per cent of the poll in terms of their ethnic groupings and those who were elected supported the state of emergency, which was, of course, imposed against the blacks. The determination of the Government to work through people seen by educated urban blacks, coloureds and Asians as being Uncle Toms and to emasculate all opposition is welding the middle class together; so much so that the leaders of the three ethnic groups call themselves black. I spoke to the 16 accused facing treason charges in Natal. I found them united and integrated in their struggle for fundamental political rights. They had been acting in parallel on behalf of the three groups, but from now on they and the many thousands of others who support them will act in concert. Their adversity will bring substance to the commitment of the greatly harassed non-racial United Democratic Front, the banned non-racial African National Congress and the non-racial Progressive Federal Party. Having spoken with many black leaders both within and outside South Africa, I am confident that, if blacks were brought into the political process now, they would apply themselves energetically and creatively to forging a new Constitution embracing the principles espoused in the Magna Carta, the United States Declaration of Independence and the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. They would be anxious to protect minority racial interests, of which there are several apart from the whites. How ironic and how sad it would be if they had to do this with the aid of the closed, totalitarian, brutal regimes of the Soviet world. Yet that is the prospect. The very product of apartheid is the absence of avenues of communication. Few whites thought the state of emergency was justified. There was no riot in their streets and the limited media reports did not convey to them the real nature of the riots elsewhere. How can a manacled media really convey the frustration and hopelessness of the average urban blacks who told me of their dashed expectations? Few whites are even aware of the devastation felt by the third or fourth generation of urban blacks who strove hard for matriculation and to live in a home with electricity, running water and sewerage, only to find themselves denied those and other amenities which middle class people everywhere else regard as their entitlement. Few whites know that they have as many black counterparts whose upwardly mobile aspirations have been dashed by the white regime. Few whites know how brutal that regime is and few in the West really know, either. There was no need for the state of emergency, not because there was no riot in the white streets, but simply because the legislation already in place, the Internal Security Act, contains the powers that any government would ever wish for in order to found a state of emergency. The whites who overthrew Smuts can only bargain from a position of strength. Their moral strength has evaporated and they can retain power only by increased brutality and repression. They complain of brutality against them, but as the recently retired Leader of the Opposition has said, brutality, of course, begins with the Government itself. The liberals, both black and white, are in opposition to the Government and in those circumstances, of course, loose talk of economic sanctions does not lessen the prospect of brutality. I am convinced that the best way to help liberal whites and blacks is for a group of Western Foreign Ministers to go to South Africa and to tell the Government and all the organisations interested in that country's development that the Western world expects that they will sit down to genuine discussions on their constitutional future. Such a delegation must be led by the United States or perhaps the United Kingdom. It should certainly include Australia, Canada, Germany and Japan. It is not for us to tell them what form of constitution they should adopt. It is not necessary for it be a unitary system. A variety of federal and confederal systems have already been proposed. But it is legitimate for the West to say to South Africa: `If you really want to be a member of the Western club-and we certainly want you to be-you must behave in a manner which is consistent with Western democratic principles'. It has not in fact had an election for many years. When the next election is held in 1989, it will have been nine years since the last election. So even the 17 per cent of people who vote for the white House have not had an election for many years. To avoid massive bloodshed of both whites and blacks, as a collective Western voice, including the Japanese, we must say: `We urge you to negotiate forthwith with black leaders chosen by blacks by secret ballot'. Such an approach gives the maximum possible emphasis to what the Americans call `constructive engagement'. Nothing could be more positive and I strongly urge it again tonight. That approach would be accompanied by the demands which have already come from the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, the United Nations and unilaterally from Washington, London, Bonn, Canberra and so forth: end the state of emergency; repeal the Internal Security Act; release all political detainees, grant amnesties to those who are now in exile; abandon so-called treason trials; legalise the ANC; give Nelson Mandela time to brief himself on the views of the young turks and then enter into genuine talks about power sharing with him and other leaders. We in opposition have said this. The Government has essentially said it as well, and it has added a few gimmicks which I do not think have improved the situation or the prospects one iota. If that process begins, much progress can be made. By the time the next tricameral parliament elections are due to be held in 1989, all sorts of interim elections could be held under alternative arrangements agreed upon by all of the people in South Africa who have a vested interest there-blacks, white, coloureds, Indians, and so forth. If a positive approach of that nature fails, of course, the West will have to go back to the drawing board. I wrote an article along those lines in the Age on, I think, 2 September. On 10 September an Australian who had lived for 55 years in South Africa wrote a letter to the editor saying how absolutely right I was and hoping that nobody in Australia doubted those words. I am bound to say that, having heard the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) and the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) say that they do doubt it, history will prove, in a very short space of time, how wrong were their judgments of the Fraser Government and how wrong were their judgments of Zimbabwe. In the last few minutes available to me I turn to some of the problems which are thrown up as a result of the picture I have shown. As reported in the Age of 27 July, Mrs Mandela, the wife of the African National Congress leader, Nelson Mandela, said: We thought years ago we would be part of a process to assist the Afrikaner in dismantling his own Frankenstein's monster . . . that time is over. We no longer want that type of freedom. The freedom we are fighting for is freedom now, our liberation now. That is a fact. People are no longer interested in whether they can sleep together, eat together or urinate together, they want now to participate fully and equally, but subject to all sorts of reservations to protect minority interests-black, white, and coloured. The Age editorial on Tuesday of this week summed up the dreadful problem with which we are now faced. It was headed `The reality behind Botha's rhetoric' and stated: Many people wondered what President Botha meant a few days ago when he delivered a major speech saying that South Africa had outgrown the concept of apartheid and that he and his Government were committed to power sharing. Subsequent events have provided the clearest possible answer. First, Mr Botha has publicly and sharply rebuked his Foreign Minister for daring to suggest that black cabinet ministers and even a black state president were possible and acceptable to him as long as there were sufficient guarantees for the white minority. Second, Mr Botha has given his firm support to a statement by his Education Minister saying that the ruling National Party would never accept integrated schools, hospitals and suburbs. Third, a group of coloured MPs taking Mr Botha at his word have been ejected from a parliamentary restaurant still apparently reserved for whites. Fourth, a South African human rights movement has reported that the forced relocation of blacks from areas designated for white use has resumed after an interval of two years. Fifth, a trading licence has been withheld from a white businessman because he is married to someone of another race. Sixth, the security forces are still killing blacks protesting against discrimination. All this has caused, seventh, the resignation from Parliament of the Opposition Leader, Dr Van Zyl Slabbert, an honourable man who is obviously sickened by the cynicism with which the Government is conducting the affairs of a country in crisis and feels that it is futile for him to continue. These and other developments since the opening of Parliament serve as an indictment of Mr Botha's habit of saying one thing and meaning another. Many white South Africans, desperate for some good news, have been quick to seize on his alleged initiatives as a sign of real hope for the future. Instead, they have been given another reminder that Mr Botha must be judged not on what he says, but on what he does. The time to warm to his words will come when he announces an end to the state of emergency, a firm schedule for repealing all discriminatory legislation, the unconditional release of all political prisoners and the opening of negotiations with authentic black leaders. That of course has been our policy. Essentially, reform will come from pressures within the country. We must all wish Malcolm Fraser and his group success. I am sure they will do their best, but should they fail I hope that the Government will encourage the major countries I have mentioned to send serving Foreign Ministers to drive the message home to the intransigents. If that fails, other international measures will have to be agreed upon and adopted multilaterally. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(9.24) —Before speaking to the foreign policy statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) I would like to pay tribute to the sensitivity with which the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) typically has viewed the traumas suffered by black South Africans existing under the brutal regime in South Africa. I have also visited South Africa on a private tour. Some honourable members were given a very brisk tour by the South African Government, but I came to an altogether different conclusion from those members and I appreciate the comments made by the honourable member. In supporting in its entirety the thoughtful and comprehensive statement on Australia's foreign policy made by the most capable Foreign Minister to serve in the Australian Parliament, the Hon. Bill Hayden, I wish to be selective in my commentary. While supporting the diverse policies embracing security arrangements, peace and disarmament, and international diplomacy, I move to what the Minister has called Australia's involvement in the great international social issues, and within this forum focus on Australia's foreign aid program and on the needs of developing nations. Following the recommendation of the Jackson Committee on the Australian Overseas Aid Program that Australia makes its aid more effective by targeting it more carefully, the Foreign Minister has decreed that our program will concentrate its resources on fewer methods of delivery within fewer sectors. We are, therefore, concentrating on areas where we have particular expertise or resources. This is as it should be. Problems faced in the sadly abused continent of Africa highlight the manner in which adverse natural and social conditions can actually be exacerbated by unwise application of aid. This is manifest in problems such as the shift in food preferences away from the African diet towards imported food products and the related issue of dumping of food surpluses as aid without due consideration of the needs of the recipients. I congratulate the Foreign Minister on his acumen in fostering an aid environment which will discourage the development of such problems. I wish to focus on the special needs of Africa as an illustration of some shared problems of developing nations. Africa is becoming increasingly dependent on industrialised nations and the real tragedy of this is that, as a consequence, its own agricultural patterns are being distorted. It may not be popularly realised that while Africa suffers extreme famine in many areas of that vast continent, it still remains a major source of supply of crops consumed in developed nations, notably the United Kingdom. These include coffee, cocoa, sugar, as well as ground nuts and cooking oil, to mention a few. Before the colonial era African agriculture was geared to food production and most countries were self-sufficient and secure, but by the end of the nineteenth century, with mining and concession companies staking their claim, African society, already blighted by 300 years of slave trade, was shattered by the new colonial demands for land and labour. This opened the way for European companies to establish big plantations to secure supplies for their own factories in industrial centres-in effect, the era of the multinationals. One of the first foreign-owned plantations was established by Lever Brothers in 1911. Now known as Unilever, this company was one of many which prospered as African society declined and is now the world's biggest food business-a tragic irony. Pertinent to my comments on foreign aid, the badly designed aid programs of recent years have added to Africa's natural problems due to natural and social arrangements. I would like to quote from the Ecologist of 1984 on the phenomenon of agric