Tuesday, 18 March 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. Mr HUMPHREYS(Griffith) —Madam Speaker, I wish to raise with you a matter which I believe is an infringement of a member's privilege. On Tuesday, 11 March, the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) asked a question in this House of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) as the Minister representing the Acting Minister for Foreign Affairs in relation to aid to the Philippines. On Wednesday, 12 March, there appeared on the front page of the Brisbane Courier-Mail an article which was headed `Row breaks out in Australia over aid as Foreign Minister ends his visit to the Philippines'. There was then another heading entitled `Question on the Philippines aid ``an embarrassment'' '. I believe it was also. I will quote from the Courier-Mail exactly how I believe the reporter heard the honourable member for Fisher ask his question on that day: The article reads: Queensland National Party backbencher, Mr Peter Slipper, questioned Australia's decision to increase aid to the Philippines by 50 per cent to $25m `while the Government callously ignores the plight of our own citizens'. He said the decision to increase aid was `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. I repeat, `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. I do not believe the journalist got that wrong in the Courier-Mail. I draw honourable members' attention to page 1180 of the House of Representatives Hansard of the next day. I am quoting from where the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) was answering a question from the honourable member for Kingston, Mr Bilney. The Foreign Minister stated: The honourable member for Fisher raised a question about aid for the Philippines in which he referred to the aid being provided to `benefit the Aquino Government to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. Once again, I reiterate `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. I am not quite sure where the Foreign Minister got his information from, but I am sure he would be quite happy- Mr Tuckey —Why don't you get to the point of privilege. Mr HUMPHREYS —It is a point of privilege. Mr Tuckey —Well, get to it. Mr HUMPHREYS —I am getting to it. If the honourable member will just listen he might learn something. I also draw the attention of honourable members to Hansard of the same day where the honourable member for Fisher claimed to have been misrepresented by the Foreign Minister, and by the Attorney-General on the previous day and by the Courier-Mail. Madam Speaker, it is very important that I raise this matter with you, otherwise I would not be doing so. If we look at the Courier-Mail- Opposition members interjecting- Mr HUMPHREYS —I know it hurts, but if honourable members listen they might learn something. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will make his explanation. Breach of privilege is a serious matter. Mr HUMPHREYS —In the Courier-Mail of Saturday, 15 March-- Mr Wright —Watch out, here comes George. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will withdraw that comment. Mr Wright —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Mr Sinclair —Madam Speaker, I raise a point of order. While I can understand why the honourable gentleman wishes to raise this matter, I suggest to him that matters of privilege should be raised at the first possible opportunity after the matter has been canvassed. As I understand it, the honourable gentleman is referring to a newspaper report following the question concerned, which in fact was made at the beginning of last week. I suggest that this is not the first possible opportunity. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member for Griffith has the call from the Chair. I think he should raise his matter. Mr HUMPHREYS —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand the concern of the Leader of the National Party of Australia because he was very concerned on the day when the honourable member asked the question. But I assure him that I do not do this lightly. I also want to point out that in the Courier-Mail of Saturday, 15 March, that astute journalist, Wallace Brown, wrote an article in which he used the words `as reported by Hansard'. They are the only words I wish to refer to in the article. He had woken up to what had happened on that day. I draw the attention of honourable members to page 1046 of Hansard of Tuesday, 11 March, and to the question asked by the honourable member. In that Hansard report there is no record of the honourable member ever saying `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer'. That has been deleted. Madam Speaker, I know that all honourable members are aware of Mr Pettifer's House of Representatives Practice. I will not waste the time of the Parliament by reading that. However, I ask all honourable members to read what is said on page 555 under `Corrections' and page 554 under the heading `Parliamentary Debates (Hansard)'. Madam Speaker, I ask you to investigate this matter because of the possible consequences if members are allowed to change what they say in this House, that is, go up to the Hansard office and change what they say. If the media prints what it hears an honourable member say and then that member changes it, bearing in mind that the tapes of the proceedings are destroyed after six months and there is no other record of what the member has said, I suggest that the member could then sue the media or any other member of parliament for changing his words. So, as I say, I think this is a very important matter. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to investigate it and let the House know whether this involves a matter of privilege. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —Madam Speaker, I take the opportunity of thanking you for permitting me to address the House at this time. Understandably, I reject absolutely the imputations of the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys) when he raised this matter of privilege. Like all other honourable members, I receive greens after speaking and I usually check these greens. When I checked the greens in question, I was of the opinion I did not use the words `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer' and, consequently corrected the record and returned the draft to Hansard. Government members interjecting- Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my right will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Fisher has the call. Mr SLIPPER —Madam Speaker, they do not like the truth. The fact of the matter is that, when I corrected and checked the greens, I was of the opinion I did not use the words `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer' and consequently corrected the record and returned the draft to Hansard. The words were on the original handwritten draft of my question and I presumed that they were taken by the reporter from that when the greens were typed. I have not had the advantage of listening to a tape of the proceedings and could not now say whether the words were actually recorded as being said. However, Madam Speaker, I will do so with your indulgence and if I am incorrect I will seek an appropriate moment to raise the matter again in the House. Madam Speaker, I wish to emphasise that at the time I corrected the greens I was positive I had not uttered the relevant words. An incident having occurred in the gallery- Madam SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for O'Connor. I take it that the honourable member for O'Connor is speaking to the matter of privilege. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Yes, Madam Speaker. Now I know a little what it is like to be interjected upon! Madam SPEAKER —Me too! Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, If you are taking this reference which has been brought to your notice, I ask you whether you could expand that reference to matters raised in this place by me and recorded in Hansard-- Madam SPEAKER —I point out to the honourable member for O'Connor that I will consider this one alone. I shall be dealing with this matter and making a statement on this matter alone. Mr TUCKEY —We have had matters removed from the Hansard by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and quite obviously, if this is to be a matter of privilege, it should be considered in its broader context. Madam SPEAKER —The Chair will deal with this matter. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. I tell the honourable member for Griffith that I do not think the matter he has raised should be pursued as a matter of privilege as the question of the correctness or otherwise of Hansard is the responsibility of the Presiding Officer. I will examine the matter and advise the House of my findings as soon as possible. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —I rise relating to a report from the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings and conditions approved by this place and settled by you, Madam Speaker, with respect to the granting of access to proceedings of the Senate and the House of Representatives for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts. Within that there are a number of items to which I invite your particular attention. Item No. 5 says that fairness and accuracy and a general overall balance should be observed. Item No. 8 suggests that qualified privilege only shall apply to broadcasts in the use of excerpts. Item No. 9 is that the instructions of the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, or their delegated representatives, on the use of recorded excerpts shall be observed at all times. I table a transcript of an excerpt from the PM program on 14 March 1986 headed under the name of Mr Paul Murphy and a transcript of ATN7 news of the same date under the byline of Mr Ken Begg. In each instance there is a reference to a matter which occurred in this Parliament last Friday and which is recorded on pages 1424, 1425 and 1426 of the House of Representatives Hansard of 14 March 1986. On that occasion, in response to a dorothy dix question pertaining to the National Crime Authority, from the honourable member for Chifley (Mr Price), the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) referred to matters pertaining to the administration of law in New South Wales. In the course of his remarks the Special Minister of State made reference to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton). Those excerpts were in fact broadcast on both Channel 7 and PM on the evening of that day. Madam Speaker, during the course of the Minister's answer, my colleague the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) raised a point of order and you will recall he quoted your advice to this House, when on page 946 of Hansard of 20 February, you said: . . . I will not tolerate, from either side, allegations or imputations of a personal nature, particularly remarks or interjections which go into the private lives of members. Madam Speaker, on page 1426 of the Hansard of 14 March, you accepted the point of order of the honourable member for O'Connor when you said: If the Minister made a personal imputation-- The Minister responded by saying: Madam Speaker, if I said anything to which the Opposition objects, I withdraw it. Subsequently, reference was made in those two programs to those matters that were subsequently withdrawn. I suggest that two things need to be done. Firstly, I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that in the conditions for granting access to broadcasting parliamentary proceedings a further clause should be added which would require that if any remarks are withdrawn, those that have been withdrawn should not subsequently be used as an excerpt in any broadcast. Secondly, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that in the instance I have just referred to both the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and ATN7 be approached and be asked to withdraw the remarks to which the Opposition takes exception and which were subsequently withdrawn. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State) —Madam Speaker, with regard to the point made by the Leader of the National Party (Mr Sinclair), you will recall that when the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) took a point of order you said that you were unclear as to what I may or may not have said. Madam SPEAKER —It is difficult when honourable members do not use the microphone. Mr YOUNG —It is difficult especially when the microphone is not working. Because of the problems associated with your not hearing clearly what I said, when the honourable member for O'Connor asked me to withdraw and said that I had been impugning someone, I understood that he meant that I had been impugning the late Sir Robert Askin. Mr Sinclair —That is outside the Standing Orders. You know that you cannot malign a person who is not a member of this House. Under our Standing Orders you can only malign a person who is a member. Mr YOUNG —There is only one way to get into the House where Askin is, and none of us are keen on that. Mr Sinclair —You are not likely to get up there. Mr YOUNG —I do not know whether he has gone up there. Madam Speaker, I make it perfectly clear that I did not hear the broadcast to which the honourable member referred either by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation or Channel ATN7; but, if my words were interpreted as impugning any other person, not only do I withdraw them but I apologise for them, because my only attack was on the leadership of Sir Robert Askin when he was Premier of New South Wales. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the National Party for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I will examine the issue and will report back to the House as soon as possible. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —I advise the House of the following ministerial arrangements: The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) will be absent from Australia until 25 March 1986 on Government business. He will be attending the World Health Organisation ministerial conference on drug abuse in the United Kingdom and will be having associated discussions with United Kingdom health authorities. During his absence, the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) will act as Minister for Health and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) will represent the Acting Minister in the House. As a matter of courtesy, I advise the House that the Minister for Transport (Mr Peter Morris) and the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations (Mr Willis), who are both in Sydney on important Government business, will not be present at Question Time today. Mr BEALE —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Construction. I say by way of preface that, in view of the fact that my first question is to that Minister and that the matter of public importance debate today is on the housing industry, it is clear from the incident that has just occurred in the Gallery that the Opposition has got its timing right. Given the substantial decline in prospects for the housing industry this year and next, can the Minister explain to the thousands of prospective home buyers, the thousands of families dependent on the health of the housing industry and the hundreds of thousands of families facing increased rents, why this downturn is occurring? Mr WEST —I have already said in the House, on two occasions last week, that the current level of interest rates and the current policy of keeping the ceiling on savings bank loans are impacting upon the level of housing finance, particularly that available from savings banks. I have nothing to add to my answer of last week on that matter, except to repeat that there are a number of options that the Government is considering in the areas of assistance for home ownership, the private rental market and public housing. It is open to the Government to pick up any of those options at any time. We will be considering the situation in the near future. Let me conclude on the matter of public housing because something has been said from the Gallery today and this was alluded to by inference by the honourable member for Deakin in his question. Our record on public housing is far better than that of the previous Government. This year a record $1.8 billion all up from the Commonwealth and State governments will be channelled into public housing. That will allow 17,000-odd new acquisitions, compared with some 8,000 new acquisitions in the last year of the former Government. What is more, it will allow some 15,000 low income home loans to be made, compared with about 10,000 in the last year of the previous Government. The $1.8 billion for public housing also includes $450m made available to the States as a loan at 4.5 per cent. That is something that we have continued at a time when we have directed very large sums to the States by way of grants. Our record in public housing is far above the record of the former Government, and I say to the House, the people of Australia and the people in public housing, too, that we are extremely proud of our record in public housing. Mr PUNCH —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can he advise the House of this Government's record in curbing economic waste in Australia? Mr HAWKE —This House and the people of Australia have become almost inured to the posturings and vacillations of this collection of people opposite who attempt to create some semblance of being something like an Opposition. Even the bemused Australian public must have found it difficult in the extreme to follow the latest offering of the Leader of the Opposition-that is, the creation of his waste watchers. The hypocrisy of this exercise boggles the imagination because these people opposite not only watched, but also presided over the most massive waste in the history of Australia. In the absence of policies which were relevant to appropriate economic management, they paraded their prejudices and in the process this country came into the worst economic recession for 50 years. I shall just give some idea, as far as it can be given in statistics, of the massive waste, the tragic loss involved while these people not only watched waste but also presided over it. The rate of growth in non-farm gross domestic product under their stewardship for seven years was 2.7 per cent per annum. If they had acquired a rate of growth over non-farm GDP which approached that of this Government, which is approximately 4.5 per cent per annum, this country would have had another $45 billion in real income. That is the massive measure of the waste which these people imposed upon the people of Australia. Indeed, in that Government's last year, in 1982-83, the real income of Australia would have been some $16 billion higher. I go to another dimension of the waste which these people strewed around Australia-that is, in terms of unemployment. We saw the people of Australia go into the unemployment queue-700,000 of them. In the last 15 months of the Opposition's time in office another 290,000 Australians went onto the unemployment scrap-heap. Talking about waste, that is the waste that these people inflicted upon this country. I make the point that I can produce the statistics and say that in 1982-83 $16 billion of real income was wasted, dissipated, and is gone forever. I can talk about the 290,000 people who went onto the unemployment scrap-heap. But how, in fact, do we start to measure in terms of human misery the waste that honourable members opposite inflicted upon Australia. We then had this Government coming into office and bringing in policies calculated to turn around this economy, to save the waste and to save the human tragedy and having as part of that approach the community employment program, which has been magnificent in putting people into work, giving them work experience and creating around