business, which is a situation whereby large companies in developed nations are introducing agricultural projects into underdeveloped countries for the stated reason of assisting those countries. The real result is that it is the company from the Western nation which benefits through the sale of pesticides, fertilisers and products such as that. In many cases the very introduction of the project is to the detriment of the people in the underdeveloped nation. The Ecologist states: That is the nature of agribusiness: The integration of activities designed to make a profit out of the inputs to farming-the seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, management and consultancies, animal foodstuffs, research-as well as from, the outputs of the farm. In effect, aid projects are badly designed, but time and again the schemes developed by experts and funded with aid, channel money into expensive and technically complicated schemes. Foriegn advisers, for instance, tend to favour irrigation schemes, since agricultural production rises spectacularly with regular water supplies. A sceptic would point out that irrigation schemes offer more for donor countries or agricultural consultancies than do rain-fed agricultural products. Some of these projects have a particularly disastrous effect on the people in the under-developed nation. For instance, in Nigeria during the second half of the 1970s the main area of agricultural investment was in large scale irrigation schemes, with devastating effects upon peasant producers. In Northern Nigeria the Talata-Mafara project irrigated 10,000 hectares near the Sokoto River. The work was carried out by Impresit Nigeria Ltd, which is 40 per cent owned by Fiat, and during the three-year construction period 60,000 peasants were moved. They were unable to farm, were given no compensation and finally, when they protested, the state called in armed police to put them down. It was a situation in which the developed nations and the Government of the country where the people were suffering compacted the misery that the people in those nations had suffered during the colonial period. While I believe that these problems should be recognised publicly, it is important that we recognise also the famine which has been caused by natural features of drought and desertification in Africa. Famine and drought in Africa are not new phenomena. The 1984 Food and Agriculture Organisation report pointed to at least four famine-related crises now present in the region, relating to the appalling droughts of the past few years: Firstly, an environmental crisis caused by less rainfall, acid soils and desertification; secondly, a developmental crisis due to failure to establish effective national development policies; thirdly, an economic crisis because of a reduction in the world demand for Africa's main commodity exports; and, fourthly, a political crisis in specific African countries in addition to problems emanating from unrest in SouthAfrica. Population growth in Africa exacerbates the problems. Production or importation of enough food for the 15 to 20 million additional people each year is a tall order and understandably is beyond Africa's present capabilities. African countries' food imports increased from $2.4 billion in 1981 to $5.8 billion in 1983. These countries are becoming increasingly dependent upon industrial nations. In the process, agricultural patterns are distorted. The need to create 200 million additional productive jobs between now and the year 2000 does not ease the situation. It is generally accepted that the food aid provided by the Western world is at best a short term solution which is likely to lead to even greater dependence on the part of the recipient African nations, but food must be provided and in greater abundance. It must get through to the hungry, for it is only those with full bellies who can enjoy the luxury of debating the advantages and disadvantages of long and short term aid, yet it must be debated. There is a need for long term agricultural planning and education to rehabilitate a land which was once fertile but which is now exhausted to the point of death. Overseas aid agencies are providing the guarantee for the funding of large scale production food projects. The USAID's `Food Sector Assistance Strategy for the 1980s for Africa' emphasises increased production using technological advances, new seeds and skilled managers, technicians and administrators, yet it is argued that the problems of internal planning and bad design of projects abound. A number of monitoring agencies, such as the United Nations Children's Fund, the World Food Program and others, have determined standards and guidelines for such programs and have acted in an advisory capacity. So, what has gone wrong? I believe that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs has taken the right line in appealing to the United Nations to play a greater role in co-ordinating the international communities. I note with satisfaction the response of the United Nation and member nations to the crisis in Ethiopia. As a major food producer and comparatively affluent middle level power, Australia's contribution has been characterised by increasing its food aid allocations, mainly in the form of wheat; by promoting agricultural research and development programs through the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation and the Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research; and by providing aid through non-government organisations, such as community Aid Abroad, to local level projects emphasising food sufficiency and self-reliance. I quote from a statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs on overseas aid programs ofNovember 1985, when he said: The response of Australians to the famine in Africa has been prompt and generous. But long term development strategies are necessary so that the emergency does not continue. Australian aid programs to African countries will therefore focus increasingly on the objective of national food security. The Government is committed to a program which will draw on Australian resources and expertise to tackle the real problems. Our aid to African countries will continue to be channelled mainly through the World Bank and other multilateral organisations. We have already taken steps to look into the possibility of membership of the African Development Bank. The Minister for Foreign Affairs recognised the potential for abuse of a developing nation when he said in his foreign aid statement: We must be careful to ensure that such schemes- that is, the Development Import Finance Facility scheme and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation- do not develop primarily as help for Australian industry rather than developing countries. I refer briefly to one other aspect of the problems faced by developing nations, particularly with reference to the load which is sometimes put on them by developed nations which wish to help; that is, the problem of external debt in developing countries. The external debt in these countries has increased markedly over the past decade. A recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development study shows that while the level of the long term debt in developing countries in 1971 was $86 billion, by 1983 this had grown to $606 billion. The origin of the international debt crisis basically can be tied to the oil crises of 1974 and 1977 and was exacerbated by a sharp decrease in export revenue due to a global recession and an increase in the interest rates on the increased stock of floating rate debt. The burgeoning domestic deficit in developed nations such as the United States of America, which forced up the interest which then had to be paid by the underdeveloped nations struggling to meet a debt which really was incurred because of damage which was done in colonial times, must be recognised. I am pleased at the part the Australian Government is playing in reducing our deficit and have pleasure in giving my full support to the foreign policy statement made by our Foreign Minister. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(9.28) —Of my two predecessors in the Federal seat of Curtin, the first and probably the most distinguished was the Rt Hon. Sir Paul Hasluck. He wrote a book in 1948 after resigning from the then Department of External Affairs in protest at the conduct of Australian foreign policy under Evatt. Sir Paul, who was later to serve with great distinction as a Cabinet Minister under Menzies and as a Governor-General of Australia, was then a reader in history at the University of Western Australia. In his book, entitled Workshop of Security, Paul Hasluck wrote that Australia's contribution to world affairs should be one that emphasised `clear, objective, honest thinking and the firm, logical and unprovocative delivery of our views'. He went on to say that our influence rested entirely upon the respect in which Australia is held abroad. He wrote: To be influential in the world Australia has to walk with modesty as well as courage, in wisdom and good faith. Those remarks are as true today as they were when written 38 years ago. They are particularly relevant when we come to examine the substance of the conduct of foreign and defence policy under Labor. In responding to the statement made by the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) on Australia's external relations, my colleague the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), himself a distinguished former Foreign Minister, highlighted what he aptly described as the `steady erosion of cohesion, stability and direction in Australia's foreign policy under the Hawke Government'. In his wide-ranging address last year, the honourable member discussed many important aspects of the conduct of Australia's external relations. This evening I want to talk about the broader issues involved in the `creeping nuclear pacifism' evident in some sections of the community and in the Government. Moral concern about nuclear weapons touches upon a problem vital to mankind's future. Our relatively new-found ability to exterminate ourselves has profoundly affected our notions of war and peace. As a famous British military historian, B. H. Liddlehart has noted: Old concepts and old definitions of strategy have become not only obsolete but nonsensical with the development of nuclear weapons. Thomas Schelling, the distinguished Harvard academic, wrote in 1966: There was a time when the assurance of victory-false or genuine assurance-could make national leaders not just willing, but sometimes enthusiastic, about war. Not now. The unparalleled power and destructiveness of nuclear weapons is brought home vividly when one reads or listens to eminent scientists detailing the horrors of the worst imaginable case of nuclear devastation. Who, then, can doubtOxford's Professor Michael Howard when he says: `The existence of nuclear weapons makes war seem a superbly unattractive option'. That is a masterful piece of understatement. Peace is an objective we all share. What we are talking about today is the means of maintaining it. Because of the potential horror of nuclear war, it is easy to be deflected from reasoned discourse. Saying merely `no' to nuclear war is both necessary and difficult since saying `no' does not make it so. Words are, after all, only threshold actions. At best they are only stimuli which, if anything is to be accomplished, must trigger concrete policies. All too often moral passion has led to our streets being turned into a stage upon which the horrors of nuclear havoc are depicted in poster, poetry and pantomime while a chorus insistently proclaims that `something must be done'. Far too many nuclear disarmament campaigners believe that an expression of moral outrage is going to be helpful, saying that nuclear war is an obscenity is going somehow to make it less likely. Mrs Darling —They should not do that, should they? Mr ROCHER —Democratic societies entrust such matters to public discussion. That is one reason why they are worth defending. Democracy itself depends upon the civility and wisdom of the discussions that take place amongst its citizens, and I recommend that sort of approach to the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling). As former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has argued: Moral concern must be coupled with a willingness to think through the central issues with a seriousness and in a detail that does justice to dangers as complex as they are enormous. In particular, leadership in a democracy is exquisitely dependent on cool-headedness and the force of reason-a task made more difficult by the outbursts of passion, wild accusations, flagrant hyperbole and misleading assertions that far too often have been the `substance' of the so-called `peace movement' arguments. In deciding important questions of public policy, it is a wise procedure to seek first a clear grasp of realities, interests and powers. As Colin S. Gray has noted: Visions that cannot be implemented can be irresponsible and harmful when they channel attention and creative thought away from more modest practical steps that actually might help reduce the risk of war. A good example of this failing is Jonathon Schell's book The Fate of the Earth. Schell writes with eloquence and a sophisticated appreciation of the horrors a nuclear war would entail. Yet when he moves to actual proposals in chapter three-apocalyptically entitled `The Choice'-his simple but frightening vision of the future lacks practical detail. Having set out a vast agenda for global change, he says: I have left to others those awesome urgent tasks which, imposed on us by history, constitute the political work of our age. As Time magazine's diplomatic correspondent Strobe Talbot noted `Thanks a lot': That is the sort of thing we get in literature from proponents of and people active in the so-called peace movement. Unfortunately, while passion can give an impetus, only analysis can produce results. As Henry Kissinger has argued: It is a disservice to serious moral concerns to pretend that there is no practical dimension. One writer has discussed this matter with the seriousness it deserves is Michael Novak, whose April 1983 essay Moral Clarity in the Nuclear Age is a document of rigorous thought and elegant moral reasoning. I commend his book to members of the community seriously concerned with these issues. I turn now to a particular matter in the conduct of Australia's external relations. I refer to the peculiar approach of the Hawke Government to the Western alliance. I join with the honourable member for Kooyong in expressing concern at the failure of Labor's foreign policy to recognise in a wider vision the values that underpin the Western alliance. As the honourable member for Kooyong pointed out, `The Western alliance is not just a grouping of powers'; it is `also the embodiment of certain ideas and values which are distinctly part of the Australian character'. Those ideals are democracy, liberty and respect for the individual. Mr Peacock —Now you know why I voted for you. Mr ROCHER —That was very kind. I did not know the honourable member had. I thank him very much. Forty-one years ago when General Sir Thomas Blamey, then Commander-in-Chief of the Australian Military Forces, issued an order of the day on the occasion of the surrender of the Japanese, he was under no illusion as to why Australian servicemen and women had fought and died. Sir Thomas wrote: We are now to go to our homes having done our part in ensuring freedom for which we have fought so long and successfully. I wonder how many people have forgotten that, when we think about what happened in relation to the Veterans' Entitlements Bill. However, that is another story. Whatever the failings of the nations comprising the Western alliance, they are immeasurably superior to the alternative and, as the honourable member for Kooyong reminded us, that alternative has been active in enhancing its own massive military resources and in taking advantage of available opportunities to extend its influence. For, despite all the complex debates that take place about the size, posture and purpose of Soviet military power, the essential facts are clear. As Professor Hedley Bull of Oxford University noted in 1983: . . . the growth of Soviet military power is no figment of the American imagination: In the course of the 1970s the Soviet Union acquired a lead over the United States in some aspects of strategic nuclear power: It extended its long standing superiority in conventional arms in central Europe: And developed a capacity for direct military intervention in the Third World . . . Professor Bull went on to argue: The Americans, moreover, are correct in believing that, whatever else they do, they must first ensure that the Soviet Union does not establish a position of military preponderance in the world as a whole. The maintenance of the global balance of power is a basic condition of international order, without which there would be no prospect of security either for the United States or for its allies, or for neutral third parties. The burden of maintaining this balance is one that only America is capable of carrying, and those of us outside the United States who presume to criticise its policy towards Moscow need always to remember that our own countries do not bear this responsibility. What is more, it happens all too often. Henry Kissinger noted in 1982: Little attention is paid to a whole series of aggressive or intransigent Soviet actions, from the dispatch of Cuban troops to Africa through the occupation of Afghanistan, to the repression of freedom in Poland, which not only threatened the global equilibrium but are the proximate cause of the breakdown of strategic arms control negotiations in the 1970s. Kissinger had already noted in 1981 this amazing phenomenon: Less than two years after Afghanistan, less than four years after Cuban troops under a Soviet general appeared in Ethopia, six years after the same thing happened in Angola and while thirty-plus Soviet divisions are constantly bringing pressure on Poland, that at this moment there should be mass demonstrations all over Europe-affirming what? The desirability of peace and implying that it is the United States which is the obstacle. Even less attention has been paid to some basic facts of post-war history: But for Soviet pressures in the immediate post-war period American troops would have been withdrawn from Europe in the 1940s, as indeed they were from Korea; but for the Korean War the United States military budget would have shrunk to derisory levels; it was the threat to the freedom of Berlin in the late 1950s which accelerated the American military buildup; the Soviet strategic arsenal has grown and been modernised relentlessly since the Cuban missile crisis 20 years ago; for a variety of reasons the United States stopped its numerical buildup in the late 1960s and slowed its modernisation for the better part of the 1970s; and all world wars in the post-war period have occurred where there were no American forces and no nuclear weapons, while Europe, under American nuclear protection, has enjoyed the longest period of peace in its history. Kissinger went on to note: For all these reasons, the clamour for peace in much of the West is in most respects addressed to the wrong government. All too often foreign policy as conducted under the Australian Labor Party has left the clear impression of fundamental moral incoherence. An excellent example of this Government's tendency to morally and practically incompetent decisions is the disgraceful decision on the proposed Pacific area defence equipment exhibition originally scheduled for this year. After more than $1m and two years planning had gone into attracting over 100 Australian exhibitions as well as companies from Britain, France, Holland, Belgium, Canada and Sweden, the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) stepped in and said that it was inappropriate for Sydney to host the exhibition because 1986 had been declared the International Year of Peace by the United Nations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.54) —The issues I want to address arise from statement of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in regard to human rights issues. The Minister referred to his visit to the Soviet Union last year and indicated that he had raised his concern over the issue of human rights in that country. He also noted that Australia was re-elected for a three-year term on the United Nations Commission on Human Rights starting this year. The starting point for me in relation to the three issues that I wish to canvass is my delight at the release this week of Anatoly Shcharansky by the Soviet Union, presumably as a result of some discussions that took place between the leader of the Soviet Union and President Reagan when they met in Geneva earlier this year. The statement largely ignores the plight of the continuing 11,000 refuseniks, as they have become known. They are the 11,000 people who are politically neutralised in the Soviet Union, risk considerable difficulties in terms of maintaining employment, can often find that they are incarcerated as a result of their desire to leave the Soviet Union and are very often charged with offences of a very specious nature. These people have put their whole career and life at risk in order to exercise what we all regard as a fundamental freedom; the freedom to be able to migrate from one nation to another. I have before me a number of papers relating particularly to individuals who have been subjected to harassment and persecution and about whom I would have liked to have given the House more details, but I simply mention them by name: The Lifshitz family, Valadimir Slepak and Ida Nudel. These people have suffered as a result of the Soviet Union's approach to this fundamental question of immigration: The freedom to be able to immigrate from one country to another. These people continue to suffer. I would like the Minister's assurance that Australia, re-elected to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, will raise this question as quickly as possible and draw it to the attention of the Soviet Union so that this issue might be pursued. The second matter I wish to raise in the context of the exercise of human rights and freedom of religion, the tolerance of other people's religious views and the need to understand the diversity of opinions that people might hold is the way in which Australia has exercised its vote in another forum of the United Nations, the Security Council. Already today in this debate the honourable member for Wentworth (Mr Coleman) referred to Australia's voting in relation to Israel. Mr Peacock —That was in the votes at UNESCO. Mr RUDDOCK —I am sorry, I thought it was in relation to the votes at the United Nations. The vote in the United Nations which I wish to bring to the attention of the House is the vote in relation to the Temple Mount question. That has been a very controversial question of late, but in the context of a pluralist society, which Israel is, we saw a situation in which certainly Israelis, including some members of the Knesset, exercised their right which I believe would be the right of people in any society to put their point of view in relation to the way in which religious freedom ought to be able to be exercised. I do not see that as something that one ought to condemn. I certainly would regard it as a matter that might be appropriate to be critical of if they were going to take away from others their rights to exercise their freedom of religion. In this case some people in Israel did this and yet, by our vote in the United Nations-I have read carefully the vote, the draft resolution and the statement by our delegate to the United Nations-we were, to all intents and purposes, condemning Israel and Israelis for the action taken by a few. I think it ought to be understood that the very way in which we approach that matter in the United Nations has, I think, put a little dent in our relations with Israel. The Israelis are very tolerant of Australia and Australians. They recognise that we are, like them, a pluralist society and that we do have views. They try to be understanding in relation to these matters, but I think there is a real concern and lack of understanding about the fact that on this vote the United States of America exercised its veto, Thailand abstained and Australia voted with all the other nations against the interests of Israel by condemning it and its people for the actions of a few people. We ought to understand that there can be different views in a democratic society. The final matter I wish to raise in my brief comments supplements some comments that I made in the Appropriation debate in this House when I spoke about the support of Australia for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I was concerned that we had in this country reduced significantly our contributions generally to the UNHCR and to special programs from $9,154,621 in 1984 to about $4,776,953 in 1985. That is a significant reduction. It is one that ought to embarrass this Government greatly. It ought to embarrass the Government even more when it considers the report of the UN Commissioner about unprecedented financial crisis. I have before me the UNHCR journal of November in which the editorial comments on the measure of the crisis that the UNHCR is facing. It is described as the worst crisis in the 35-year history of the organisation. It says that there is good reason to fear that important activities undertaken all over the world on behalf of refugees will have to be suspended. Comments are also made by the retiring Commissioner about the size of the short- fall and the consequences for refugees. I hope that the Minister will take time to read those very important comments and to urge his colleagues in the Ministry to reassess Australia's position in relation to this matter and to ensure that our record on human rights questions and our record of support for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can be restored so that we as a nation will not be left with this blemish on our record. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(10.01) —in reply-The House has had the benefit of an extended opportunity to debate a statement on foreign affairs. This would be the first occasion for many years on which a wide range of speakers have been allowed to participate in such a debate. I think it would be something like a decade or more since such an opportunity has been provided in this Parliament. It is a shame, therefore, that given such ample opportunity to explore a vast range of the complex issues which arise in foreign affairs so little was presented. The Opposition adopted many postures but took up few positions. I wish to return more generally to the matter of foreign affairs. In the closing comments which I wish to make perhaps it would be better, for the sake of brevity at this hour, to address myself first to some of the more particular matters which have been raised in the course of debate. What was significant was that although much criticism was levelled against the Government no substantial case was marshalled in any instance. What it means is that while, predictably, the Opposition sought to-we understand why it would want to do so-engage in political posturing for the electorate it really had no concrete case of disagreement to launch against the Government. Of course, as one would anticipate, observations were made about New Zealand and ANZUS. One of the great glories of opposition, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) has discovered, is that it is always much easier to fix up difficult problems from the opposition benches than it is from the benches of government where one has to answer for, be responsible for and make things work. I merely say, as an expression of the deep affection and great friendship which I feel for the honourable member for Kooyong, that I trust he is able to enjoy that self-indulgence for many years to come. In the meantime, I have to settle down to the hard work of trying to get around some of these problems and seek solutions and, at the same time, keep together the national interest. I will come back to New Zealand and ANZUS a little later. Some speakers, including the honourable member for Kooyong, whom I freely acknowledge as a distinguished Foreign Minister of this country for a number of years, took the opportunity to suggest that Australia should have sent observers to the Philippines election. Maybe it should have done so and maybe it should not have. That is a matter of contention between different points of view. My view was then, and it still is, that we should not have, and that we were correct in not sending observers to the Philippines election. It seemed to me that one of the great deficiencies was that, if there was going to be effective monitoring and reliable reporting on the conduct of those elections, a properly structured and well-developed organisation of monitors would have to be put into place. It would have required widespread access to the conduct of the polls at all levels and at all times leading up to, during and after the actual polling. I give one simple symptom of the impediments which were in the way of such an arrangement. People other than those going to a polling booth to cast a vote were not allowed to go within 50 metres of a polling place. This clearly presented problems about the effectiveness of any conduct of monitoring which could be carried out by outsiders. I make no apologies for having made that decision. I repeat: I believe it was the proper one. There were many other reasons as well why that decision was made and they too were proper. A matter was raised concerning the North West Cape communications station. It was said that the Minister for Resources and Energy, Senator Gareth Evans, and I had declared at various times that it was our intention that that station should be closed in the event that a nuclear first strike capability be developed by the United States of America. No such thing has been said by either Senator Evans or me; certainly not by me. What I said was that in such an event, which would be a critical change in the relationship between the nuclear powers-more specifically the nuclear super-powers-there would be a case for re-evaluation. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) pointed out to me, at about the time that comment was made that was very much a hypothetical proposition and, therefore, scarely merits further consideration at this point. The honourable member for Curtin (Mr Rocher) accused me of closing down the PADEX armaments exhibition which was to be held in Australia. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government took no such action at all. Private organisations which wish to conduct such exhibitions are entitled to do so. That was made clear to the organisers of PADEX. What was pointed out to PADEX was that the Government would not be participating. The Government at no time said that it had contemplated or would contemplate participating and made it clear, when approached, that it would not. It was a decision taken by PADEX of its own volition to not proceed with that exhibition. The honourable member for Dundas (Mr Ruddock) raised questions about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and refuseniks. He queried whether the Australian Government would pursue such matters in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Commission. I can assure him that we have done it in the past and we will continue to do so in the future. The honourable member expressed concern about our voting in the Security Council of the United Nations on a resolution relating to an incident at Temple Mountain in Jerusalem. The facts are that Australia voted with the other Western countries on the Security Council other than the United States. The United States, I seem to recall, exercised a veto. The incident referred to was much more complex and potentially much more provocative, perhaps even dangerous, than the honourable member preferred to acknowledge. There are no apologies from the Government of Australia for having cast a positive vote for that resolution. I think that if the honourable member looks at those who also cast a positive vote he will note that Australia was in good Western company when it did so. The honourable member for Rankin (Mr Beddall) raised the proposition that there should be a political appointment to Washington. He suggested that there would be the opportunity for developing more influence in Washington with a political appointment. There is clear evidence that political appointments can be extremely effective. Sir Robert Cotton was an effective political appointment both in New York and in Washington. Mr Bill Morrison in Jakarta and Mr Les Johnson in Wellington-I must in particular emphasise the valuable role which Mr Les Johnson has been contributing to Australia in his reporting from New Zealand-are two cases of political appointments made by this Government who have been extremely successful. Having said that, it would be unfair not to put on the record also that career officers equally, and sometimes even more so, can be extremely successful in these roles at sensitive political points in the world. The Ambassador to Washington at present, Mr Dalrymple, has proved to be a splendid appointment. I have no regrets at all at about having chosen Mr Dalrymple. His qualities, experience and contribution in the foreign service in the past speak for themselves. His performance now emphasises what an excellent professional he had been. This is true generally of the officers in the Department of Foreign Affairs. I cannot speak of them in any terms other than those of the highest praise for the way in which they go about the task of serving the government of the day, for the diligent and generous way in which they take upon themselves the duties they have to fulfil for the government of the day. It is unfortunate that the International Year of Peace program was criticised by a number of speakers from the Opposition benches. The International Year of Peace is an undertaking designated as such by the United Nations. It is an extremely important project and I believe it will be quite effective in sensibly projecting the policies of the Government in connection with arms control and disarmament, in its efforts to promote processes which will resolve conflicts before they break out into aggression, and in emphasising that the dominant theme in the mind of the Government is to search for better ways in which to bring about peace. I do not believe that in principle or, indeed, much in practice there is anything of great difference between the Opposition and the Government on those causes. Therefore, I ask the Opposition to await patiently the development of both the informative advertising the Government will undertake as part of the International Year of Peace program and other activity which will broadly involve the community. Mr Peacock —You have only given us chickenfeed-$3,000 is all we have got. You have not provided enough. We had a better case to put but you denied us funds. Mr HAYDEN —I notice that in opposition the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) not only fixes up the most complex problems much more easily than he did in government but he spends much more extensively and generously than he was prepared to when he was in government. I merely point out that this is a worthwhile program and it deserves broad political support. The most diverting and entertaining proposition put forward tonight was that of the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), who accused me of being responsible for policies of `creeping towards neutrality and non-alignment'. I really found this quite delightful because only last weekend I was speaking to another group of people who, just as he is placed to the right of the political spectrum, were placed to the left of the political spectrum, and they accused me of being too deeply involved in and committed to the United States alliance. I must have something worthwhile going for me when I cop that sort of barrage from both sides of the political spectrum. I conclude by saying that the guiding influence of the Government in defining its foreign policy is to serve the national interest, which is paramount, but in doing so to temper its objectives by humanitarian concerns. For me at least-I know this is also true of members of the Opposition-it is important to be guided by the great and enduring principles and values of democratic socialism. Accordingly, we go about our tasks with, I trust, resourcefulness and persistency in developing the policies we have elaborated. We do this on arms control, human rights, global economic issues, and in regional matters which concern us, as well as of course the important bilateral relationships we have and which we seek to improve. It is not possible to go through all the matters which would elaborate those principles or issues I have mentioned. I merely want to conclude on a regional issue, and that is ANZUS and New Zealand. It is all very well for the Opposition to say how it would mediate. It is quite impressive to hear Opposition members, who have no responsibility and are not likely to have any responsibility in this matter, declare how quickly they would intimidate the New Zealanders into behaving themselves and fulfilling the expectations of the Opposition. The undeniable fact is that New Zealand is a sovereign country which is quite proud of its sovereignty and it has displayed the fact that it can be rather prickly with people who unwisely seek to intrude into its affairs in the way in which the honourable member for Kooyong particularly has suggested. Let us get one thing clear: Both the United States and New Zealand are eminently satisfied that the role Australia has been fulfilling in this matter is the most productive and positive role which can be contributed. That is the first point. The second point is that, much as we regret the situation in relation to ANZUS at present, we must also acknowledge that the test, while we seek a way through this, is to keep the bilateral relationships in respect of both the United States and New Zealand in good stead. That is no easy task and that we have been working out successfully. Question resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn Before the House adjourns, I would like to mention that today is the last occasion on which Mr Kevin Chapman will be assisting the House as an announcer with the parliamentary broadcast. Mr Chapman first made the announcements for the broadcast of the House proceedings in 1957, some 29 years ago, and for much of the time since then he has been a familiar figure to members at his place in the broadcasting booth at the rear of the chamber. During that time he has become a close friend of many members and others who work in this building. By his voice he has become known to many, many Australians across the length and breadth of the land who have tuned in to Parliament. I wonder how many Treasurers have been introduced to the nation on Budget night by Kevin Chapman. On behalf of all members, I would like to thank Kevin for his contribution to the parliamentary broadcasting over so many years and to extend to him and his wife our best wishes for the future. We wish you, Kevin, a long, healthy and happy retirement. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.17) —Madam Speaker, I was looking to see whether we were being broadcast when you were making all those complimentary remarks about Mr Chapman. On behalf of the Government, I too would like to extend to Kevin our very best and thank him for the unique and outstanding job he has done for a considerable number of years. This is a job which must be done very modestly and one that does not attract a great deal of attention. Only those of us who have worked in this Parliament over the years know the sort of burden he has had to carry and the way in which the proceedings have had to be presented. Kevin Chapman has become very well known to many of us in more ways than one, and I am sure it will be along time before his contribution to this Parliament, via the broadcast, will be forgotten. For a person who has served this Parliament and the Australian people so well for so long, he deserves the commendation which he has received from this Parliament. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(10.19) —I would like to associate the Opposition with the sentiments that have been expressed by the Leader of the House (Mr Young). Mr Chapman has become something of an institution through his association with parliamentary broadcasts. For those in the community who are rather more fanatical about politics than others, including many outside this House, his voice has become very well known in their households. To have served in that position for almost 30 years and at the same time to have maintained and extended his reputation as an extremely competent and effective general broadcaster in other areas is a remarkable achievement. His personality has been well respected and well liked around Parliament House. The contribution he has made to the flow of broadcasting and information from this Parliament to the Australian public is a quite remarkable one. I certainly share the good wishes which you, Madam Speaker, conveyed to him: That he and his family have a very long, happy and healthy retirement. He has served this Parliament and the institutions of democracy extremely well. He has been a credit to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. We on this side of the House wish him well. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.21) —On behalf of members of the National Party of Australia I would like to join in the remarks of the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard). I regret that the remarks which the three of us are making about a man who has for so long been associated with the radio waves are not themselves being broadcast. I feel this denies those who are his listening audience the right to hear those things that we would say about him. He is a man whom perhaps most members do not recognise around the corridors. He might well be one who would not be known were his name not so frequently heard by us all in his general broadcasting responsibilities. Our Parliament is one of the few which have all their proceedings broadcast. Those people who sit in the broadcasting box are observers of our highways and byways, of our good times and bad times, of our triumphs and our occasional failures. It is a unique responsibility that they have. While those who sit in the gallery look on us as being in a fish bowl, those who are in the glass cage of the broadcast box are even more so. We see them through the glass, but darkly. We hear their voices and, more often than not, they hear ours. Kevin is one who in the execution of his duties has performed his task nobly and well. At a personal level, I pay him tribute for the manner in which he has exercised his responsibilities as an officer of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, for the way in which he has served this Parliament in the monitoring of the broadcasting and the way in which one has always been able to listen to him and keep up with what is going on in the chamber when one is not here oneself. Outside that role of broadcaster for the Parliament, he certainly has been a very noble citizen of this country and a very effective servant of the people in his role as a general broadcaster. I, like you Madam Speaker, wish him, his wife and family a long, healthy and happy retirement. Mr MACPHEE(Goldstein)(10.23) —I would like briefly to associate myself with the sentiments already expressed. I make no apology for being very fond of Kevin. I have known him for many years. I admired him many years before that. When at the end of every Parliament we have said `thank you' to various people who have served this Parliament well I must say that I cannot recall anyone having thanked the Australian Broadcasting Corporation people, of whom Kevin was foremost. Perhaps we should thank them all, but particularly Kevin. He was one of the pioneers of Australian radio and television. He read the television news quite early in the piece before he moved permanently to Canberra. He is one of those people who have been the epitome of the ABC we all remember and, we hope it will, albeit in somewhat different form, become again a permanent feature of Australian life. Kevin was a very fine participant in the proceedings of the Parliament. He was totally professional, totally apolitical and he was extremely admired, respected and, indeed, loved by those who had the privilege of getting to know him. I join all of those honourable members who tonight have said how much they think of him. As the Leader of the National Party, the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), has rightly said, this is not being broadcast so perhaps, just as Kevin observed the protocol required by the Act which governs the broadcasting of this Parliament, those who are in the broadcasting booth tomorrow, without breaching that Act, will be able to make reference to the fact that their erstwhile colleague has been paid this tribute by this House tonight and by the Senate last night. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(10.25) —The Government's ill-advised and discriminatory tax proposals will come before this Parliament in the very near future. Some of those proposals have already been debated and passed into legislation with the support of the Australian Democrats in the Senate, against the combined Opposition parties' vigorous alternatives. One of the most iniquitous and discriminatory proposals is the quarantining of farm losses. Tomorrow several thousand primary producers will visit Parliament House to make known to the Government their concern over a whole range of Government decisions which have adversely affected their incomes, their families and the rural way of life. That follows on from a demonstration of tens of thousands of farmers only eight months ago in July last year. There are a great many rightful and legitimate complaints of primary producers and the small business people who are interlinked with those who till the soil. Amongst these concerns are, of course, the taxation proposals to be debated by this Parliament in the very near future-I understand that probably this debate will commence next week, although the Government has been so tardy and in such legislative confusion that it is doubtful that anyone can be quite certain just when that long-awaited legislation will see the light of day. One thing we can be certain of is that off-farm income is to be severely restricted, so much so that off-farm income above $20,000, running down to $40,000 will be disallowed. This will have a disastrous effect on many primary producers. The best estimates show us that probably around 60 per cent of farmers exist only because of income earned off the farm. How many of that 60 per cent of farmers range above the $20,000 off-farm income level is a matter for debate. I believe it would be a very significant proportion. What is indefensible is that young people wishing to start up a farm, to purchase a property and the stock and equipment necessary for working a farm, must work off the land. For instance, I know of several couples in my electorate who work off the farm, one partner as a nurse and the other perhaps as a teacher-they work in any number of professions. How else are these people to purchase land with interest rates at 20 per cent? There is no possibility of their starting out on a property other than by earning off-farm income. Another aspect of limiting off-farm income which has not yet been discussed as it should be is its effect on private foresters. There are two great problems here. Firstly, foresters harvest, with some thinning out over the years, only after about 20 years. Consequently their investment is not rewarded for some 20 years. The second problem is that until the forest is harvested they are incurring losses which cannot be written off against any income. Mr Cunningham —Yes, they can. Mr McGAURAN —The honourable member for McMillan has been visited by representatives of the Australian Forest Development Institute. He has been given the facts, as have the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating). None of them has properly responded. Not one of them can answer why it is that somebody who has invested in primary production and who does not expect a return for 20 years-sometimes 30 years-should not be entitled to write off the maintenance costs, the fertilising costs and the thinning costs. It is no exaggeration to say that these taxation proposals will finish off in one hit, will kill off, private forestry. This is at a time when Australia imports $1.3 billion worth of timber products. We should be more self-sufficient. We should be encouraging more those people who are prepared to take the risk, those people who are prepared to invest. The House should see it as self-evident that this involves an enormous investment and enormous risk. Many of these investors regard the eventual harvest as so far down the line as to be their superannuation-their retirement fund. The submission by the AFDI and my arguments are supported entirely by the Australian Forestry Council, which is made up solely of State Ministers. We must have incentives, not just for primary producers such as farmers but also for those private foresters who have contributed enormously to the Australian economy and who, in a very brave and perhaps even innovative way, are seeking to develop a new industry or expand a fledgling industry, to the benefit of all Australians and seeking less reliance on imports. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(10.30) —Tonight I wish to refute some outrageous claims that were made yesterday evening in the adjournment debate in the Senate by Senator Michael Baume concerning the closure of the Australian Federal Police office in Wollongong. The facts are plainly wrong, misleading and fanciful. I want to refer quickly to the information that was contained in his speech. He indicated that he had been refused a request to attend a meeting which I and my colleagues from the south coast attended with the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) to discuss this matter yesterday. I point out to the House and to Senator Michael Baume that he approached me only the night before, seeking representation at that meeting. In fact, the honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) also approached one of my colleagues on the morning that meeting was to take place. Interestingly enough, not one of those two gentlemen had made either a written or oral representation to the Special Minister of State expressing their concern about the potential closure of the office; rather, in the case of Senator Michael Baume, he chose the more expedient way of going straight to the media and getting front page headlines without getting the facts. We, of course, chose the more appropriate manner. We collected our facts and we then went to the Minister and we made representations. On a number of occasions, my colleague the honourable member for Throsby (Mr Hollis) and I contacted the Minister by telephone and by letter and made a number of representations. Interestingly enough, Senator Michael Baume said that only after widespread concern expressed in the media did the local Labor members get on the bandwagon and take this matter forward. As I have indicated, that is total rubbish. We did not grandstand, but we gathered the facts before we went. Senator Michael Baume also alluded to the role played by the Lord Mayor of Wollongong, saying that he had made representations. Yes, he did. He wrote to everyone of the local Federal members, and we made representations again on his behalf to the Special Minister of State. We took a regional approach when we were approached in the correct manner. It was indicated by Senator Michael Baume in his speech last night that this was a political stunt by the four local members. If this was a political stunt, I say let us have more of it, because, as a result of the representations made by the four members, today the Minister was pleased to announce that the closure of that office has been suspended at least until Easter. More importantly, there will be a wide-ranging inquiry into many of the claims that have been made by the honourable senator and by others in the Illawarra region concerning drug trafficking, social security fraud and a range of other criminal activities. There will be a thorough investigation which will look at all of those claims and those involved in that investigation will have to report back to the Commissioner of Police and to the Minister. That decision has come as a direct result of consultation carried on with local members in the appropriate way. I speak on behalf of my colleagues. I know that the honourable member for Throsby is present in the House now. We do not reject a regional approach. I say to the honourable member for Gilmore, who is also present, that we welcome that decision. We would like to see these issues being taken up at every opportunity, provided it is done in the correct manner and that when approaches are made we should sit down and talk about them reasonably. We accept that we should go and get the facts before we race off to the newspaper to grab banner headlines. It has been said that the facts sometimes can get in the way of a good story. I suggest that this is the case with regard to this issue. Quite frankly, this has not been a political stunt on behalf of my colleagues and me. I reject totally out of hand that implication that has been made. We have achieved results in our quiet achieving way, which is the hallmark of the Hawke Government. We do not grandstand but rather we collect the facts. More importantly, I share with my colleagues the honourable member for Throsby, the honourable member for Cunningham (Mr West) and the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) the concern that has certainly been expressed by the honourable member for Gilmore with regard to the whole question of drug trafficking and the problems associated with criminal development that have been evident on the south coast and have been brought to the attention of the important people in that area who conduct inquiries. The Minister had indicated that when this investigation is carried out he would welcome the input of the local community. He would want the people who have information about these sorts of things, such as the role of Port Kembla as a potential drug importation area, to come forward and make information available to the task force and to the four police officers who will remain in the area. I can also say on behalf of my three colleagues that we will do everything in our power to ensure that the police force in that area conducts its inquiries in a correct and proper manner, that the results are translated into an appropriate action plan for the Illawarra area and that if it is proven that the presence of the Australian Federal Police is required in that area, we will be pleased to see that happen. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.35) —As I rise to speak, Madam Speaker, may I convey to you the congratulations that are in order publicly on your elevation to office. These are not merely the obligatory congratulations that one feels one ought to utter, but they have blossomed as a result of the association I had with you when you were Chairman of Committees and as a result of the way in which you allowed the Deputy Chairmen of the Committees to become familiar with their role. Would you pass on my congratulations to the Chairman of Committees on his appointment. This is a new year, a new parliamentary session. With the coming of the new year we have had the issue of Telecom Australia's new telephone directories. Let us make no bones about it: Issuing a new telephone directory for Australia is in itself a mammoth task. It involves taking all those Australians who are telephone subscribers, checking where they should fit in to the book and, in addition, doing just as large an excercise with regard to the yellow pages. Taking all of those who buy advertising space in the yellow pages and listing them appropriately is an enormous task. In fact, I was surprised to find that 16.4 million directories are printed in Australia every year-more than one directory for every man, woman and child, regardless of age. Some 5.4 million white pages and five million yellow pages are printed for the urban areas. For the country areas 4.9 million books are printed. This is a Telecom Australia project. The Victorian, South Australian, Tasmanian and Northern Territory directories are printed by the Adelaide Advertiser. The New South Wales and Queensland books are printed by William Brooks. In Western Australia the books are printed by the Government Printing Office. The paper comes from Tasmania and this is, as I said, very much an Australian project. Tonight I want to commend Telecom for that project and to commend it for the prompt and obliging way which it deals with the inquiries that I make as a Federal member. Mr McGauran —But they are printing too many books. Mr ANDREW —To placate the honourable member for Gippsland, I rise to condemn Telecom for the way in which it printed the latest of these directories. Everyone in a country area knows how important is the map on the back of each directory to the use of that directory. In fact it is more important than the listing that is inside. All rural members know how they grab the directory and check the map on the back to see whether it covers a country town in their electorate so that they can make the appropriate call. Would honourable members believe that the latest directory for country areas has been printed without that map on the back? I hesitate in any way to mislead the House. I must say that the map does exist. It may be found between the yellow and white pages, if one can find it. The place for it is on the back of the directory. I have raised this matter with Telecom and with the Minister for Communications (Mr Duffy) and I have had a good hearing. That does not alter the fact that the books have come out without a map at the back. I rise to plead with Telecom and with the Minister to ensure that next year's directories reflect the sort of foresightedness that would place the map where it belongs, on the back of the directories. Only someone with an urban mentality could have produced a directory like this. How on earth is one expected to find the map which is more important than the alphabetical listing when one has to fumble round inside the directory between the yellow and white pages? This is an absurdity. Frankly, this makes the directory relatively ineffectual, given the time one will have to spend thumbing through the directory for the map of the area it applies to. Who on earth would create a telephone directory that does not easily tell one to which area it refers? Mr McGauran —Only a Labor government. Mr ANDREW —As the honourable member for Gippsland said: `Only a Labor government'. I can say this- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(10.40) —I am glad to have this opportunity to congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your appointment to the high office of Speaker. I am very pleased to think, having looked at the long rows of photographs of male faces outside the chamber, that some time hence-some years hence-your photograph will be there, too, and will improve that long row. The present escalation of terrorism involving the killing of innocent victims is a deplorable and evil phenomenon. It must not be forgotten, however, that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. These terms are, in any case, used for blatant propaganda purposes by political activists of both the Left and the Right. My personal definition of a terrorist is a person who is prepared to undertake an act of violence as a political weapon even if that act involves the killing of innocent people. In my definition, therefore, both the Contra mercenaries in Nicaragua, whom President Reagan calls freedom fighters, and the rebel Abu Nidal group, who were once part of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, whom Colonel Gaddafi calls freedom fighters, are, for example, quite clearly terrorists. My concern, and the reason for my comments tonight, is the fact that the present concentration on security measures for dealing with Middle East terrorists is overlooking the tragic reason for the acts of terrorism, which, in the case of the Palestinian people, is their desperate need for a homeland of their own. As Sheikh Fehmi El-Imam, a leading figure of the Arab community in Australia, indicated recently in Melbourne, the recent acts of terrorism could not be justified, but arose because of the frustration of the Palestinian people, who for 40 years have fought to regain their homeland. `As long as the disease continues', said Sheikh El-Imam, `there will be no peace in the Middle East. Similarly, the Palestine Liberation Organisation has condemned the acts of terrorism at the Rome and Vienna airports and has continued to call for peace talks with Israel and the five Permanent members of the Security Council. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Israeli Government continues to refuse to negotiate any peace proposal with the Palestine Liberation Organisation, presumably because any lasting peace would involve recognition of the rights of Palestinians to self-determination and the withdrawal of Israel from the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The United States Central Intelligence Agency has claimed that it has proof that the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was behind the terrorist attacks on the Rome and Vienna Airports, but these claims have been refuted by a number of countries, including Austria and Greece. However, the Melbourne Herald of 8 January 1986 made an even more irresponsible claim in a front page article with the large headlines `We're on Libya Hit List: Hayden' and `Australia is Number 3 on Libya Hit List, Warns Hayden'. The article went on to quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in correctly as stating `we are under constant threat' and `Australia is as exposed as any country to the depredations to terrorism'. On the following day the Herald published the Foreign Minister's refutation on the bottom right hand corner of the second page of the newspaper and excused the sensationalism of its headlines by saying that the Minister's comments were paraphrased and attributed as a direct quote by mistake and were withdrawn after appearing in only one issue. In the circumstances I would like to quote what the Minister for Foreign Affairs did say, because whilst the Herald published his actual statement, it was given little prominence in the newspapers. He said: I'm not sure why we were listed so high (by terrorists dealing with Australians who are hijacked), because I regard our policy towards the Middle East as a very even handed policy, a very fair policy. It respects the position of Israel, but sees some shortcomings. It recognises the justifiable claims of the Palestinian people but it recognises also that there are shortcomings there. It recognises the role of the PLO if there's to be any conclusion to the unfortunate situation in the Middle East. But on the other hand, there clearly can't be any role for the PLO while it denies the right of Israel to exist. So if you sort out what we are saying, it's clearly a very even handed and fairly constructed policy. Nonetheless, this decision has apparently been made and I'm not sure why. So to come back to my initial point, the pre-occupation of the media with the acts of terrorism is overshadowing the tragedy of the Palestinian Arab people who are dispossessed in their own land. One of the most cruel but least known aspects of life under Israeli occupation is the breakup of many Palestinian families. The Israeli military authorities decreed that any Palestinian who was not physically present in the West Bank and Gaza when they were seized by Israel in 1967 lost his or her right to residence. This is most improper. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr McARTHUR(Corangamite)(10.45) —Madam Speaker, may I add my congratulations to you on your election to your high office. I wish to raise some serious questions about the apparent contradictions in the Defence Service Homes Corporation home insurance statement of conditions which came into effect on 1 November 1985. The first paragraph is misleading, to say the least. It says: The Australian Government provides this home insurance under the Defence Service Homes Act for your benefit as a person who is about to receive, or has already received the assistance of the Defence Service Homes Corporation in the purchase of your home. I suggest that the selective use of words, including the introductory words, `the Australian Government', implies that there is no choice for the insurer who has received purchasing assistance through the Defence Service Homes Corporation. A Press release from the Department of Veterans' Affairs of 1 October 1980 clearly states: Borrowers will be able to insure their homes with the insurer of their choice. This further suggests a conflict with the provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974. More problems arise in the first paragraph on page 7, which says: We will not be liable to pay if you can recover your costs under other insurance. Providing the statement of conditions that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) tabled on 12 November 1985 has been prepared to accommodate the provisions of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984, which became operative from 1 January 1986, the defence service homes insurance scheme will be in breach of the Insurance Contracts Act 1984. It will be in breach of this Act because the Insurance Contracts Act specifically provides for the policy holder to be given the right to recover his loss from any one or more of the insurers and in any sequence he chooses, but provides that he cannot recover an amount that exceeds the amount of the loss. The insurer against whom a claim is made must pay, whether or not there is other insurance. The insurers may then obtain contributions from each other in accordance with their rights. On page 11 the following statements appear: If your home is damaged by any of the events listed on pages 3 to 5 we will: pay the cost of repairing or reinstating your home, or repair or reinstate your home. We do not have to reinstate your home or any part of it exactly. We will repair or reinstate to the extent and manner that we consider to be reasonable. Our determination in this matter will be final and conclusive. These statements have mind-boggling implications. For example, here we have an insurer saying that in the event of a total loss it will either pay the cost of reinstating the home or arrange to have the home rebuilt itself. However, if the insurer wishes to exercise his right to take charge of the rebuilding it will reinstate to the extent and in the manner that it thinks reasonable. If the policy holder does not like it, that is obviously just bad luck, for the conditions clearly state: `Our determination in this matter will be final and conclusive'. Again, this is the very kind of heavy-handed tactic the Australian Law Reform Commission wanted to eliminate. The insured must, of course, have the right to take legal action if he believes he has been disadvantaged. This amazing statement appears to be an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the courts; one of the reasons why the Law Reform Commission recommended changes to protect insurance consumers and which ultimately resulted in the new Insurance Contracts Act. But, would one believe, worse follows; for the policy goes on to state: . . . if your home is destroyed and we agree that it would be inappropriate to rebuild, we will pay the market value of your home . . . I ask honourable members to reflect on this. Let us say the reinstatement value is $50,000 with $30,000 for the market value. If the property is destroyed the policy then allows the Defence Service Homes Corporation to pay out $30,000, rather than the sum insured of $50,000. All the Corporation has to do is to say `we agree it would be inappropriate to rebuild'. I think these few examples that I have referred to, suggest that this critical policy condition is misleading, deceptive and sets a trap for unsuspecting policy holders. We may well ask, given the poor drafting, inconsistencies and conflict with the Insurance Contracts Act: What corrective action does the Minister propose to take to ensure that the policy is rewritten to reflect the principles outlined by the Australian Law Reform Commission and incorporated in the Insurance Contracts Act 1984? We could be entitled to ask further: Since the Government announced in its last Budget that it proposes to privatise a major part of the operations of the Defence Service Homes Corporation, perhaps it should also consider privatising the insurance scheme, especially since it cannot even get the wording of conditions correct. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(10.51) —In recent weeks the National Party Government in Queensland has been desperately trying to deve- lop a campaign against the Hawke Labor Government on the issue of petrol prices. The Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen and Employment and Industrial Affairs Minister Lester have even threatened legal action if the international price reductions are not passed on to the Australian motorist. When one looks very carefully at a document which has been presented to me today and which comes from the Queensland Transport Department, it is clear that the attitudes expressed by the Premier and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs are gross hypocrisy. They have been bleating about the high cost of petrol in non-metropolitan areas, and yet for many months, in fact since 25 November 1985, they have been carefully covering up their own activities and their own policies, which have continued to hold up the prices of country fuel. For years the minority National Party Government in Queensland has enforced a policy relating to the transport of petroleum products. This policy gives special advantage to the Queensland Railway Department. One might say: `That is fair enough. If you have a State Railway Department you want to ensure that it is able to carry the products around the State'. But under these rules no one is allowed to transport petroleum products more than 80 kilometres from local ports by road. Instead, it must be transported by rail unless a special permit is given. This has effectively forced up the price of fuel in all country areas and in all provincial city areas. For example, if one looks at the township of Emerald in central Queensland, the freight cost of fuel from Rockhampton to Emerald is 4.3c a litre, and that is because it is transported by rail. If it was transported by road, it would be 1.8c a litre and a maximum of 2c a litre. In a place called Taroom in central Queensland, the cost of freight is 8c a litre by rail. If, however, it was taken by road it would be around 3c a litre. So the motorists of the country areas and the townships of central Queensland are paying, in this instance, up to 5c a litre extra because of the State Government's policy. Let us look at the Darling Downs and the township of Dalby and the freight differential that the State Government is involved in. The freight cost by rail is 3.2c. If the fuel was taken by road it would be approximately one cent. It is costing farmers and townspeople somewhere between 1/2c and 8c a litre throughout Queensland because of the State Government's policy. For years it has been promising to change that policy. A committee of inquiry in September 1984, headed by the Minister for Transport, Mr Lane, decided to bring down some recommendations. I have here the bulletin that has been put out by that Department. It states: The Queensland Government has recently approved changes to the policy relating to the transport of petroleum products. The changes are a result of the recommendation of a committee of enquiry established in September 1984 by the Hon. the Minister for Transport, Mr D. F. Lane, M.L.A. The Committee made extensive investigations into the distribution of petroleum products by rail and road throughout the State. The Committee's recommendations advocated major changes to the transport of petroleum products in Queensland. As a result the requirement of obtaining a permit for the carriage of packaged petroleum products by road is to be lifted as from 1 December, 1985. That really means nothing because we are talking about packaged petroleum products, which is a very small part of the total tonnage. The article continues: The current restrictions placed on the road transport of bulk petroleum products will be progressively abolished over a period of two years- I emphasise two years- or such other period as determined by budgetary constraints. The program for the progressive deregulation of bulk petroleum traffic will be formulated by the Commissioner for Transport and Railways in consultation with the Under Treasurer. The deregulation of bulk petroleum traffic will not be implemented in any particular area of the State until (a) six months has elapsed from introduction of revised railway freight rates- In other words, there will be a six-month period for the Railway Department to get the edge and to keep its customers. What this has meant, and honourable members need to know this, is that the people of Queensland have been conned and are being conned by the Queensland Government. It has been taxing the Queensland motorist to the tune of millions of dollars, using the Railway Department as a taxing agent. This is a totally hypocritical attitude. Again, the National Party is showing that it is anti-rural and anti-motorist. I do not believe it is fitting for the Premier or for the Minister for Employment and Industrial Affairs to be criticising anyone else about high prices of fuel when they themselves have been keeping up the price of petrol in Queensland. They stand condemned and exposed. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.55) —Madam Speaker, I said two weeks ago that there was a whiff of scandal over the flogging off of the Belconnen Mall for a paltry $87m. I say tonight that there is a stench hanging over the whole affair. Earlier today in Question Time I put certain questions, based on cast iron evidence, to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). I challenged the Prime Minister to table in this House this day and before the House rose this day the executed sale contract for the Belconnen Mall. Nearly eight hours have elapsed and this Prime Minister has failed to table in this Parliament the executed sale contract of an asset of the people, owned by the people of Canberra, the property of the taxpayers of Australia. On any proper valuation, the property was worth over $100m and now has been shamefully flogged off at a Sale of the Century price of $87m. This asset of the people has been sold by the Prime Minister and his Government, but despite seven hours discussion and the frantic calling to this Parliament House of public servants, who were summonsed here at a few minutes notice, the Prime Minister has not had the courage to table the very document which will damn him and his Government. The people of Australia are entitled to have specific answers to specific questions. Two days ago I placed on the Notice Paper of this House 14 specific questions requiring 14 specific answers. To date they remain unanswered. The silence is deafening. I have alleged, and many others support me, that the Belconnen Mall is worth over $100m if it is worth a cent. It has been flogged off at a bargain basement price, which is just a scandal. Yet was it not the Prime Minister who just a couple of weeks ago was pontificating about flogging off the assets of the people to rich friends in private enterprise? I have alleged today that at the time tenders closed the plant and equipment at the Belconnen mall were worth-I will quote the figure to the dollar-$4,003,327. To the amazement of everybody, the executed contract of sale will show when it is finally tabled in this Parliament that the value of plant and equipment has rocketed to nearly $9m. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr HODGMAN —Nearly $9m. I will now give the House for the first time the exact figure. Let us see if it coincides with the figure in the executed contract of sale when the Prime Minister is forced to table it in this Parliament. The figure-I invite honourable members to note it down right here and now-is $8,921,710. That is a very substantial upwriting of plant and equipment in just a few months. This means that the lucky purchasers-we still have to discuss in detail who they might be-have received a windfall tax benefit of $2.4m. I heard the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe), who is at the table, pontificating on Australian Broadcasting Corporation radio today about tax evasion and tax avoidance. The Minister should have a good look at this one. He will find that the lucky purchasers, whoever they might be, have received a windfall tax benefit of $2.4m. That is five times the amount involved in the Australian Bicentennial Authority affair about which the Prime Minister called for the head of that very great Australian, Mr John Reid. These lucky purchasers, when we find out exactly who they are-we have to be patient-out of the blue are now entitled to claim an extra $5m for depreciation on plant and equipment which has already been properly depreciated by the Canberra Commercial Development Authority, a statutory authority of the Commonwealth and under the control of a Minister of the Crown. The Prime Minister hides behind the skirts-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member should watch the imputation. Mr HODGMAN —Yes, indeed. There is much more to come. I have not even got on to these photographs yet. I am going to talk about a few people who have been in the wrong place at the wrong time, with the wrong company, but I will come to that later. Madam SPEAKER —I suggest to the honourable member that he had best be careful when he does. Mr HODGMAN —Madam Speaker, I am in the fortunate position of having to answer no charges, but others might in the fullness of time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. The House stands adjouned until 10 a.m. tomorrow. House adjourned at 11 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 13 February 1986: Acts Interpretation Act- Order under sub-section 19BA (3), dated 12 December 1985. Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australian Broadcasting Corporation, report for 1984-85. Export Control Act-Export Control (Orders) Regulations-Order-1985-No. 12-Prescribed Goods (General) (Amendment). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2832) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Hurford —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Airline Percentage (a) TAA and Air Queensland... 43 (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries... 54 (c) East-West Airlines... 1 (d) Commuter Aircraft... 0.5 (e) Charter Aircraft... 1.5 Representatives of my Department include only departmental officers. (Question No. 2838) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Science, upon notice, on Friday 29 November 1985: (1) What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Barry Jones —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) For the 1984-85 financial year, the percentages, assessed as a percentage of total expenditure on domestic air travel undertaken by Departmental Officers for each category are: Airline Percentage (a) TAA and Air Queensland... 46.5 (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries... 49.3 (c) East-West Airlines... 1.4 (d) Commuter Aircraft... 1.4 (e) Charter Aircraft... 1.4 (Question No. 2840) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What percentage of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of the Minister's Department is undertaken on (a) TAA and Air Queensland, (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries, (c) East-West Airlines, (d) commuter aircraft and (e) charter aircraft. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Percentages of domestic air travel undertaken by representatives of my Department on the various airlines in 1984-85 are: Airline Percentage (a) TAA and Air Queensland... 55.9 (b) Ansett and its airline subsidiaries... 39.0 (c) East-West Airlines... 0.4 (d) Commuter Aircraft... 0.3 (e) Charter Aircraft... 4.4 (Question No. 2944) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many (a) members of the Australian Defence Forces, (b) defence aircraft and (c) defence ships, were regularly engaged in coastal protection duties in each year since 1975. (2) Over what period in each year were the ADF forces so engaged. (3) What proportion of (a) RAAF flying time and (b) RAN steaming time, was consumed on these duties each year. (4) What proportion of the total coastal protection/surveillance effort is carried out by (a) the ADF, (b) other government instrumentalities and (c) private contractors. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) Detailed records relating to the number of RAAF personnel regularly engaged on coastal protection duties have not been held over the last ten years. However, P3 Orion aircraft are currently engaged on coastal protection duties at an average rate of 2.5 sorties per week with an aircrew of ten personnel per sortie. Whilst this equates to 25 RAAF personnel per week, the figure is indicative only as the same personnel can be involved in more than one sortie per week. RAN personnel involved in coastal protection duties comprise two groups, those employed in the Patrol Boat Force and those employed in the Fleet Air Arm's S2E/G Tracker detachments. Information on the number of RAN patrol boat personnel is available only for the period 1982 to 1985. This is as follows: Year Personnel 1982-83... 314 1983-84... 336 1984-85... 338 Tracker aircraft detachments operated from Broome then Darwin between April 1975 and December 1980. Each detachment comprised 39 personnel and the total number of flight personnel involved during this period was 117. Tracker aircraft also conducted Bass Strait oil platform surveillance during the period 1980 to 1983, involving 34 personnel per year. (b) No detailed records have been held on the number of RAAF aircraft regularly engaged on coastal protection duties since 1975. Whilst the current average rate of 2.5 sorties per week could equate in some instances to 2.5 aircraft per week, in other cases the sorties might be conducted by one aircraft. One RAAF Caribou was engaged in surveillance of the Bass Strait area during the period May 1980 to December 1980. Between April 1975 and December 1980, three RAN Trackers were based at Darwin or Broome. One Tracker aircraft was engaged in surveillance of the Bass Strait area during the period December 1980 to December 1983. (c) In general, the RAN patrol boat force has been regularly engaged on coastal protection duties since 1975. Based on the current allocation of 2165 surveillance days per annum (1800 days surveillance of the 200nm Australian Fishing Zone and 365 days surveillance of the Bass Strait oil platform area), spread over a force of 15 ships, an average of six patrol boats are engaged on coastal protection duties each week. (2) All routine surveillance of the 200nm Australian Fishing Zone by RAAF aircraft and RAN patrol boats over the past ten years has generally been spread evenly over each year. (3) (a) Proportion of RAAF flying time is listed below: FY % RAAF Flying time % P3 Orion flying time 1975-76... 0.36 10.7 1976-77... 0.55 13.7 1977-78... 1.2 22.1 1978-79... 1.7 26.4 1979-80... 1.8 23.3 1980-81... 1.2 15.4 1981-82... 1.3 16.5 1982-83... 1.3 15.5 1983-84... 1.1 13.9 1984-85... 