Australia permanent lasting monuments of benefit to the communities of Australia. Of course, in that sort of program it is inevitable that we will have some anomalies. We accept that that has occurred. However, what do the miserable little minds opposite do? The minds which have produced the most massive waste in the history of this country scrabble here and scrabble there and say: `Look, there is this little bit of waste'. What are they going to do? Having inflicted the most massive waste in the history of this country, honourable members opposite have established a committee under that great dollar watcher, Senator Michael Baume. He will see whether he can find a few thousand dollars here and a few thousand dollars there. In doing that honourable members opposite say that they will have discharged their obligation to the people of Australia. The people of Australia will remember that $45 billion in waste which honourable members opposite heaped on this country. The people of Australia will treat with the appropriate contempt the Waste Watch Committee. Mr BEALE —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to his statement of 2 October 1985 that the housing industry `has never looked so good'. I ask: Does the Minister concede that not only the Government's high interest rate policy-with which he has just agreed-but also the introduction of a capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing have devastated the housing industry less than six months after he said that this industry had never had it so good? Mr WEST —I am glad that the honourable member for Deakin raised the question of the quarantining of negative gearing, which the Treasurer announced on 17 July last, and its alleged impact on the private rental market. The first thing is that we should be very clear in our minds about the policies which honourable members opposite were supporting. Let us look at what negative gearing, as it affected investment in the private rental accommodation market, meant. It simply meant that a doctor, a Qantas pilot, or whoever, could, say, borrow half a million dollars and invest it in a block of flats, chalk up an interest repayment bill of about $80,000 a year, get about $30,000 or $40,000 in rental income from it, and then write off the other $40,000 or $50,000 at 60c in the dollar against his other income as a Qantas pilot, doctor, specialist, lawyer, barrister or whatever. The fundamental point that those honourable members opposite ought to remember is that it was the ordinary wage earners of Australia who had to pay for all that. If we want to stimulate the private rental market, we will do it by legitimate means. We have announced the quarantining of negative gearing in this area. We have also simultaneously announced, for which legislation will be introduced this session, the introduction of a 4 per cent depreciation allowance for investment in new rental property and for extensions to old rental properties. We will monitor that situation, and if we need to have a look at it again, we can. I conclude this answer on this note: It is said by the Real Estate Institute of Australia that there is a deteriorating situation in the rental market. Let us have a look at the figures. Compare the situation as it is now with the situation as it was back in March 1982. I will just read these figures out. The vacancy rate in Sydney in March 1982 was 1.7 per cent. Today Sydney is the city in conjunction with Perth where there is a fall. Sydney is tight-1.1 per cent. Let us have a look at Brisbane. Back in March 1982 Brisbane has a vacancy rate of 0.9 per cent; today, it is 4.2 per cent. The vacancy rate in Adelaide in March 1982 was one per cent; today it is 3.2 per cent. The vacancy rate in Melbourne in March 1982 was one per cent; today it is 2.2 per cent. As I said a minute ago, the only two capital cities where the situation is worse in the private rental market than it was four years ago are Sydney and Perth. I do not deny that that situation is tight. As I have said we have offered the 4 per cent depreciation allowance and if that is not good enough we will have another look at it, but we are not going to return to the sorts of tax rorts that those opposite tolerated during all their years of miserable government. Mr Beale —Will the Minister please table the document from which he was reading? Mr WEST —Yes. Mr HOLLIS —Has the attention of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Youth Affairs been drawn to the front page of today's Illawarra Mercury-of which I have a copy here-and other newspapers about the $25m socialist waste identified by the so-called Waste Watchers Committee? It sounds like a diet, does it not? Has the Minister noted that approximately half the items on the so-called Waste Watchers Committee's initial list relate to policies and programs for young people? What effect would elimination of these programs have on the well being of Australia's young people? Mr DAWKINS —I must say the only other edition of the Illawarra Mercury I can remember was when the honourable member for Cunningham brought a copy in here and held it up. It revealed a headline `Lies, lies, lies'. I think this referred to the record of our predecessors. This waste exercise on the part of the Opposition really does reveal how bereft the Leader of the Opposition has become. After all, he was the man who was going to talk about issues, but now he has descended to talking about nothing but gimmicks. This is not just a stunt on the part of the Opposition; it is a gutless stunt. Whenever the Leader of the Opposition is asked to identify areas in which expenditure might be cut, he always dodges that issue by saying that it is not his job to identify areas in which expenditure should be cut. After all, that would be too politically risky. But now, with the help of Senator Michael Baume, he has produced some shonky figures, most of which are wrong, to try to demonstrate some marginal areas in which some expenditure can be trimmed. As an example of how mean-spirited this exercise is, one has only to realise that half of the examples produced by members of the Opposition relate to expenditure of young Australians. They talk about the phone-in which provided an opportunity for 26,000 young Australians to tell us about their concerns for not only the present but also the future. For the first time there has been a serious attempt by a government seriously to consult young Australians. Next, members of the Opposition attack the job creation programs for which this Government has been responsible. They also attack the support schemes for young people which help them through the debilitating trauma and crisis of unemployment. What we have here is a return to the old Liberal Party philosophy of kick the victim rather than lick the problem. It was, after all, during the Opposition's reign that unemployment amongst young people soared to 30 per cent. During that time we saw the flight from learning as young people left school and refused to go to universities and so on. Yet under this Government we have seen a dramatic decline in the level of unemployment and we have seen a dramatic increase in the level of enrolments in schools and universities. More than that, we are seeing amongst young Australians the beginnings of their recapturing of some hope, about not only the present but also the future. Young Australians are beginning to regain their rightful opportunities, the opportunities which young Australians in this country, particularly, always ought to have. If Senator Michael Baume is concerned about waste he should be concentrating on the waste of young lives over which this former discredited Treasurer presided when he was Treasurer, and the same kind of waste of young lives which he is bound to repeat if ever he gets the chance. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Housing and Construction to the dramatic decline in the housing industry that is already resulting in fewer rental properties being built and, as a result, is causing enormous distress among lower income earners and welfare recipients. Does the Minister agree with the Victorian Government spokesman that investors have ceased investing in the rental market because of the capital gains tax and the abolition of negative gearing? Now that the prospects for families and individuals wanting to own or rent a home appear to be bleak because of this Government's policies, will the Minister, in the interests of hard working Australians, ensure that these tax measures are abandoned? Mr WEST —I have already said that the twin problems of the current level of interest rates and our current policy of keeping the cap on savings bank loans, as the Indicative Planning Council has pointed out to me, are causing some shortage of housing finance and that will impact, as from about now, upon the level of housing starts. But the House should not forget that this crowd opposite sent the housing industry through the floor in 1981-82. From 105,000 starts we raised the figure to 153,000 last year. Despite the current projected downturn the figure will still reach 137,000 starts this year, which is not far below the underlying requirement. In 1982-83 194,000 housing loans were granted. In 1984-85 the figure was 294,000 housing loans. Mr Howard —How many will you have in 1985-86? Mr WEST —The Leader of the Opposition is about as relevant as a squawking galah on a lamp post as he sits over there-Mr Thirteen Percent. I was reminded of that description because last week all he could do was sit there and squawk across the table at me: `Do you support the cuts, do you support the cuts?'. I must say that that was a most witty and scintillating interjection indeed. I have addressed the question of home ownership. As far as the private rental market is concerned, I have already illustrated that although the situation is tight, there is no evidence that the tax measures have actually reduced the number of private rental units available because those tax changes cannot in any way affect the position of those people who had invested prior to 17 July 1985. As for public housing, I have already illustrated that our effort has been so much greater than the Opposition's that all of the State Ministers, including the State Ministers from Tasmania and Queensland, which are not under Labor governments, at the Australian Housing Council which I chair and at the Federal-State Ministers conference, have said to me: `For God's sake keep up the effort you have already implemented, because it is so much better than our own crowd were able to implement over the years'. The Opposition brought public housing to its knees in 1982-83 and invested only a miserable $400m compared with our all up effort of $1.8 billion. Mr LANGMORE —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Minister will be aware of General Secretary Gorbachev's offer to continue the Soviet Union's moratorium on nuclear testing until the next United States of America test. Does President Reagan's invitation to the Soviet Union to send observers to the next United States test to observe new verification technology amount to a rejection of the Soviet Union's offer of a test moratorium? Is President Reagan's reaction a continuation of the United States Administration's opposition to a comprehensive test ban? Does the United States Administration's opposition to a CTB run counter to the expressed wish of both Houses of the United States Congress, which have voted overwhelmingly in favour of negotiating a CTB? Will the Australian Government express any reaction to President Reagan's announcement? Mr HAYDEN —On 29 July 1985, the Soviet Union announced that it would observe a moratorium on nuclear testing from 6 August 1985 to 1 January 1986. On 15 January this year the Soviet Union extended the moratorium until the end of March this year and on 14 March it announced that it would continue its moratorium beyond 31 March, until such time as the United States conducts a further nuclear test. In the case of the United States, President Reagan on 29 July 1985 invited the Soviet Union to send nuclear experts to observe and monitor, without preconditions, a United States nuclear test at the Nevada site. President Reagan reiterated the invitation on 14 March 1986. I refer to a new device called Corrtex, which is for the purpose of verification of tests and relates to improved accuracy in estimates of yield. The propositions of both of the super-powers have been raised by me with representatives of the opposite super-power. The United States of America has pointed out that there is an element of political posture in the Soviet Union's proposition because the Soviet Union has recently completed a major modernisation program for its nuclear weaponry capability. The United States has yet to complete its program. The Soviet Union is well aware of the disadvantage, in terms of equivalence and comparability, that the imposition suddenly of a moratorium would impose on the United States. The Soviet Union's response to me has been that it witnessed enough nuclear explosions not to be terribly interested in witnessing them in the United States. Rather than trying to sort out the differences between the two super powers, because I do think getting a bridge in one direction to the other, let alone both directions at about the same time, is going to prove an extremely difficult task-the Australian Government has proceeded with its own proposals for a comprehensive test ban treaty. The United States Administration has consistently characterised such a proposition as a long-term objective that would be acceptable in the context of broad, deep and verifiable arms reduction, substantially improved verifications capabilities, expanded competence-building measures, greater balance in conventional forces and at a time when a nuclear deterrent is no longer as essential an element as currently for international security and stability. In that regard the Australian Government has a serious difficulty and indeed a major difference with the United States. Similarly, the Soviet Union's argument has been that the United Nations, or any of its agencies, should proceed immediately to the negotiation of a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have acknowledged in the resolutions that we have put forward, in particular before the General Assembly of the United Nations late last year, that the issue of verification is indeed a vexatious and technically difficult one and that concurrently with steps towards the conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty it will be necessary to address that problem with a program of work. In view of the fact that neither of the super-powers was prepared to support our initiative for immediate progress towards the conclusion of a treaty, associated with a program of work on matters such as verification, seismological stations and so on, this year we have at the Conference on Disarmament initiated action to have a seismological network put in place while work continues aimed at trying to get the super-powers to bridge their differences on a comprehensive test ban treaty. We have concluded that if we are not able to get support from United Nations agencies we will take initiatives to try to mobilise support from similarly minded countries such as Sweden with a technical capability to engage in a seismological network which would be effective. We will persist with our efforts. In conclusion, all of this points out the extraordinary difficulties of making progress in this area. The fact is that if progress is to be made finally, both of the super-powers have to be respected for their status and role as a nuclear super-power; both of the super-powers have to be persuaded to support action and, in the meantime, we must persist with whatever endeavours we can to try to get some movement in this critical area. Mr CARLTON —My question is addressed to the Minister for Housing and Construction. Is it a fact that the supply of housing finance from the Westpac Banking Corporation, Australia's second biggest home lender, has fallen from an average of $77m a month in the last quarter of last year to only $17m in January and February, is expected to be of the order of $10m this month, and will dry up entirely in April? What does the Minister now propose to do to restore the flow of funds to the housing industry? Mr WEST —I guess we should get interest rates down. In that respect I suppose we should link interest rates to the previous Government's popularity and that would ensure that they came down under 13 1/2 per cent. I have already said over and over that our determination to protect existing borrowers by keeping the cap on the savings banks loans, together with the necessity for a temporary regime of high interest rates, has resulted in some reductions in savings banks deposit growth and, consequently, in lending. It is true that, at the moment, there are fairly substantial reductions in lending by the private savings banks- Mr Howard —Are you going to lift the ceiling? Mr WEST —But the Commonwealth and the State banks- Mr Howard —Are you going to lift the ceiling? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease interjecting. Mr WEST —Well, the honourable gentleman tried that in South Australia but it did not go very well. The Leader of the Opposition is the person who can claim the most credit for the result in the South Australian elections because he almost singlehandedly lost that election for John Olsen. Of course, we had a good product to sell ourselves and that had something to do with it. As far as interest rates and the availability of finance are concerned, I have already said that the Government is considering a whole number of options in the area of availability of finance, the private rental market and public housing. I am certainly not going to canvass any of those options in detail in this place. Mr RONALD EDWARDS —My question also is to the Minister for Housing and Construction. In view of the concern over housing, can the Minister advise the House as to the Government's record on housing in the public and private sectors since it took office in March 1983? Further, is the Minister aware of great pressures on housing activity? Can he give the House an assurance on the continuity of the ceiling on bank housing interest rates? Mr WEST —I thank the honourable member for his question which was without notice. I think during the answers I have given today I have gone across the results of a whole range of policies. I said that we are extremely proud of the results in the industry, that is, getting the number of starts last year up to 153,000, the fact that there will be 137,000 starts this year and the fact that there were 100,000 extra loans in the housing industry in the last financial year over and above what was achieved by the Opposition in its last year of office. Contrary to what honourable members opposite say, we are quite proud of our tax changes in the private rental market because we are getting some equity back into the system. We are most proud of all of our record in public housing-and I say that to the people who were in the public gallery earlier today. Public housing is extremely important to low income earners. We now have a very substantial increase in the amount of rental stock in Australia. New programs are in operation. I refer here to the crisis accommodation program and the local government and community housing program in which public money is being mixed with private sector money. This very fine ancillary program also draws in money from local councils. I conclude by saying to my colleague that we are now looking across the whole range of options as to whether or not there is anything we need to do. Obviously, the most important single factor in regard to the availability of finance is for the Government's economic policies to continue to work, which they will. Then we will see, as the Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry points out, a fairly reasonable drop in interest rates over the latter half of 1986. Mr BEALE —My question is also to the Minister for Housing and Construction. If the number of housing starts in 1986-87 falls to 110,000 to 120,000 units-the magnitude expected by the industry and the number likely to be confirmed later this week by the Government's Indicative Planning Council for the Housing Industry -what effect will this decline have on the level of housing rents, particularly in the larger cities of Sydney and Melbourne? What effect will it have on employment levels in the housing industry and other supplier industries which feed off that industry? How many more people will join the ranks of the 100,000 Australians who are homeless? Mr WEST —Let me just commence on the question of employment. In the housing and construction industry there are 80,000 more persons working today than there were when those opposite left office. Obviously the Government and I would be concerned if any substantial downturn were to impact on the employment market. That is one of the considerations we will be looking at when we consider whether any action is necessary. Obviously we would be concerned to avoid a situation where we achieved only 125,000-odd housing commencements in 1986-87, and indeed the reason for having an Indicative Planning Council is that we can be told in advance what the predictions are if certain assumptions stay in place. It is now a matter of prerogative for this Government whether we want to change the assumptions on which the IPC report is forecast. Mr KENT —Has the attention of the Minister for Foreign Affairs been drawn to the statement by President Reagan in which he referred to the regime in Nicaragua as `murder incorporated'? Was the President of the United States referring to the elected Government of Nicaragua today? Was he mixed up and still talking about the United States-supported Somoza dictatorship which was defeated by the Nicaraguan people in 1979? Finally, what is the Australian Government's attitude in regard to the provision of the United States military support to the Contras, a group which is riddled with former officers from Somoza's national guard? Mr HAYDEN —There are certain basic principles which we have followed in our attitude towards Central America and developments there. The first and the most important is that all countries of the region should be able to conduct their own affairs free from outside interference and that the sovereign territorial borders of all countries of Central America should therefore be respected. Secondly, we believe that the best prospects for a settlement are for wholehearted support to be provided for the Contadora processes. We are pleased that the Contadora processes continue; they exist. We are a little disappointed, however, that they have flagged a little badly in recent times. Thirdly, I would have to say, on the record of evidence available, that the Contra movement is not an organisation I care to give any comfort, support or encouragement to. Mr HOWARD —I refer the Prime Minister to his 1984 election policy speech in which he explicitly promised that the Government would ensure that no less than 145,000 new houses were built in each year. In view of the fact that housing starts in 1985-86 are expected to be less than 140,000 and are predicted to drop as low as 110,000 in the following year, what action does the Government propose to take to avoid the Prime Minister adding to his appalling record of broken promises? Mr HAWKE —I preface my answer by observing that even if-and I stress `even if'-the commencements were to reach the latter figure of 110,000 mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, they would still be significantly above the last figure, that is, 105,000 for which he was responsible when Treasurer. Of course, the very able Minister for Housing and Construction, under one of the more ineffectual attacks I have ever witnessed in this Parliament, has quite convincingly demonstrated the strength of the performance of this Government in the housing area which led the housing industry to be brought from its knees to which those opposite had forced it with a level of 105,000 in the last year of their office up to a level of over 150,000. It is recognised by everyone involved in the industry that the industry could not be kept going at that level. It had become overheated and it was necessary and desirable that there should be some scaling back of the level of activity in the industry. The Minister for Housing and Construction has said time after time, after repetitious questions directed to him, that the Government is directing its attention to this issue. He has already brought a submission to the Cabinet. We have commenced our consideration of that submission. The Treasurer is to bring further submissions to the Cabinet. They will be brought and considered either this week or next week. This Government, after it has considered those submissions from the Treasurer in conjunction with the submission from the Minister for Housing, will do in this particular and important area of economic activity what it has been doing for the economy generally since it was given the responsibility for it; that is, rescue it from the disastrous mess into which honourable members opposite put it. Thankfully, it looks like they will never be given the responsibility of managing the economy again. Ms JAKOBSEN —My question is addressed to the Special Minister of State. I draw the attention of the Minister to recent Press reports on the decision of the Western Australian Liberal Opposition to scrap its front bench as a result of its dismal performance at the polls. Will the Minister advise the House of the extent of possible savings to the Australian Government and the Australian people in salaries, transport costs, et cetera, should the Federal Opposition choose to follow the Western Australian example? Would this not be the most significant contribution it could make to its own waste watching campaign? Mr Shipton —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order relating to the question asked by the honourable member for Cowan. I refer to standing order 142, which states: Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which he is officially connected. The Special Minister of State is not officially connected to the Opposition in Western Australia or to the Federal Opposition. Madam Speaker, I ask you to rule that question as being out of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Special Minister of State has a responsibility for the Opposition in this place. Mr YOUNG —I say to the honourable member for Higgins that before he got the sack as a shadow Minister he wrote to me about using extra charter aircraft. He knows I am responsible for this matter. Mr Shipton —I take up my point of order relating to the honourable member's question. I thank the Minister for reminding me of my interest in serving the Aboriginal people of this nation when I was shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs. Mr YOUNG —I have not seen the reports of what Mr Hassell has done in Western Australia with regard to the suggestion that he was blaming his colleagues in the shadow Ministry for his failure to persuade the people of Western Australia to elect him as Premier. I would have thought that that was perhaps the easy way out. I notice that similar action has been taken by the Opposition party leaders in Victoria and in South Australia because they were unable to have their colleagues re-elect them. It is true that the Government makes decisions in relation to the services it makes available to the Opposition. I think all honourable members welcome the fact that we have dropped Fraserism from our attitude to the benefits that ought to flow to back bench members and shadow Ministers with regard to the facilities that are made available. I think we have a much better understanding of what facilities ought to be made available to the Opposition. The only thing I would say about this matter is that I know that some people are remarking on the performance of the Opposition and perhaps it would be better if it did not have a front bench at all. That is not a view I take; in fact, I do not think that it was very nice of Michelle Grattan to write all those things. Hopefully, the Leader of the Opposition will ignore them. It would be a frightful day indeed for the Government if the honourable member for Groom, the honourable member for Higgins and the other boys were to come back to the front bench. They have a bit of toe and a bit of fire and they get stuck into the Government. Mr McVeigh —We will never get there now, Mick, after this. Mr YOUNG —You know what the Marist Brothers say: `While there is life there is hope'! So, those honourable members should not give up; they only have a couple of benches of oldies to jump over! We, in government, are quite content with the performance of the Opposition front bench and we do not intend to make any changes. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry) —Pursuant to section 8 of the Fishing Industry Act 1956, I present the annual report on the operation of the Fishing Industry Act 1956 for 1984-85. Mr SCHOLES(Corio-Minister for Terri- tories) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Canberra Theatre Trust for 1984-85. Mrs KELLY(Canberra) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mrs KELLY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mrs KELLY —A story appeared in the Sunday Telegraph two days ago which, in journalistic terms, could best be described as a `beat-up'. Under a headline `Police Guard MP', it announced that I was `under tight police surveillance' after angry union supporters had threatened to blow up my home. The facts are far less hysterical, although, I must add, not less frightening. I made a speech in Parliament last week in support of the Australian Federal Police Amendment Bill 1986, thanking the police for their assistance during a threat to me. A threat was made and my home was patrolled regularly by police, but I was not and I am not now under tight police surveillance. Also, I did not claim that any unions were involved in the threats; I simply referred to the people involved as `certain individuals'. The incident has now passed and I hope that it will not be repeated. However, I do not think that those beat-ups in the media help at all in these difficult situations. Mr N.A. Brown(Menzies) —I wish to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I do. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr N.A. Brown —I trust that I was not misrepresented intentionally and the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), being involved in this matter, as will become apparent, has been kind enough to have a short discussion with me about it. I have been misrepresented in respect of a table of car hire charges recently published and the repetition of that material in a number of newspapers and other media outlets. There is an obligation on us, of course, if we wish to raise matters of personal explanation, to do so at the earliest opportunity. I do so today as this is the earliest opportunity and because of that the explanation may be briefer than I otherwise would have made it. It is brief because I am obtaining further information and, Madam Speaker, I may have to ask for your indulgence on a later day to make a further personal explanation. I simply make the following points very briefly: First, some figures relating to car hire charges were released and it is suggested by those figures that I personally have been responsible for incurring what would appear on the surface to be a high amount. On the preliminary investigation that I have made so far, it is very clear that I have been charged for the use of a government car in Canberra on a number of days-I can give the particular dates if honourable members wish-when in fact I was not in Canberra. Mr Cohen —It could have been your staff. Mr N.A. Brown —That would appear to raise a prima facie suggestion at least that there is some inaccuracy or mistake in the figures. Secondly, I think the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment interjected to ask about staff or something to that effect. Quite apart from those specific cases I have referred to where I have been charged for the use of a car in Canberra when I was not here there are other additional cases where very clearly the use of cars by my staff has been charged to me. Madam Speaker, you would realise that the accounts are broken up into two published figures-one for staff and one for the Minister or office holder. That is quite clear on the basis of the figures. My staff amount is exceptionally low compared with that of other office bearers. It would appear that, apart from the specific discrepancies I have drawn attention to already, there is no doubt that some staff usage has been charged to me, hence the inflated figure. The third point is that some of the daily charges do appear to be quite high. To be charged several hundred dollars for the use of a Commonwealth car for a very short period seems to be extravagant. On the basis of inquiries I have been able to make so far-in my case to both Melbourne and Canberra-we have made a number of challenges over the months and made queries about these charges. However, I have had no response and certainly no credits have been made against the account. Briefly what I am saying is that it is clear in respect of some of the high daily charges which have been queried there has been no response given to the queries we have lodged. It would seem therefore that there would be some scope for inaccuracy in these figures and that supports my contention that the basic figure is inaccurate. Fourthly and finally, may I say that I have requested detailed information. In fact, I rang the Secretary to the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services today and asked for the dockets and documentary material which supported the final bottom line figure in the list that he supplied. I have not been given what I asked for but I have been given a 1 1/2 page letter which is not supporting documentary material. Therefore, what I am saying is that if the facts were known and supported by itemised accounts and documents they would support what I have no hesitation in saying, which is that my use of Commonwealth cars has not been excessive. In my genuine belief the figures-I will certainly correct that if I find what I have said is wrong-are inflated and it is only fair and proper that I should have an opportunity to say that as it is my view, having looked at the material that I have been able to examine so far. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(3.13) —Madam Speaker, I rise because there has been a reflection on some of my public servants. Might I state to the House- Mr N.A. Brown —Have you been misrepresented? Madam SPEAKER —The Minister is replying. Mr UREN —Madam Speaker, I am not replying. However, there has been a reflection on officers of my Department. The fact is that figures will be made available. The only thing I want to make available- Mr N.A. Brown —You said `will be made available'. Mr UREN —Of course, they will be made available. However, the point is that it takes time. After all the staff numbers in the Department have been kept to a reasonable level. They have certain work to do. However, I can report to the House that when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition (Mr N.A. Brown) took office, I think on 5 September, between September and December the amount charged to him was $30,737. That is a substantial amount whether it was for him or for his staff. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(3.14) —In relation to this procedure I must say it is one which I have never been happy about but it is one which we inherited. On coming to office in March 1983 I found that my office was being inundated by the Press under the freedom of information legislation seeking details of costs of running motor cars, of the daily allowances, of costs for charter aircraft and all the various items which go towards allowing both Ministers and office holders in the Opposition to carry out their duties. I discarded the need to seek this information under the Freedom of Information Act and set up a system whereby every three months this material is made public after each Minister and, I think, office holder is notified of the amount. But apparently what occurs is, of course, that if anyone challenges this there is no timetable about the reconciliation. The same thing can happen with overseas travellers. If someone challenges a particular item of expenditure-if the three months is up and the matter is not settled-the total amount is still printed. It is just one of the flaws that we have in the system, together with the charges which have been set at so much an hour for the use of a car which is worked out in accordance with the award wages which are paid to the transport drivers. But in future I think my office should inquire, before there is any publication of total figures, whether there is still a dispute as to the figure between any of the Ministers and office holders and the departments. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment) —Madam Speaker, I would like to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr COHEN —Yes, on the same matter as that mentioned by the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown). Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr COHEN —Last week I saw an article in the paper about Ministers travelling overseas, and a sneering reference to the fact that I had been to New Zealand for 10 days and had spent $13,500. I went back to my office quite stunned that the trip had cost anything like this amount of money, because we had been very careful and in fact stayed with the High Commissioner for four days to keep expenses down. I rang the office of the Special Minister of State and queried the matter. I was told that it was all right. I said I wanted to know the details. The office came back to me about 30 minutes later and said that the cost of air fares for a proposed trip to New Guinea for three people, which was estimated at $4,500, had been debited to my account. The trip never took place. Quite frankly, I have not had the chance to raise the matter with the Minister although I have mentioned it to him. The actual cost of the trip was $8,693. I imagine that in due course the credits will come through on the account, but it was a very grievous error. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs) —by leave-Honourable members will be aware that, on 3 March, last I announced a number of decisions that the Government made concerning Aboriginal land rights and related matters. It is appropriate that I should inform the House of those decisions. For the information of honourable members let me outline the recent course of events. In February last year the Government released for public discussion a draft set of proposals for a national Aboriginal land rights model. This model was the result of almost two years of consultation with members of a panel of Aboriginal leaders consisting of representatives of land councils and members of the then National Aboriginal Conference. Following consideration by the Government of some 260 submissions from interested parties, I was able to announce in August last year that the Government had endorsed the principles contained in the model as an appropriate, reasonable and balanced basis for Aboriginal land rights throughout Australia. At the same time the Government also made clear its preference for land rights to be implemented by State action broadly consistent with the Commonwealth's principles rather than by overriding legislation. Therefore I had a specific direction from Cabinet to engage in discussions with the States to see what action could be taken on a State by State basis. That position was clear and unequivocal and was well known to Aboriginal leadership who in many cases rejected the proposed model. Of course this Government accepts that the 1967 referendum gave the Commonwealth a special and overriding responsibility for the welfare of Aboriginal people. We have embraced that responsibility. Since coming to office, this Government has increased spending on programs for Aboriginal advancement, through my portfolio and those of a number of my colleagues, by over two-thirds. Responsibility for Aboriginal advancement does not, as some would believe, lie solely with the Commonwealth as a result of the 1967 referendum. It is a shared responsibility. Aborigines are citizens of the States like everybody else. They are entitled to look to the States to provide them with those basic services that State governments normally provide to their citizens. In the course of my negotiations with the States, it was made clear to them that the Commonwealth regarded it as imperative that the States should be prepared to grant secure title to Aboriginal citizens in respect of land which they had traditionally occupied. That is still this Government's position. I am sure that it would come as no surprise that no State government has suggested to me that the Commonwealth should take pre-emptive action in this matter. While their motives may have varied considerably, the underlying premise is clear; Tasmania aside, the States accept that they have a responsibility. Acceptance of that responsibility has seen progress made in the provision of secure title to Aboriginal people. In New South Wales, legislation was introduced in 1983 which transferred to local Aboriginal land councils approximately 171 square kilometres of land. That legislation also provides for claims to be made over certain Crown land, and earmarks funds for future land acquisition. Last year the Acting Premier informed the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that he believed that his State's legislation adequately meets the needs of the Aboriginal citizens of New South Wales and there was no need for either the preferred model or any other overriding legislation. That view was strongly endorsed by both the Secretary of the State Ministry for Aboriginal Affairs, Ms Pat O'Shane, and the New South Wales Aboriginal Land Council. Discussions between the Commonwealth and Victorian governments have led to a broad in-principle agreement on the question of land rights in that State. The Victorian Government has prepared legislation for the handing over of title to Framlingham Reserve and other related legislation, the basic details of which have been discussed and agreed between the Victorian Government and ourselves. An all-party parliamentary committee of the Victorian Parliament has also reported to the Government on the question of compensation for dispossession. While this report is directed to the problems of Victorian Aboriginal people, it deals with very important principles which are of immense relevance to all Aboriginal people living in urban or regional fringe situations and whose rights would not be significantly benefited by any land rights legislation. I am involved in discussions with the Victorian Government about the role that the Commonwealth might be expected to play in the development of the principles outlined in that report. I refer next to South Australia. Large areas of that State have been transferred to Aboriginal ownership. In 1981, title to 100,000 square kilometres in the north-west of the State passed to the Pitjantjatjara people. In 1984, similar legislation provided for Aboriginal ownership of 76,000 square kilometres of Maralinga lands. This legislation was finally passed by the Legislative Council of South Australia after the threat of Commonwealth intervention. A land trust holds title to other reserves in that State. Having lived with land rights legislation both major political parties are agreed as to its benefits. The South Australian Leader of the Opposition endorsed the position of the Premier of South Australia when he said recently of land rights legislation in that State: `We have good, fair, workable land rights here'. He is right. In Queensland, discussions have continued with the Minister for Community Services, who has indicated his Government's intention to issue deeds of grants in trust to all reserve communities and to provide those communities with an administrative structure based on the principles of local government. It is the intention of the Queensland Minister that reserve communities have control over their own economic and social affairs within three years. The Queensland Minister and I have agreed with reserve council chairmen that working parties representing Commonwealth, State and Aboriginal reserve community interests should address the details of establishing such a structure on a community by community basis. Working parties should address themselves to a range of concerns, from the ownership of stock and plant to the payment of award wages and law and order issues. In the Torres Strait Islands, the Prime Minister and I met with Islander leadership and addressed their concerns for self-management. Following these discussions, and on the basis of the Queensland Government issuing the deeds of grant in trust, it was agreed that the Commonwealth would provide funding for both water and electricity supplies as well as financial assistance to enable the devolution of self-management through the Islander consultative council. This will involve the training of Islanders in responsibilities which are presently carried out by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The facilities of the Department will be made available to this new self-management structure. As there is comparatively little unalienated Crown land in Queensland, legislation based on the preferred model would be of limited benefit to the great majority of Aborigines living outside reserves. The needs of this group will have to be addressed by other policies and initiatives based upon the principle of compensation for dispossession. In Western Australia, efforts to legislate for land rights were defeated by the conservative forces in the gerrymandered Legislative Council, aided by a disgraceful campaign of fearmongering by the mining industry. However, following recent negotiations with the Western Australian Government, that Government has indicated its concern to meet the land needs of Aboriginal people through the following arrangements, the main features of which are: The State will provide secure title to Aboriginal reserves by way of long term leases for a minimum of 99 years; 45 other reserves under the control of the State Department of Community Services also will be transferred to Aboriginal control; the acquisition of further land is to be the subject of discussion between the Commonwealth and the Western Australian Government; the States will accelerate the process of providing excisions from pastoral leases for living areas for Aborigines; in conjunction with the churches, the State will continue facilitating the transfer to Aboriginal people of mission lands used for Aboriginal purposes; Aboriginal groups in the Kimberley will benefit from the proposed restructuring of the pastoral industry in that region of Western Australia following the financial assistance from the Commonwealth; Aboriginal advancement programs will continue to receive emphasis; the Commonwealth is offering additional funds averaging $10m a year, for a five year period, to match the State's efforts under this new program; a committee will be established to advise the State Minister for Aboriginal Affairs on the terms and conditions on which entry permits will be given for access to Aboriginal land for the purpose of mineral exploration and mining; and an agreed basis for the payment of mining royalty equivalents when mining takes place on Aboriginal land. Cabinet has decided that this offer constitutes an acceptable basis for detailed negotiations with the State Government. Those negotiations are proceeding. I have already had preliminary discussions with the new Western Australian Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr Ernie Bridge. Aboriginal leadership in Western Australia will also be involved in the process of considering these proposals. In Tasmania, the only progress that can be reported is the recognition by the State Government of the existence of its Aboriginal citizens. In that State the Government has been stubborn in its refusal to take action beyond this simple recognition. It has thus failed to further the interests of this important group. While Aboriginal people in Tasmania would be unable to lay claim on the basis of traditional ownership to land, using criteria that apply under the Northern Territory land rights legislation, there are still areas of special significance, such as Oyster Cove and Wybalenna. Here again the principles of compensation for dispossession as set out in the Victorian parliamentary report may prove relevant. Aboriginal people in Tasmania can be assured that their aspirations in respect of such areas will be addressed by the Commonwealth with the newly elected State Government. As the Prime Minister recently informed the National Press Club, we will continue to negotiate with the States. We will continue to seek to advance the interests of Aboriginal people through co-operation with the States where that is possible. Such an approach does not involve any diminution of Commonwealth responsibility. Aboriginal people will enjoy a better outcome, and sooner, in a much better social environment, by means of such a process. Against this background of continuing dialogue and progress with the States the Government has taken the view that the implementation of legislation based on the preferred model is not warranted at this time. I turn now to the Government's proposal to amend the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, which I will bring before the Parliament during the current sittings. It should be recalled that in the Northern Territory when we came to government there had been one review of the legislation which had not been acted upon. Nor had any action been taken, at either a State of Federal level, to deal with the problems of Aboriginal people living under Third World conditions on pastoral leases. A seven year freeze on exploration in the Territory created a backlog of applications for exploration licences that, when lifted, imposed a burden which made quick responses from the Aboriginal land councils to mining proposals impossible. In general terms the Act will be amended in accordance with the suggestions put forward by Mr Justice Toohey, a former Aboriginal Land Commissioner, in his review of the legislation which was tabled in this House on 5 March 1984. We also have under consideration the proposals of Dr Jon Altman in his review of the Aboriginals Benefit Trust Account. The Government received strong representations from Aboriginal groups, the churches, community leaders and individuals supporting the need for Aboriginals to be able to control mining on their land in order that their spiritual and cultural well-being might be protected. Against this background, and bearing in mind the concerns which the Northern Territory Government and the mining industry have with the veto in its present form, the Government proposes to retain the essential elements of the veto while introducing a number of changes to its operation designed to reduce delay and uncertainty. The proposed changes will reaffirm and strengthen the rights of Aboriginal traditional landowners to refuse consent for exploration activity. We will streamline the processes of negotiation for exploration agreements and establish commercial criteria for the negotiation of resource development of Aboriginal land. There will also be a number of amendments to the Act to improve its administrative effectiveness. Discussions are to continue with the Aboriginal land councils and the Northern Territory Government before the finalisation of this legislation. The House will have an opportunity to consider and debate the terms of all amendments when the legislation is presented in these sittings. The Government has also decided to introduce permanent legislation to replace the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Heritage (Interim Protection) Act which is due to expire in June of this year. I remind the House that the essential purpose of the legislation is to provide ongoing protection of Aboriginal sites and objects where State or Territory legislation is inadequate or is not applied. It is thus complementary to, and not intended to supplant, the important role of the States and the Northern Territory in the protection of Aboriginal heritage. It may also be seen as complementary to the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Bill which my colleague the Minister for Arts, Heritage and the Environment (Mr Cohen) has introduced into the Parliament, and which will empower the Commonwealth to prevent the export of objects of significance to Aborigines. The new Act will retain all of the essential elements of the interim legislation, which has worked effectively, and which has not caused any of the problems its critics foresaw. Since the legislation came into force we have experienced a co-operative and responsible approach by State governments to matters relating to the preservation of Aboriginal heritage. When the Hawke Government came to power only in the Northern Territory and parts of South Australia could Aboriginal people obtain secure title to areas of land that they had traditionally occupied. And even in the Territory no action has been taken to meet the needs of some 3000 Aboriginal territorians living under appalling conditions of pastoral leases. However, before the term of this Parliament expires-and accepting that the States will honour their commitments-Aboriginal people in all mainland States will have secure title to their reserves. The view expressed by some commentators that the Commonwealth has abrogated its constitutional role and responsibility in this area is false. This Government has always believed that the best approach to achieving this objective is through co-operation with the States. The fact is that we have not abandoned, and have no intention of abandoning, our commitment-in accordance with Australian Labor Party policy-to obtaining secure title to land for Aboriginal Australians. It is also Labor Party policy that this objective be first sought by co-operation with the States. There is also the broader context to consider. The concept of land rights has a powerful and emotional appeal to those with a genuine concern for the welfare of Aboriginal Australians. Many such people have a wide knowledge of the deep attachment of Aborigines to the land. However, Aboriginal needs are complex and far-reaching, and secure tenure to land, important though it undoubtedly is, meets only one facet of these needs. This Government has been most active in developing programs aimed at overcoming the poverty, disease and disadvantage that remains the lot of far too many Aborigines and Islanders. In health, the number of Aboriginal medical services, many in remote areas, has increased from 27 to 49 since 1982-83. Funds have increased from $2.1m to $13.06m in 1985-86 for the provision of clean water, sewerage and electricity to remote communities. Special attention is being given to combatting substance abuse. We have provided significant increases in funds for employment and training programs, and have conducted a review of these programs. Under the community employment program, Aboriginals have comprised more than one-quarter of total placements. Employment of Aboriginals in the Australian Public Service has reached the proportion of 0.66 per cent of all staff, compared with 0.53 per cent in 1982. Significant increases in funding have also gone into such important areas as Aboriginal education, legal aid and art and culture. We have endorsed in principle a strategy for the development of Aboriginal broadcasting and telecommunications, and substantially increased funding for Aboriginal broadcasting groups. Funds for housing through the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and State and Territory housing authorities, have been increased by 48 per cent in three years, to over $125m per year. Financial support for outstation projects has increased by 3 1/2 times. We have moved to expedite the granting of excisions from pastoral properties in conjunction with the Northern Territory Government and are providing funds for Aboriginal groups living on those reserves. We have transferred Uluru (Ayers Rock-Mount Olga) National Park-an area of great spiritual significance to traditional Aboriginal people-to Aboriginal ownership, with a lease back to the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Proposals are now well advanced to introduce legislation this year to grant secure tenure to the Wreck Bay community over its reserve in the Jervis Bay territory. These are considerable achievements, but much remains to be done. We affirm here our determination to work towards our objective of justice and equality for Aboriginal Australians. (Quorum formed). We have not at any stage of our negotiations with the Aboriginal people asked them to abandon their perceptions of their rights or their principles. Nor have we sought to prevent them arguing their case fully and with vigour and determination. The decisions that I have outlined to the House today are important steps towards the achievement of the Government's and the Labor Party's objectives. They are the culmination of an extensive process of discussion and debate with State and Territory governments, Aboriginal groups and special interest bodies. No one should imagine that that is something easy or simple to achieve. The legacy of the past, and prejudices and misrepresentations of the present, still confront us. The Aboriginal people of Australia face life with a handicap-one which, over time, we are determined to reduce and eventually to remove. The achievement of substantial progress towards the security of land tenure is one milestone along that path. Today I have announced some details of that progress. It is the Government's firm intention to maintain this momentum and it is in this context that I invite the House to note the progress achieved to date. The future of Australia is bound up with the future of its Aboriginal citizens. We seek for them, as they seek for themselves, nothing more than what all Australians desire and believe in-a fair go from their fellow Australians. I present the following paper: Aboriginal Land Rights-Ministerial Statement, 18 March 1986. Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Motion (by Mr Beazley)-by leave-agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the honourable member for Bradfield speaking for a period not exceeding 20 minutes. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(3.43) —Today's statement by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) is an admission of failure-his failure and that of the Hawke Labor Government and their policy for Aboriginal land rights which is now seen as a complete reversal of the earlier commitments to institute national legislation to implement national land rights for Australian Aboriginals. I acknowledge that it is difficult for the Minister to climb down at this stage from the broad sunlit uplands of his earlier promises on land rights. However, even at this eleventh hour the Opposition welcomes the Government's decision to accept what has always been coalition policy. The Minister has carried through State negotiation which we in fact instituted with the States while we were in government. We are pleased that the Minister has finally come to the realisation that land rights, in whatever form, could only reach reality with the full support and agreement of the State governments and on their terms and conditions. It has been the Government's mindless stupidity in trying to force the issue which has caused such major damage to the fabric of race relations throughout Australia and, above all, the credibility of our parliamentary system in the eyes of many Aboriginals. The Australian Labor Party made unequivocal promises from which it has now walked away. The Minister's statement barely admits this unpalatable fact and he does not face up to his responsibility now to develop specific policies which will further improve race relations and undo the serious damage which has already been done. The Minister has been forced to make this embarrassing confession of failure under pressure from a wide cross-section of the Australian community and adamant opposition from the Labor State governments. In the recent State election, the Premier of Western Australia, Mr Burke-a Labor Party Premier-threatened to oppose the Federal Labor Government's preferred model in the court, and to resign if the Minister pursued his futile quest to impose separate land tenure systems on the basis of race. About 12 months ago, he offered an alternative proposal which was based on the Queensland system of granting 99-year leases. I find it poetic justice that this Labor Government, which on so many occasions in the past has berated the activities of the Queensland Government in relation to Aboriginals, finally found itself in a situation of having to accept exactly the same model as applied in Queensland and also in Western Australia and forced upon it by none other than a State Labor Premier. The coalition parties have argued consistently against the Minister's proposal for national legislation on the basis that freehold title for land rights for Aboriginals should be achieved through existing State legislation and with community support. The Minister's perverse commitment to national legislation created great community opposition and failed to address many problems over mining rights which are entrenched in existing Northern Territory legislation. In the five principles announced by the Australian Labor Party policy in 1983, the Minister maintained that `no negotiation' with the States on land rights `will involve any reduction in that program', which was announced on 8 December 1983 by the Minister when he said that `the solemn duty of this Parliament' is to see that `a proper form of land rights' was restored to Aborigines throughout Australia. He said that the proposed national legislation would be developed in accordance with five basic principles. Those principles were: That Aboriginal land would be held under inalienable freehold title; that there would be protection of Aboriginal sites; that Aboriginal control in relation to mining on Aboriginal land would be in place; that there would be access to mining royalty equivalents; and compensation for lost land would be negotiated. In 1984, he renewed this promise stating that national legislation would be implemented within the first term of the Hawke Labor Government. Here we are, in the second term, and what we see is so little and so late. Again, in July 1984, the Minister when addressing the United Nations working group on indigenous populations said that the Australian Government was `committed to a consistent national approach for Aborigines in terms of these five points'. There can be no doubt that the negotiations with the States do not honour these five principles. It is equally obvious that the Government has failed to live up to its commitments and this statement is nothing more than a whitewash. The Minister has claimed that it is not a breach of policy because he has successfully negotiated with States-except, as he noted, Tasmania-on land rights. He will clearly claim that as a victory. Nevertheless, what he has achieved falls far short of what the Labor Party promised in the 1983 election and what the Minister has consistently stated in numerous speeches across the country since then. The right of Aboriginal people to control mining on their land was unanimously endorsed as part of the Aboriginal Affairs platform at the Australian Labor Party national conference in 1984. The platform states: Aboriginal and Islander people shall have the right to refuse permission for mining on their land or to impose conditions under which mining may proceed. To set aside a refusal, or conditions imposed shall require an Act of Parliament. The Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 provided Aborigines with a veto over mining on their land. Despite the serious handicap this veto has caused to mining in the Northern Territory, the Hawke Government has continued to fail to lift the veto provision which is inconsistent with Australian land ownership and the `national interest' provisions over mineral deposits. No exploration titles have been granted on Aboriginal land or land under claim since 1973, the year Justice Woodward was asked to inquire into land rights. Of the 165 exploration licences offered to 42 companies by the Northern Territory Government since 1982, not one has been granted an agreement to explore by the land councils. There are in excess of 150 outstanding applications before the land councils which could take a further three years to clear and there is nothing in the Government's proposals which will in any way overcome that fundamental problem. Exploration activities in the Northern Territory have consequently fallen dramatically over the last three years with the national average decline in expenditure of about 5 per cent compared with the Territory's fall in the order of 60 per cent. The Government's failure adequately to review the legislation has contributed further to the significant slowing down of exploration activity in that part of Australia. Successive Liberal Ministers for Aboriginal Affairs in the Fraser Government, which implemented the land rights legislation and gave these rights to the Aboriginal people, sought agreement for changes to the Northern Territory land rights Act. It became clear that the legislation has created some major difficulties, particularly in relation to the overall development of resources in the Northern Territory, and in turn this has created a public perception that the Aboriginal communities were being given rights different from those available to other Territorians or other Australians. Unfortunately, members of the Labor Party did their best at that time to encourage the Northern Territory Land Councils and Aboriginal communities not even to enter into worthwhile negotiations, because at that time the Labor Party had as its policy the extension of the Northern Territory land rights model throughout Australia. Here today we are seeing through the final act of the tragic play commenced back in 1974. One of the greatest shortcomings in the Minister's statement was the Government's failure to address adequately the inherent problems which are still present in the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act. Not only has the Government decided against uniform provisions for the mining veto on Aboriginal land but also it has defied logic because it has left in place the veto in the Northern Territory, thus ignoring the legitimate concerns of the Northern Territory Government over development of its resources. This is an example of the ad hoc and inconsistent nature of the ALP's consensus government. The Hawke Government needs to be reminded that mining projects on Aboriginal land such as Groote Eylandt, Gove, Jabiru, Nabarlek, the Granites and the Mereenie and Palm Valley gas and oil fields are all projects negotiated prior to 1976. While the Aboriginals did not have the right to veto at the time, none of their communities which have gained royalties as a result have ever suggested that they would rather do without. The Opposition believes that, while land ownership is important and an essential ingredient for enabling Aboriginal communities to have self-respect, the emphasis of government policy should now be on encouraging Aboriginal communities to be more economically self-sufficient and less dependent on social security benefits. In much of the Northern Territory this objective cannot be reached in the short to medium term unless Aboriginal communities have access to mining royalties. There is an urgent need for the upgrading of Aboriginal health, housing and education, especially in the homeland areas, and this can be achieved only by restoring the income of the Northern Territory through mining revenue or by increased Federal grants to make up for the lost development opportunities. But nowhere in the Minister's statement is there any suggestion that this Federal Government is prepared to subsidise the Northern Territory to a greater extent to make up for the fact that it is unable to develop its own natural resources. The coalition believes that, while sacred sites and the legitimate concerns of traditional communities that their lifestyles not be interrupted or threatened must be respected, mineral resources on their land should be available for development for the ultimate benefit not only of the Aboriginal communities themselves but of all Australians. The Government should do far more than it has to enable Aboriginal communities to establish their own mining enterprises, to develop valuable resources and to achieve greater economic autonomy. The Minister's statement is a very weak attempt to shore up his discredited position with the Aboriginal community to which he has made impossible promises, as events have now proven. This statement is a weak attempt to appease members of the back bench, who are thoroughly sick of defending a government which makes an art form of breaking promises. Even the President of the Australian Labor Party in Victoria, the honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand), was reported in the Age of 18 July 1985 as saying: This Government has a moral and philosophical responsibility to ensure that the platform commitment is carried out. The honourable member who made those statements undoubtedly believed what he said. It is a matter of concern that the back bench of this Government has demonstrated so little power over the final decision-making processes of its own Government. The Minister claimed in his statement that the Government endorsed the principles contained in the preferred model as an appropriate, reasonable and balanced basis for Aboriginal land rights throughout Australia. In fact, however, I know of no State government which accepted that model, nor has it been supported by the vast majority of Aboriginal leaders. It had no support from Australian industry, nor did it have the support of the rank and file of the Labor Party. A noted Aboriginal leader, Pat Dodson, in his speech to the Press Club, said: The fact is that at no stage have Aboriginal people or their representatives had any chance to make any meaningful contribution to the development of the Government's preferred national land rights model. At least the Minister was honest enough to admit that many Aborigines disapproved of the proposal for that land rights model. Here we have a leading Aboriginal exponent making the point that Aborigines were not even consulted. The Minister's statement today shows a complete withdrawal from that initial position and he is using the States' proposals as a sop to Caucus opposition on his land rights proposals, and is appeasing Labor back benchers for breaches of policy. Even the chairman of the back bench Aboriginal affairs committee has claimed that the committee was not consulted and that the principles which should have been put into place were ignored and that what eventuated is neither a fair nor a responsible land rights package. The Minister's disregard for States rights is quite extraordinary, especially for a man who spent 10 years as the Leader of the Victorian Opposition. Perhaps that explains why he was in opposition for so long. In fact his strident criticism of the States in the past is irreconcilable with the statement he has now made. The coalition parties, in contrast, have an honourable record of support for Aboriginal Australians. It was the Fraser Government which introduced land rights into the Northern Territory in the first place. Throughout the 1970s, however, Aboriginal issues were characterised by a high degree of bipartisan and community support. The actions of this Hawke Labor Government since its election in 1983 have turned the tide of public opinion massively against not only land rights but also the need to give specific support to Aboriginal Australians. We see a degree of racial tension directed at Aborigines previously unknown in our generation and the Labor Party and its Minister for Aboriginal Affairs must accept responsibility for that. In September 1981 a gallup poll found that 53 per cent of Australians thought that Aboriginal people should be given freehold title to Aboriginal reserves and that 50 per cent said that the Federal Government was not doing enough for Aborigines. I ask honourable members to remember those figures. In 1984, only three years later, at the request of the Minister, Australian Nationwide Opinion Polls Pty Ltd conducted a survey into middle Australian attitudes towards the Government's land rights policy. The results were a disaster and demonstrated beyond doubt the deep divisions which this Government's land rights policy in particular has created in the community. Whereas 53 per cent had favoured Aborigines having freehold title to reserves in 1981, the 1984 survey clearly indicated the low level of firm community support for Aboriginal land rights. The survey found: Only 18 per cent when asked for their general view about Aboriginal land rights are strongly in favour. One half of the community is `softly prejudiced' . . . and close to one quarter (24 per cent) is strongly opposed . . . Aborigines as a group are placed second last in the list of nine as most deserving Federal Government assistance: Only a small minority (3 per cent) nominates Aborigines as being the one group most deserving of assistance, and only one in seven (15 per cent) places Aborigines as among the three most deserving groups. Irrespective of what the historical reasons may be, the facts are that Aboriginals remain-and I agree with the Minister on this point-the most disadvantaged group in the Australian community. They have a life expectancy of 20 years less than the average white Australian and equivalent to the life expectancy of white Australians at the turn of the century. They face chronic health problems from the depressed environments in which many live and massive social problems of alcoholism, petrol sniffing and community and domestic violence and social dislocation. The percentage of Aboriginals in prison is 0.7 per cent, compared to 0.06 per cent of the overall Australian population. In fact, I believe it is the highest percentage of a population in gaol in the entire world. They have the highest unemployment rate of any group in Australia with 25 per cent of Aboriginals unemployed compared with a national rate of 8 per cent. They have the lowest standard of education. In 1984-85 the national retention rates through secondary schooling were 13.2 per cent for Aboriginals and 45 per cent for the rest of the community. They are the lowest income group, with about 70 per cent dependent on social security, and they have the lowest standard of living in Australia. For a Party which used to claim that compassion and concern were the hallmarks of its administration, the degree of divisiveness which this Labor Government through its misguided policies has brought to this nation and to the Aborigines in particular is nothing short of a national disgrace. On 24 May 1985, the Opposition leader in the Senate, Senator Fred Chaney, a most notable and compassionate ex-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, in an open letter to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in relation to the Government's toing and froing on the subject of land rights, said: . . . I urge you to rethink your position as soon as possible. The last thing Aborigines and other Australians need is another year of doubt and another year of strident argument among the disparate interest groups who are concerned at what your Government might do. You are very remote from the Australian community if you do not understand what harm that is doing to Aboriginal people and to race relations in Australia. It is my own assessment that your Government will eventually do little or nothing in this area. Those were indeed prophetic words. I thought that we had reached the absolute nadir of statesmanship when I heard the Prime Minister say at a Press conference only a few weeks ago that the reason the policy had been changed was that the Australian people were no longer as sympathetic as they may have been in the past. If there is one group in this community that has a profound responsibility for moulding the opinion of the Australian electorate as a whole on all these issues, it is the members on both sides of this Parliament. Unfortunately, over the last three years, because of the Government's misguided approach to land rights policy in the face of all logic, all experience and the constitutional basis of this nation, we have seen forced upon the Australian people an attitude of mind which will not be easy to change. I say to all honourable members on the Government side that they have a bounden duty to do what can be done to undo the mess and to solve the problems that they have so easily created. Question resolved in the affirmative. 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. We the undersigned are deeply concerned that under the guise of ceasefire the Government of Sri Lanka has largely militarised Tamil regions and has now resorted to airship attacks in highly populated areas and indiscriminate killings of civilians which is seen even by the Indian Foreign Minister as having genocidal tendencies. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled will call upon the Government to: 1. Intercede with the Government of Sri Lanka to desist from airship attacks and seeking a military solution; 2. To offer refuge under humanitarian and compassionate programmes, to Tamils who are fleeing from the violence; 3. Abandon all direct and indirect forms of repatriation of any Tamil who has sought refuge in Australia and grant them meaningful assistance to resettle; 4. As a member of the Commonwealth, persuade the Government of Sri Lanka to pursue a political solution which will allow the Tamils to live in peace and dignity. Your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mrs Darling,Mr Grace,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Scott and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned shows: That the Hawke Government should; Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices on 1 March 1986; Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and Maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment to the Import Parity Pricing policy. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Cobb,Mr Fife,Mr Hunt,Mr Ruddock and Mr White. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 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 humbly 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 Blunt and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That your petitioners are greatly concerned at: [a] The ready availability of X-rated videos including pornographic and violent material; and [b] The increased tendency to highlight so many forms of sexual activity in the media without regard to the susceptibilities of the general public; and As a consequence, Your petitioners most humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should take action to 1. Prevent the importation and sale of hard core pornography and grossly obscene publications. 