1.1 13.9 Proportion of RAN flying time is as listed below: FY % RAN flying time 1977-78... 9 1978-79... 10 1979-80... 9 1980-81... 8 1981-82... 10 1982-83... 12 1983-84... 7 (b) Information on the proportion of RAN steaming time is only available for the period 1982 to 1985 and is listed below: FY % RAN steaming time 1982-83... 29.6 1983-84... 37.5 1984-85... 33.8 (4) (a) 9.5% of aerial surveillance; 90% surface surveillance and response. (b) Nil. (c) 91.5% of aerial surveillance; 10% surface surveillance and response. (Question No. 2990) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken to strengthen the judicial standing of the Australian Broadcasting Tribunal since March 1983? Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Broadcasting Tribunal is the licensing and regulatory body for the broadcasting industry. It also provides a forum for licensees, applicants for licences, other interested parties and the general public to express their views about the way in which our commercial and public broadcasting sectors should function and develop. It has regard to the public interest in complex issues such as the grant and renewal of licences. As such, it is important that the Tribunal contain within its members a range of skills and expertise. Legal knowledge, as applied to broadcasting, is clearly one of the desirable areas of expertise. Since March 1983 the Government has strengthened the Tribunal, already strong in this area, by appointing a number of new members recognised for their knowledge of broadcasting law. As well, significant amendments to the legislation dealing with the powers and functions of the Tribunal to strengthen and improve its effectiveness became effective from 1 January 1986. The most important changes were contained in two pieces of legislation: (1) The Broadcasting and Television Amendment Act 1985 introduced provisions which significantly streamline the inquiry procedures of the ABT and thus remove any of the concerns over the conduct of public inquiries which had arisen since their introduction in 1978. The Tribunal will now conduct its inquiries into the exercise of substantive powers under a set of uniform inquiry procedures. The detailed procedures which will provide clear statements of the powers and discretions of the Tribunal, will be set down in regulations. These regulations are currently being finalised. In addition, amendments in this Act clarified and strengthened the rights of a person to be a party to an inquiry. (2) The Broadcasting and Television Legislation Amendment Act 1985 reaffirmed the power of the Tribunal to determine and administer standards in relation to the broadcasting of programs and advertisements. These amendments became necessary as a result of decisions of the High Court and the Federal Court which raised doubts as to the Tribunal's powers to determine such standards. The amendments enable the Tribunal to determine standards with qualitative and quantitative elements extending powers to encompass the nature of the advertising matter and the frequency of broadcasting. The power to preclassify children's programs has been explicitly provided for in the legislation. (Question No. 2993) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Communications, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What action has been taken to encourage the development of public television. Mr Duffy —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Broadcasting Act 1942 provides for the licensing of public television services, but so far, no applications have been invited. My Department has been involved in comprehensive discussions with the Public Broadcasting Association of Australia (PBAA) on a possible framework for introducing Public Television but no solution has yet been identified to the question of funding. Draft guidelines were prepared in 1981, but have not been implemented because of the difficult threshold issues such as funding as well as the limited planning resources available within my Department. At this stage the Government's present priorities are to increase the number of commercial radio and television services in non-metropolitan areas. Discussions are continuing with PBAA and other television industry representatives on possible future introduction of public television. One possibility being considered is to use the public television provisions as a means of addressing local programming for small remote communities, including Aboriginal communities, following the introduction of satellite broadcasting services. (Question No. 3098) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Aviation, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What funds were allocated to the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan in (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84, (c) 1984-85 and (d) 1985-86. (2) What (a) sum and (b) proportion of funds was specifically allocated in each year for projects to be undertaken in N.S.W. (3) How and by which body were the funds administered in each year for the plan. (4) How and by which body were decisions made in each year on the detailed allocation of funds for projects under the plan. (5) What specific projects were funded under the plan in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (6) For each project in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant, (b) which individual or group received the grant (c) what was the amount of the grant and (d) what evaluation has been made to determine if the grant achieved the original objectives for which it was made. (7) What specific projects were denied funding under the plan in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond. (8) For each project denied funding in the Electoral Division of Richmond (a) what was the principal purpose of the grant sought, (b) which individual or group applied for the grant, (c) what was the amount of the grant sought and (d) what was the reason for refusing funding for the application. (9) How does funding for projects under the plan in each year in the Electoral Division of Richmond compare on a per capita basis with funding for projects under the plan in the Electoral Divisions of (a) Wills, (b) reid, (c) Parramatta, (d) Robertson, (e) Shortland, (f) Cunningham, (g) Werriwa and (h) Blaxland. (10) How and when were applications sought for grants under the plan in each year. (11) Was any specific advertising undertaken to alert residents of the Electoral Division of Richmond to the existence of the plan. (12) Will he ensure that in future comprehensive information concerning grant availability and eligibility under the plan is drawn to the attention of local government bodies, community groups and residents in the Electoral Division of Richmond; if not, why not. (13) If so, (a) how and (b) when, will the information be provided. Mr Peter Morris —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2)- 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $m $m $m $m Australia... 29.894 34.822 17.484 19.683 N.S.W.... 9.145 31%...4.576 13%...6.115 35%...8.063 41% (3) and (4) The Department of Aviation in conjunction with Department of Finance through Budget. See Budget Papers. (5) Lismore Aerodrome is the only aerodrome under ALOP within the Electoral Division of Richmond receiving the grants. 1982-83 SPECIAL PROJECTS (a) Extensions of apron light facilities ($1549). (b) Reseal portion of runway 15/33 ($5040). (c) Construct gravel taxiway parallel to Runway ($19965). (d) Threshold lighting installation Runway ($2202). (e) Routine maintenance ($9875). 1983-84 SPECIAL PROJECTS (a) Bitumen reseal portion of Runway 15/33 ($5656). (b) Routine maintenance ($13330). 1984-85 SPECIAL PROJECTS (a) Extend existing pavement hangar area and access road ($27000). (b) Taxiway widening ($26733). (c) Install overhead lighting of Airport Drive ($2926). (d) Extend light aircraft parallel taxiway ($21195). (e) Routine maintenance ($15500). 1985-86 SPECIAL PROJECTS (a) Replace transformer ($3725). (b) Bitumen resealing ($5000) estimate only. (c) Routine maintenance ($18000) estimate only. (6)- (a) Airports Development and Maintenance. (b) The only body eligible to receive the grants was Lismore City Council. (c) see Q5. (d) Determined during justification and approval process. (7) Nil. (8) N.A. (9) Capital and recurrent ALOP grants are published in the Budget Papers. The availability of ALOP assistance is certified each year in Commonwealth Assistance for Local Projects. (10) The Department of Aviation writes to local authorities (licencees of aerodromes, member of ALOP) in October each year seeking these proposals for 3 succeeding years for consideration of grants. The Department should have received all proposals by February and would formulate the draft preference with all the eligible items for submission to government. (11) It was not necessary as the Lismore City Council was the only eligible body, and owner of the aerodrome. (12) Yes, to those eligible bodies. (13) N.A. (Question No. 3105) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) How many holiday visas were issued for entry into Australia from the USA in (a) 1981, (b) 1982, (c) 1983, (d) 1984, and (e) the period 1 January 1985 to 30 October 1985. (2) Since the commencement of the Paul Hogan advertising campaign, how many holiday visas have emanated from residents within those geographical areas covered by the campaign. (3) What percentage of the increase in short-term arrivals to Australia since 1 January 1983 from (a) the Americas, (b) Europe and (c) Japan is attributable to the devaluation of the Australian dollar. (4) What are the latest figures available showing average per capita expenditure by tourists from (a) the USA, (b) Japan, (c) the UK, (d) West Germany and (e) Scandinavia. (5) Does any Commonwealth department collect data on tourist arrivals; if so, (a) which department, (b) how is the data collected, (c) what financial and personnel resources are made available for the task and (d) what is the average time between the date of arrival and publication of arrival data. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Data prior to 1983 relating to holiday visas is only available on a `cases' rather than a `persons' basis, where a `case' could involve several persons in a group. Consequently I provide two sets of figures: Cases Persons 1981... 52 531 . . 1982... 50 949 . . 1983... 60 770 69 831 1984... . . 90 731 Jan.-Oct. 1985... . . 94 820 (cf Jan.-Oct. 1984... . . 78 903 (2) The Australian Tourist Commission (ATC)'s tourism marketing campaigns in the USA, which are referred to widely as the Paul Hogan advertising campaign, have been running at various times, in different regions, via selected media modes since January 1984. The initial campaign concentrated on the major Californian cities of Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, and subsequent campaigns included New York and other major cities throughout the USA. The seven Australian visa-issuing posts can be categorised into West Coast USA and other USA, permitting inter alia, an assessment of the effect of the initial Californian campaign: VISAS ISSUED Quarter West Coast No. % change Other USA No. % change Total USA No. % change June 1984... 9 564 +51.3 9 454 +25.7 19 019 +37.4 September 1984... 10 539 +16.3 9 994 -6.7 20 533 +3.8 December 1984... 11 822 +30.7 12 108 +27.5 23 930 +29.0 March 1985... 15 898 +21.8 15 107 +6.3 31 005 +13.7 June 1985... 8 686 -9.2 10 621 +12.3 19 307 +1.5 September 1985... 13 115 +24.4 15 424 +54.4 28 539 +39.0 (Note-% change relates to same quarter in previous year) (3) A Bureau of Industry Economics (BIE) analysis has revealed that prices in Australia relative to alternative destinations (a reflection of exchange rate), were significant as a determinant of inbound visitors from the UK and NZ only. A supplementary analysis carried out by my Department has revealed that Japanese visitors may have been influenced by exchange rates. My Department estimated that about 25 per cent and 30 per cent of the increase in UK and Japanese visitors respectively, experienced since 1983, could be attributed to exchange rates. The lack of response to exchange rate conditions on the part of other markets reflects the large airfare component of the cost of travel to Australia (usually paid for in home currency). (4) The ATC's 1984 International Visitors Survey provides the most recent data on average per capita expenditure by adult (15 years or older) tourists, as follows; $ USA... 1270 Japan... 1257 UK... 1045 West Germany... 1235 Scandinavia... 1163 (5) (a) (b) Arrivals data is processed initially by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (DIEA) from information provided by passengers on incoming and outgoing Passenger Cards. This data is further processed and then published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (c) No estimate is available from DIEA as semi-processed arrivals data is generated merely as a by-product of that Department's surveillance responsibilities. The ABS does not keep formal records on resource allocation at this level. (d) Seven to eight months. (Question No. 2620) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Territories, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: Which questions placed on notice within the last (a) month, (b) 6 weeks, (c) 2 months, (d) 3 months, (e) 4 months and (f) 6 months to 19 November 1985 had not received a final answer at that date. Mr Scholes —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) 2320 Mr Blunt 12 November; 2348 Mr Blunt 12 November; 2367 Mr Tickner 12 November; 2399 Mr Coleman 12 November; 2400 Mr Coleman 12 November; 2431 Mr Sharp 15 November; 2527 Mr Ruddock 18 November; 2550 Mr Leo McLeay 19 November. (b) 2068 Mr Blunt 9 October; 2126 Dr Klugman 10 October; 2284 Mr Ruddock 17 October; 2286 Mr Hunt 17 October. (c) Nil. (d) 1482 Mr Blunt 20 August; 1510 Mr Blunt 20 August; 1590 Mr Smith 23 August; 1665 Mr Duncan 11 September; 1680 Mr Lloyd 12 September. (e) Nil. (f) 1255 Mr Blunt 23 May. Note: Question Nos. 1680, 2399, 2550, 2126, 2284 and 2286 have since been lodged with the Table Office.