2. Require the censorship authority to more appropriately reflect responsible community attitudes in determining classification and suitability of films and videos to be shown to Australian audiences; and 3. Ensure greater propriety in television productions, local and overseas, telecast to Australian audiences. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest and Mr Webster. 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 and Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia sheweth 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 Reith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: 1. That the overwhelming majority of Australians are completely satisfied with the existing Australian National Flag. 2. That we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as provided in Section (3) of the Flags Act, unless such proposed change is first voted on by the people of Australia and passed by a majority of voters in a majority of States. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Fife. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that your petitioners are gravely concerned at the failure of the government to honour its election promises to pensioners. In particular those promises relate to the following commitments: 1. That within three years of its election to office, a Hawke Labor Government would raise the level of the standard pension to 25% of Average Weekly Earnings; 2. That the lag time between the announcement of the Consumer Price Index figures and the subsequent adjustment of pensions would be reduced to one month, and 3. That the disproportionate tax burden borne by low income earners would be lifted. None of these promises has been honoured to date. Your petitioners are extremely angry at the failure of the Government to live up to its commitments and as in duty bound will ever pray that these serious omissions will be given the attention they deserve. 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 enquiry 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 enquiry 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The Labor Government's policy of automatically increasing the A.B.R.D. fuel levy when the C.P.I. increases, Perpetrates inflation, increases the cost of goods to country people, reduces the living standards of all Australians, short changes motorists as the extra funds raised are not spend on roads. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Give Australian motorists a better deal and immediately repeal those legislative provisions that automatically increase the price of petrol when the C.P.I. increase. 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. This petition of Australian citizens respectfully points out that: `We appreciate having a truly Australian National Anthem. We feel however that the wording of Advance Australia Fair is inadequate as it does not contain any reference to God'. We, your petitioners, humbly pray that your Honourable House will take notice and action to: 1. Include reference to God in the Australian National Anthem. 2. Have the last line in each verse altered to read- 'In joyful strains then let us sing God bless Australia fair'. 3. Take this action to ensure the new wording in time for the Bicentennial Year (1988). And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr N.A. Brown. 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, 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 businesses finally sell the business are not `windfall gains' but the result of many hard years of work and sacrifice, with very little being taken out of the business by way of salaries so that the maximum amount of money can be ploughed back into the business to create growth and jobs; The owners of small businesses often depend on a capital gain-which are simply deferred salaries-when they eventually sell their business 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that the Post Office Agency at South Dubbo be closed. The Post Office Agency serves a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced by having to travel to another centre for our postal requirements, or even to collect a registered letter. Many of us are pensioners and even the cost of such travel would be an unnecessary imposition. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of this Office. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully shows that: 1. We affirm our belief that, in Jesus Christ, human sexuality is placed in the context of mutual loving relationships and therefore Christians reject any form of pornography which depicts violence against adults and/or children and the economic, physical and spiritual exploitation which is basic to hard-core pornography. 2. We urge the Parliament to prohibit the importation or production of this kind of pornography. 3. We request the Parliament to continue a public inquiry during 1985 to report on the operation of Regulation 4a of the Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulations and the A.C.T. Classification of Publications Ordinance 1983 in relation to video tapes and video discs which have been refused classification or classified ``X'' by the Film Censorship Board. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mrs Darling. 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 petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small offices run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge the provision of: 1. Official recognition of A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia. 2. Financial support to the offices and representatives of the African National Congress and the South West Africa Peoples Organisation to promote the anti-Apartheid cause. 3. Additional financial support for the official representatives of the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. to assist the humanitarian needs of Namibian and South African refugees who are victims of Apartheid. 4. Scholarships for South African and Namibian refugees. These to be provided through the A.N.C. and S.W.A.P.O. education departments. 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 petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the fact that the lack of a Medicare Office in Wyong is seriously inconveniencing the residents of Wyong Shire. Your petitioners therefore request that a Medicare Office is established in Wyong as soon as possible. by Mr Lee. 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 Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: S.W.A.P.O. is recognised by the United Nations as the sole and authentic representative of the Namibian people. The situation in Namibia is of particular importance to Australians, given Australia's position as a member of the United Nations Council for Namibia,-in effect a member of the UN, the government for Namibia in exile and therefore has a legal international entrusted responsibility to the people of Namibia, responsibilities which it must be prepared to take seriously in order to bring about social justice, freedom and independence for Namibia and genuine peace in that Region. Therefore this humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully requests the Government to urgently initiate the following steps: 1. To fund a S.W.A.P.O. Office in Australia, such funding to continue until a free Namibia is able to establish an Embassy in Canberra. 2. That all commercial, sporting and cultural ties with the Republic of South Africa be severed forthwith. 3. That all diplomatic ties with Pretoria be severed. 4. To give decent support to S.W.A.P.O. agriculture and educational programs. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Saunderson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth: We object to the proposed relocation of the Army Training Facilities to the Central Tablelands of New South Wales where they shall cause interference with the access, environment and resources of the Macquarie River, its tributaries and the catchment of Burrendong Dam. We respectfully request that the Honourable Members of the House of Representatives assembled, will ensure the immediate cessation of all investigations, studies and proposals in the Central Tablelands area which include the Macquarie River, its tributaries and catchment for Military purposes and that the Macquarie River, its environs, recreational resources, historical significance and access along the entire length of the river will be preserved for present and future generations. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Simmons. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in the Parliament assembled. The Petition of concerned people respectfully showeth their desire to have the koala declared an endangered species and given the proper protection of the Commonwealth. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House declare that the koala may not be exported from this country and that urgent re-vegetation of their 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 Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament. This petition of Australian residents shows that we strongly oppose the introduction of the ``Australia Card'' or any form of compulsory identity cards. We believe that the introduction of Identity cards will erode civil liberties; will create an increased risk of invasion of privacy; and will not result in any significant increase in Government revenue. We call on the Parliament to immediately reject any proposals for the introduction of compulsory Identity Cards. by Mr Staples. To the Honourable the Speaker, and members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully showeth that: 1. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to reject the recommendations of the Commonwealth Schools Commission contained in `Funding Policies for Australian Schools', concerning proposed increases in State aid to private schools and the proposed community standard for education funding. 2. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to declare a three year moratorium (1985-1987) on increases in State aid to private schools and on grants to new private schools and for increased private school enrolments. 3. They call on the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to re-affirm their primary obligation to government schools and to implement all 1983 ALP election promises for increased funding to government schools. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Staples. 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 sheweth 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 divisions 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 Dr Watson. 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 Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australia by intruding into the affairs of individuals and of State and Local Governments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation and not restrict the individual freedoms of Australians and its present justice system, nor in any underhand way centralise power in our three tier system of Government. 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 the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985 will endanger the Federal system of Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Forces, 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 the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal the Bill of Rights legislation forthwith. 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 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 the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's refusal to pass onto motorists, farmers and small businessmen, and the community as a whole, the full effect of the drop in world oil prices will decrease Australia's competitiveness as a trading nation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Act immediately to adhere to the oil world parity pricing policy, and give the full flow-on of the drop in world oil prices to the Australian public and the business sector. 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 of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they strongly support the establishment of the Western Sydney State University as recommended in the Parry Report and call upon the House to establish the Western Sydney State University in conjunction with the New South Wales Government. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Bill, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Amendment Bill and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Bill, if passed by the Parliament, will undermine human and civil rights in Australia; will attack the institution of the family in our country, and will destroy States Rights and the federal nature of our Commonwealth. Your petitioners humbly pray that: The Parliament rejects these Bills; abolishes the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and moves to withdraw ratification of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain citizens of the North Coast of New South Wales, Australia, respectfully showeth: That the community of Grafton and the Clarence Valley desire the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studios in Grafton for the Second Regional Radio Network and pledge total support of Grafton City Council's submission on the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will sympathetically look at the problems of all these people in northern New South Wales and that the responsible Minister will take the necessary action to ensure the retention of the A.B.C. Radio Studio in Grafton and heed the submission of Grafton City Council in response to the Green Paper entitled ``Discussion Paper-Second Regional Radio Network for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ian Robinson. 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 fundamental 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in 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 to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal System of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia for 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 and 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 Queensland respectfully showeth that: The total disallowance by the Hawke Labor Government to 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 every 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 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 limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will every 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: that the current policy pursued by the Hawke Government is causing an intolerable increase in home loan interest rates beyond the capacity of families to pay. that consequently this policy is causing grave hardship throughout Australia and is contributing to social problems and the breakup of the family unit. that unless the Government act urgently the Australian dream of home ownership is fast becoming shattered for many of our citizens. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: That the Government make home loan interest rates tax deductible therefore alleviating the present crippling burden of current high interest rates on home owners and home buyers. 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 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. 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 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. The humble petition of certain citizens of Queensland, Australia, respectfully showeth that we are totally opposed to any change in the Australian National Flag as declared in the Flags Act (1953). Your petitioners humbly pray that Parliament in its wisdom will take no action to change the Australian National Flag. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Dr Watson. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The distress caused to Australian families by the impact of the Hawke Government's high interest rate and tax policies on the housing industry. 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 BEALE(Deakin)(4.08) —In recent weeks, the newspapers have been on fire with stories that underline the distress being caused to Australian families and home owners by the impact of the Government's high interest rate and taxation policies. A few examples will vividly demonstrate the impact of those heartless policies. The Sunday Observer had an article entitled: `Homeless: Our Shame'. The article referred to: . . . Depression-style housing crisis with rented properties almost dried up and mortgage repossessions dramatically increasing. I refer to other newspaper articles on the housing crisis entitled `City of lost dreams' and `Slump in housing looms, Government told'. With regard to a publication prepared for the Department of Housing and Construction, it has been stated: This report indicated that there could be in Australia as many as 100,000 people without secure housing. . . An article in this morning's Canberra Times is headed: `Renewed pressure on housing rents'. A recent article in the Age is entitled `Rents creep up as the housing market shrinks'. Nothing could more exemplify what is happening in the housing industry at present than the headline from the Australian of 5 February 1986 which reads `Government is killing the housing industry'. These headlines confirm that the housing industry is in an absolute mess. Furthermore, the statistics emphasise that the housing crisis is one that the Government's economic policies have created. The downturn in new dwelling commencements accelerated during February, with housing industry sources in Victoria advising a fall of 25 per cent over the previous month. In New South Wales starts were down 20 per cent on the January figures. Some major home builders in New South Wales say that their current orders are down 60 per cent on last year's figures. Furthermore, the Indicative Planning Council, which advises the Government on the housing industry, is expected to announce shortly that dwelling commencements for next year will be between 110,000 and 120,000-a decrease of up to 28 per cent on last year's figures. It is worth noting that the average number of commencements in the seven years of the Fraser Government was 129,000 and in only one year was the number of starts below the anticipated figure for the present Government for next year. Mr Howard —That is not what they say at Question Time. Mr BEALE —At Question Time we get all sorts of misleading answers, as will emerge during this matter of public importance debate. Mr Howard —What are the figures again? What is the average? Mr BEALE —In the seven years of Fraser Government, the average number of starts was 129,000 and in only one year did the figure fall below the anticipated figure for the present Government for next year. Last week the Spaceline house building company went into receivership and industry sources advise that more building companies are expected to follow it. As Des Keegan said in this morning's Australian: I know of several builders about to collapse and many suppliers likely to find their debtors ledger awash with red ink before long. The Bartlett collapse is the tip of the iceberg. Watch This Space. The ghost of Gough Whitlam is stalking the Australian housing industry and there are ominous signs of a repeat of 1975. The housing industry and this nation are moving relentlessly into recession. There are clear and unambiguous signs. Housing loan approvals are down dramatically, lending for housing by financial institutions has dropped in each of the past five months by a cumulative figure of 18 per cent, rents are rising faster than the inflation rate and rental stock is plummeting. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, admits that $40m available under his much vaunted first home owners scheme has not yet been applied for and savings banks deposits, which provide more than half the home loan finance, had the least annual growth rate last year in almost 40 years. Here in the national capital, with the seeming imperviousness to what goes on in the community, the housing problem may not seem so urgent, particularly to the Minister. But, out in the suburbs which I represent and in a thousand other suburbs and small towns in rural communities, the Government's policies are biting deep. Everyone who is trying to purchase a home now faces crippling cocktail loans of up to 17 per cent. Everyone else faces steep increases in rent, if indeed they can find any rental accommodation at all. It is no wonder that more than 400,000 Australians are now living in mobile homes and caravans and it is not surprising that this number is increasing by 100,000 a year. It is no wonder that in a report prepared for the Minister's Department we find that 100,000 Australians sleep out of doors. These statistics demonstrate a complete policy failure by the Government. Let me quote from a speech by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the 1984 election campaign. Mr Howard —That was his policy speech, wasn't it? Mr BEALE —It was his policy speech and this is what he said about the housing industry at the Sydney Opera House on 13 November 1984: And we are going to keep it that way. In the next twelve months, one hundred and forty-five thousand houses will be built in Australia . . . And beyond the next year we will maintain at least this level of housing activity, and ensure that our housing industry never again slumps. The clear and most obvious cause of the disaster that is facing the housing industry and hurting so many Australians is the high level of interest rates. It is no wonder that the Minister has money left in his first home owners tin. Home buyers simply cannot afford to take up his offer. A donation from the Minister would send them broke. Furthermore, I continue quoting the Prime Minister in his policy speech of November 1984 He said: With a record like that, is it any wonder that Paul Keating has been nominated as the world's best Treasurer. Let us say that `the world's best Treasurer' has now set interest rates at their highest real level in 50 years. He has announced negative gearing restrictions and a capital gains tax despite repeated promises that he would not do so. Ironically, he is punishing his own constituency. The well-off who own houses are relatively unaffected, but the families trying to pay off a loan or trying to save for a deposit or those renting come largely from lower income groups. The Treasurer has placed a crown of thorns on young couples and has crucified Australian families paying rent. If we can judge from the Minister's comment during Question Time today, that he intends to relate his interest rate policy to the fluctuating ups and downs of the Opposition in the public opinion polls, we can be certain that interest rates will skyrocket again soon. The reason for this perversity, the reason why the Minister and the Government have interest rates at record levels and have announced additional punitive taxes, which affect small business and small investors in the housing rental market, is that they have lost control of fiscal and industrial policy. Every time the Treasurer glances at his Estimates figures and decides to do a bit of pruning, the spending lobbyists jump on him from out of the trees, led by the gang of seven. Out they come-the welfare bureaucrats, the heath plan lobbyists, the education professionals, the pockets of privilege and all the public purse pinchers of the nation. The Treasurer has one look at his colleagues and the lobbyists and beats a hasty retreat back to the fiscal trenches. Here is some news for the Treasurer: If he thinks the going has been tough to date, he should look out over the next few months because the Prime Minister and his other senior colleagues are contemplating ditching the Treasurer. The move is on to produce an expansionary Budget with an even higher deficit in real terms than in the current year. The Prime Minister has gazed into the depths of the 1986-87 financial year-- Mr Cadman —The Minister for Housing and Construction is helping. Mr BEALE —As the honourable member for Mitchell points out, the Minister at the table is assisting the process of higher deficits. The Prime Minister has gazed into the crystal ball and he sees a recession. Do honourable members know what he will do? He will buy his way out. When he does that, the Treasurer will be able to tell him what will happen to the value of the Australian dollar. The other reality the Government must face is that its industrial policy is out of step with our international trading position. The increasingly discredited accord, the Government says, has introduced a period of relative industrial peace. But we have paid a price for that peace and it can be identified in the exploding level of our internal and external indebtedness. That price is too high for our farmers, our mineral industries and the few export manufacturers who are still breathing. Every 12 months we can see public and private employers facing up to wage and salary increases of 10 to 12 per cent. It is like the endless parade; we have the last wage increase, the present wage case, the productivity case, the superannuation campaign, the next wage case and so on-all leading to an annual inflation rate of 8 per cent or more. However, our major trading partners such as West Germany and Japan are looking at price increases over the next 12 months of around 2 per cent. We cannot maintain our inflation rate differential and stay competitive internationally. As Professor Max Corden has said: Instead of prices chasing wages on an ever upward path, wages should be chasing prices on an ever downward path. Because our fiscal and industrial policies are out of control the pressure has been applied to interest rates. The pressure on interest rates has flowed through and is now creating a recession in the Australian housing industry. Now we have the Minister running off in a panic to the Cabinet demanding a special billion dollars worth of subsidy. Does the Minister understand that the effect of his plan will be to add to our deficit and force interest rates even higher? Presumably after that we will have the Minister and those out of touch with economic reality coming up with another crazy proposal which will have further unintended consequences. At least the Treasurer (Mr Keating) knows this. He said in the Canberra Times on 19 February: The whole point of the higher interest rates is to slow some of the growth in the housing industry. A revitalised housing industry can come only from a sustained drop in the level of real interest rates and a sustained drop in interest rates can come only when the Government stops relying so heavily on monetary policy and switches its emphasis to fiscal and wages policies. Mr Cleeland —How would you do that? Mr BEALE —I ask the honourable member to listen. The Government must curtail the growth in government expenditure which in real terms has been 5 per cent in the last three Budgets compared with only 2.1 per cent in real terms in the seven Fraser years. The Government must introduce greater flexibility into its wages policy by renegotiating the prices and incomes accord to make us more competitive internationally. Less spending and greater competitiveness will reduce the demand for funds and interest rates will come down. Finally, the Government must get rid of the anti-housing elements in its tax package, namely the elimination of negative gearing and the iniquitous capital gains tax. The Government's high interest rate and taxation policies have caused great distress to Australian families. They have caused sharp increases in home loan repayments. They have prevented new home buyers from being able to afford to purchase their homes. They have caused financial hardship. The Government's capital gains and negative gearing taxation policies have driven rents through the roof and have discriminated against low income earners-the very group in the community we should be trying to protect. The Government's ruthless policies have driven right to the heart of the most stable of Australia's institutions-the family. The Government stands condemned by them. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(4.23) —As I said the other day, after a long period the Opposition has finally discovered housing as an issue. Over the first several weeks of this session we have had no questions at all on housing. We finally got a question today. After the Opposition taunted about the fact that it had not even picked up housing as an issue at all, today we had, I think, on a rough count, six questions on housing and a matter of public importance. Suddenly after all this time the Opposition has discovered housing as an issue. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said at the end of Question Time the Opposition's main problem was that it was the most inept performance in regard to a supposedly concentrated attack which we have ever seen in this Parliament. Certainly, it was the most inept performance which I have seen since I have been a member of this Parliament. I suppose we will now see the Opposition crawl away back into its hole and we will not hear anything more from it about housing for the next six months. In regard to interest rates let us look at what happened under the former Government. The housing loan interest rate for savings banks is now 13 1/2 per cent. If we go back and see that in the December quarter of 1981-82 interest rates for savings bank housing loans were 12 1/2 per cent. In the March quarter of 1981-82 interest rates rose to 13 1/2 per cent. They stayed that way for four consecutive quarters. We are now into the second quarter of the period of interest rates being at a peak of 13 1/2 per cent. Let us therefore look at the number of housing loans granted by all significant lenders over the last few years. Let us see how housing loans have increased. If we look at the quarter periods we will see that in 1982-83 major lenders lent money for 52,000 new housing loans for the first quarter, 55,000 for the next quarter, 60,000 for the third quarter and 65,000 for the last quarter. Suddenly, when we achieved office in the March quarter of 1983, the number of housing loans rose from 55,000 to 79,000. Subsequently they varied from 81,000, 85,000, 84,000, 80,000 and 82,000 until the December quarter last year the number of loans fell to 71,000-a slight reduction. I ask honourable members to compare those figures with the figures for the quarters for 1982-83. I will repeat them. The number of housing loans for the quarters in that year were 52,000, 55,000, 60,000 and 65,000. For the december quarter last year we had 71,000 housing loans granted. I ask honourable members to form their own judgment. As I said during Question Time today, this Government has a great record in housing. When in government the Opposition had the housing industry on its knees in 1982-83. However, as a result of our policies such as the first home owners scheme-which I will deal with in a moment-by the stimulation of public housing and by the general lift in the level of economic activity we were able to raise the number of housing commencements from 105,000 to 137,000 in our first year and then to raise it to 153,000. The level of new housing commencements will be running at 137,000 this financial year, that is 1985-86. As I said, this has happened basically as a result of three factors: Our economic performance; the stimulation of industry in the private sector through our first home ownership scheme, and our increased efforts in public housing. I will deal with that in a moment. By the end of this financial year 210,000 households will have been successful in moving into their first home as a result of our first home owners scheme. As a result of those approvals the existing and on-going commitment will be $870m. As organisations within the industry have stated, the scheme is the most successful home ownership program introduced in this country. That is a statement made by industry organisations such as the Housing Industry Association and the Master Builders Federation of Australia Inc. If honourable members opposite compare this with their miserable scheme when they were in office they will see that their home deposit assistance program assisted 82,000 households up until the time the scheme was abolished-when we knocked it off in December 1985-and paid out $170m. I ask honourable members just to make the comparison. It is no wonder we lifted the industry up from 105,000 to 153,000 housing commencements in two years. Let us look at public housing. As I said today in Question Time, the total all up Commonwealth-State effort-I ask honourable members to remember the State matching grants-totalled $1.8 billion. Under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement we will have allocated, as a grant not as a loan, $654m. When the Opposition was running that scheme two-thirds of the money was by loan and one-third by grant. Now it is all by grant. The States do not have to pay it back. We maintained the Commonwealth commitment to allow them to borrow a portion of their Loan Council finance at 4 1/2 per cent. In this financial year $460m of extra Commonwealth assistance will go to the States from that component of our public housing effort. Of course, that means that we have directed to the States over $1.1 billion for public housing and the States will match it with $670m, giving an all up effort of almost $1.8 billion. Let us look at it further. What did the former Government do? Looking at the performance on the basis of 1985-86 prices-I said we gave $640m by grant this year-in 1985-86 prices the equivalent figure for 1981-82 was $363m. So the Opposition's record in public housing speaks for itself. Under the nominating arrangements, this year States such as New South Wales will have over $60m extra at 4 1/2 per cent repayable over 53 years. Even Tasmania will receive in addition to their Federal housing grant $22m at 4 1/2 per cent. As I said today at Question Time, the Opposition should talk to the non-Labor State Ministers and ask them about our performance in housing. They said to me at the State Housing Ministers meetings: `Stewart, we have never had it so good as under your regime. We have never had it so good in public housing, nor in the industry generally'. There is no doubt about it. The Queensland Ministry is extremely critical of the Opposition's performance back in the bad old days. To round off those very telling figures, in 1981-82 the figure under the former Government for public housing was $18 per head across Australia. Under this Government in 1985-86, the Federal effort will be $42 per capita. Those figures sum up the increased effort in public housing that we have made. We have been able to get $1,205m into rental accommodation and 17,200 extra dwellings this year for rental for low income earners as opposed to 8,500 in 1982-83. As far as home purchase assistance is concerned, the Opposition's effort under the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement in 1982-83 was a miserable 8,000 loans. In 1985-86 there will be 15,500 loans under the home purchase assistance element of the Commonwealth-States Housing Agreement. I turn now to the private rental market. The situation is, as I outlined earlier today, that the vacancy rate is worse than it was in 1982-83 in only two capital cities, according to the Real Estate Institute of Australia. I tabled those figures at Question Time today. We make no apologies for the Government's changes to the taxation system regarding the quarantining of negative gearing. I make the point that it does not make any difference to those people who were into property before 17 July. Today I went through the figures of the myriad of tax rorts engendered under this system. But I just do not see what the Opposition is on about. Why should a company, or an individual for that matter, be able to claim its total interest rate repayments against all income and then claim, say, after seven or eight years a non-taxable capital gain and expect ordinary wage earners to pick up the bill to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars? All through the 1970s, the Opposition, in government, turned its back on the bottom of the harbour schemes and all the tax rorts that were going on. It did nothing about them for years. We went through a long examination of the tax system last year and came up with a very courageous move, and we will abide by that move. If the move to quarantine that tax rort to income from a property or group of properties-and that is how it ought to be if it is to be fair; why should anyone claim it against other income-does create a problem for investment in the private rental market, we must address that problem through legitimate taxation measures, such as depreciation allowances. That is what we have done. I have already set up a working party of Commonwealth-State officials to monitor the effect of the tax changes and of the depreciation allowance and to report back. If it proves that there is a problem with regard to investment, we can have a good hard look at that. Having dealt with the first home owners scheme, the industry generally, the public housing effort and the situation in the private rental market, I turn to the general economic situation. There is no argument about the Government's record compared with the Opposition's. It has been said over and over again in this place that we have stimulated employment to the extent of 600,000 new jobs. Over 80,000 of those jobs have been in housing and construction. The non-residential building section is, of course, in a highly buoyant state and will continue in that state. We have achieved this growth in employment at the same time as we have brought inflation down from a very high 11.7 per cent in 1982-83 to 7.3 per cent. Just look at how the inflationary figures have come down-11.7 per cent to 8.7 per cent, 7.5 per cent and 7.3 per cent. That drop is over the last few financial years. We have achieved that through having a stable relationship with the workers of this country through the prices and incomes accord. The prices and incomes accord has been very important to this Government and it will continue. I will conclude on the honest note that I struck at Question Time today: I said that there were problems in the current account, that we were meeting those problems with a tight monetary policy which resulted in high interest rates, and that if one supported a tight monetary policy it was no good whinging about high interest rates. That is the contradiction in the Opposition's position. It supports a tight monetary policy and it runs away from saying what its policy is as far as interest rates are concerned. I said-and I will stand by this position-that the savings banks deposits growth is down and that will create some reduction in lending, but the Government is considering its options and will be in a position to announce any position it takes in the near future. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr BLUNT(Richmond)(4.39) —Today we have witnessed a very embarrassed and, I might say, inadequate presentation by the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West). It is interesting to note-and I have some sympathy for the Minister-that as a member of the left wing he has actually been hoisted on the policies of the right wing. If we look around the Government benches today we will see that the only honourable members in here to support the Minister are members of his own left wing faction, and the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), who has come across in recent times. The Minister cannot even stay in the chamber; he is about to walk out. What we are talking about today does not concern political rhetoric. It is not a matter of scoring political points. It is about Australian people. It really goes to the heart of this Government's approach to government, policies and the way in which it treats the Australian people. On 13 November 1984, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), at the Opera House, in the course of a policy speech, stated: We have pledged ourselves to bring home ownership once again within the reach of ordinary Australian families-to end that sense of despair and frustration . . . He said: `We are going to ensure that in the next 12 months 145,000 houses will be built in Australia and the next year we will maintain this level of housing activity'. The estimates for likely housing construction in the coming 12 months range from 110,000 to 125,000. Let us look at what those statistics really mean in terms of Australian people. This Government promised 145,000 new housing starts. If the industry estimates are correct-let us take its most pessimistic estimate that is, 110,000 housing starts-the figures are down 35,000 homes. What does 35,000 homes really mean? It means that, if there are four people per house, 140,000 Australians will be homeless. In terms of money, that represents construction worth about $2 billion on a conservative basis. This Government's record is appalling. The Minister's own Department, the Department of Housing and Construction, has conducted a study into homelessness. It has discovered that 100,000 Australians are homeless and that 700,000 Australian families are living below the poverty line after they meet the cost of housing at present. Of course housing costs have been lifted by this Government's economic policies-policies that have brought Australia the highest interest rates since the Depression. Seven hundred thousand families adds up to 2,100,000 people, if one assumes that there are only three people per family. If we add that figure to the 100,000 people who are already homeless, 2.2 million Australians are suffering from this Government's housing policy. If we add to that the 140,000 who will be homeless because of this Government's policies which mean that houses will not be constructed, 2.3 million Australians are in desperate trouble because of the absolute inadequacies of this Government's policies. What has happened? The Minister has set up a committee. One would think that he must have almost known what was going to happen as a result of the Government's economic policies because he set up a committee into homelessness. He has set up a committee for the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. Nineteen eighty-seven will be the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. It almost seems that someone knew what was happening in Australia when 1987 was designated as the year of the homeless, because this Government is doing all the right things to make sure that Australia achieves an international record in its abysmal performance in providing homes for Australian people. The Minister may well set up a committee and give it $100,000 in its first year and $650,000 in its second year, because that is all he can do. He has not achieved anything in terms of addressing the real housing crisis in Australia. He has not successfully argued with the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or the right wing faction of this Government to do something about interest rates. Today at Question Time, very interestingly, the Minister refused to deny that the ceiling on housing loan interest rates would not be lifted. What will happen if this Government, after months of holding the line and laughing at the Opposition on this issue, lifts the ceiling on interest rates? What will that do to the cost of housing? There are 700,000 families already in poverty because they cannot meet the cost of housing. What will happen when the Minister lifts the interest rate ceiling on housing? Mr West —What is your policy? Mr BLUNT —For 15 minutes the Minister inadequately tried to demonstrate that he was in control of his portfolio. He mumbled, he bumbled and he covered his mouth. He did not have a government member present to support his position. Obviously, he was inadequate and obviously he was embarrassed. All he could do was talk about what happened in the past. What he forgets is that the Australian Labor Party is the Government of this country. It has been in government for three years and it has not performed. We are on the slippery slide. We are heading for the abyss. This Minister is out of control in his Department. He does not know where to go next. He talks about having a good hard look at the situation and examining the options available to the Government. But he does not know where to go. He does not have the clout in Cabinet. He does not have the support of the Government. The back bench is getting very nervous. But the Treasurer is determined to take this Government right to the edge of the abyss and over it with these ill-considered, inappropriate monetary policies that the Government is running at present. It cannot come to grips with the need to control expenditure. Because it cannot come to grips with the need to control expenditure, it has no hope of doing anything about interest rates in this country. This Minister, the man who signed one of the letters-one of the magnificent seven who wants to spend, spend, spend-should realise what happens in economic terms when one keeps spending money like this, when one keeps giving it away. One's economic policy gets out of control and the only future prospect is further increases in interest rates, a blow-out in the deficit and a further decline in the Australian dollar. That is a great prospect, is it not? No wonder the Minister is embarrassed. No wonder he covered his mouth when he was speaking. No wonder he does not have any positive response. No wonder all he could say, in answer to questions asked at Question Time, was a whole lot of humbug and hoo-ha. There is no positive response, there is no policy, he does not know where he is going and he does not have any answer for the 2.3 million Australians who are in trouble because of the Government's policies which are increasing the rate of poverty in this country. The honourable member for Melbourne (Mr Hand) ought to be on the front bench. He is a bit more forthright and honest than is the Minister. He says: `It embarrasses me to say so, but the fact of the matter is that under this Labor Government poverty has increased'. Poverty has increased because the Minister cannot come to grips with the need to address housing in this country. Already, articles are being written about the changing face of poverty in Australia. We know that the changing face of poverty in Australia is represented by the impact of housing costs on family disposable income. After they pay this Government's housing costs, which are continually rising because of this Government's policies, they do not have enough money to live, to eat, to clothe their families properly. This Minister, a Minister of the Left faction of the Labor Party, supposedly concerned with the plight of his fellow human beings, does not know what to do. All he can do is feign boredom and yawn. The real problem he has is that he is inadequate, his Government is inadequate and he does not know where to go on this issue. It is because Keating has lost control of the Australian economy. It is because the Government is running scared. It is because it will not come to grips with the basic economic facts of life-the need to have some efficiency, some restraint and to stop spending money on useless purposes and to direct government expenditure to those areas in which it should be best spent to achieve cost effectiveness in government. The Government should forget about the hoo-ha and the publicity. I started my remarks by talking about the Prime Minister's promises that he gave at the Opera House. Let us look at the areas in which this Government spends money. This Government spent money on public relations and promotion. I said that $650,000 would be spent on a committee for the year of the homeless. That will be cold comfort for those people who are sleeping out of doors. An amount of $42m is being spent on the Priority One program. Heaven only knows how many millions of dollars have been wasted on the community employment program, on useless, fanciful schemes-not on bricks and mortar schemes, but on useless, fanciful schemes supported by the left wing of this Government. It does not come to grips with the need to provide basic shelter for Australian families, the need to do something about interest rates or the direction of this Government's economic policies. The magnificent seven were rolled. They wrote to the Prime Minister and said: `We will not cut our expenditure. We will not do anything. We will keep spending'. What happened? They got rolled, just as this Minister gets rolled in Cabinet. No wonder he cannot do anything about the plight of the homeless in Australia. No wonder he cannot effectively administer a housing policy. No wonder he is embarrassed. No wonder he has no support from members of his back bench, because they are embarrassed. In their electorates they are confronted by people who are continually facing increasing interest rates, who have to choose these days between paying their mortgage and buying food. Of course, they have to pay their mortgage and their rent, because if they do not do so, they will be out in the cold. This Minister, more than any other member of the Government, is responsible for Australian families dropping their standard of living, and for going without the basic necessities of life. What will he do about it? He will do nothing. He sat passively by while this Government has run economic policies that have run down housing and run down available rental stocks. He has let the Government introduce negative gearing and a capital gains tax and he has done nothing. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(4.50) —When this debate started today, I was rather at a loss to understand why the Opposition had chosen to debate the housing industry, because throughout the course of this year and most of the term of this Government the Opposition spokesmen on housing have been the promoters of a wall of deafening silence in their failure to ask any significant questions or make any significant contributions in this Parliament to promote an alternative housing policy. I have stumbled on what I believe to be the reason why the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) is having his day in the Parliament. It must be one of two things. It may be that the Opposition tactics committee is working through the alphabet and, having dealt with health as an issue of national priority, has not moved to the next letter in the alphabet and is dealing with housing. We can expect that it will take up immigration and ethnic affairs tomorrow. If that is not the reason for the honourable member's day in Parliament, it can only be that this morning's newspaper featured some speculation about the question of housing interest rates. I must say how typical it is that the Opposition's tactics and philosophy are motivated not by any consistent political position but by what the morning newspapers say. I can just imagine the reality of the Opposition conducting its affairs, with the members of the tactics committee rushing out on to their Canberra lawns first thing in the morning to read the newspapers to see what they will then raise in the Parliament that day. What an appallingly low standard of opposition we see in the Parliament today. The Opposition spokesman on housing and construction today has not engaged in any constructive debate about alternative housing policies, because there was nothing in all that he said, not one single item of alternative policy. All he was doing was being a prophet of doom and gloom. He was trying to talk down the housing industry. It is quite clear that his efforts are not appreciated by the Government or the industry. We heard the honourable member for Deakin talk about how there would be a queue of companies in the construction and housing industry going to the wall. He referred to the Spaceline company and warned that yesterday's Age newspaper had said: . . . Spaceline would be `the first of the dominoes to fall in the mounting housing industry crisis'. Perhaps he should be aware that a spokesman for the Housing Industry Association, Dr Ron Silberberg, said that that was a very unhelpful track to pursue. He said: The vast majority of home builders are extremely viable. That is not the honourable member for Hughes talking, that is a spokesman for the industry. What an indictment it is on the Opposition that not only is it remote from the broad electorate but also it is divorced from the people in the industry; those people whom the Opposition would set itself up to represent in Parliament. The discussion brought forward today by the Opposition suggests two features of this Government's policy which, it is claimed, adversely impact on the Australian housing industry. Those features are, firstly, what are claimed to be high interest rates and, secondly, the taxation policies of the Government. Let me first deal, clearly and simply, with the question of the taxation policies of the Government as they relate to the housing industry. There are three matters for consideration: Firstly, the quarantining of negative gearing; secondly, the introduction of the 4 per cent depreciation allowance on new rental accommodation; and, thirdly, the capital gains tax. Those items need to be considered in their totality to gauge the effect on the industry as a whole. There is considerable evidence that the totality of the effect of those items will be extremely limited to negligible. While the Government certainly has put an end to the inequity of negative gearing, it has been done in a way that should least disrupt the rental market. The legislation will make negative gearing entirely prospective. It will be quarantined only on investments made after 17 July 1985, and investors with negatively geared properties before that date will not be affected. With respect to the introduction of the 4 per cent depreciation allowance after 17 July, it is already evident that the Department of Housing and Construction estimates that the depreciation allowance amounts to nearly half of the net rental on property and also that the allowed depreciation will not be clawed back when calculating capital gains tax liability. I am sure you would agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, that that is an important concession. With respect to the capital gains tax, which is much criticised by the honourable member for Deakin and others, we ought to examine the effect of that rather innocuous and tame tax. The criticism of that tax is ill-founded. That capital gains tax will apply only to real gains after inflation has been taken into account. It will not apply to the principal place of residence of a taxpayer. It is clear from what I have said that the impact of the Government's taxation changes on the housing industry will be minimal, if there is any impact at all. The other aspect of the contribution by the honourable member for Deakin was his attack on the Government's fiscal policy. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) has gone on record-it has never been disputed by the Opposition-as saying that the trilogy commitments of the Government have never been attempted by any government anywhere in the Western world. Such are the rigours of the constraints imposed by the trilogy. With respect to the question of industrial policy, the honourable member for Deakin attacked wage levels in this country. I do not know how much the Opposition is demanding of the Government; how much blood it wants. The Government has gone on record-again, it has never been disputed-as saying that real wages in this country are at the lowest level since the early 1970s. How much more does the Opposition want? It has had a pound of flesh; how much more does it want? The other aspect I mention, which puts the Opposition's credibility on the line, is what it would do in the area of fiscal policy. If the Opposition is suggesting that we should cut back the level of government expenditure, the onus is on the Opposition to tell us whereabouts government expenditure should be cut. The first piece of legislation that came before this Parliament after the Treasurer (Mr Keating) made his economic statement in May last year was the proposal to cut back government expenditure on the first home owner's scheme. The Opposition went to the wall on it. The Opposition purported to suggest that it was a dreadful reversal of government policy and that young Australian home owners would be extremely adversely affected as a result. The Opposition opposed that very first proposal for the reduction in government expenditure. Where is the credibility of the Opposition on this question? If it proposes cut-backs of government expenditure, in what areas should expenditure be cut? In the area of social security, is it proposing to reduce pensions and cut back on funding for veterans' affairs? Is it proposing to cut back on road funding? Honourable members opposite should tell that to the National Party of Australia. Is it proposing to cut back on health funding? Of course it is not. The Opposition has no credibility whatsoever on that issue. I move to the question of interest rates. The Government has been a model of consistency on interest rates. The Treasurer and the Prime Minister have consistently gone on the public record refuting suggestions by the Opposition that the Government was about to lift the ceiling of 13 1/2 per cent on bank home loan interest rates. Let us examine the multifaceted position-if I can refer to it that way-of the Opposition on this question. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) went to South Australia to campaign in the State election, the Leader of the Liberal Party in South Australia, Mr Olsen, could not get him back on the plane fast enough. The Leader of the Opposition went over there and promoted the deregulation of interest rates. Of course, Mr Olsen responded to that by saying that the people were really feeling the pinch of high interest rates, taxes and charges and that he did not support the deregulation of interest rates at all because the people out there simply could not afford it. That was what one of the prominent State leaders said when the Opposition trumped up its national policy in the State arena. The people of South Australia would not cop it, nor will the people in the rest of Australia. I conclude by expressing my disdain, if not my contempt, for the bleatings of the Opposition about homelessness and poverty. The Opposition's record is scandalous. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Debate resumed from 19 February, on motion by Mr Hurford: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr CARLTON(Mackellar)(5.00) —Mr Deputy Speaker, since this is the first opportunity I have had, apart from other business where it was not appropriate to congratulate you on your election as Chairman of Committees, may I do so and wish you a productive period in that office. Mr Nehl —A short one. Mr CARLTON —I said `productive'. Maybe that is encompassed by the word used by the honourable member for Cowper. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Thank you. Mr CARLTON —The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is the legislative outcome of the Government's statement of 29 October 1985 on foreign investment policy. The second reading speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) did canvass wider issues of foreign investment policy. No statement was made in Parliament of the Government's changes to foreign investment policy last October. Therefore, there has been no opportunity in this House to canvass the wider issues that were raised by that statement. I am taking the opportunity, along with the second reading speech of the Minister, to canvass some broader issues and to put the particular changes in the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill in their proper context. Before dealing with the precise measures, let me say in opening that foreign investment in Australia can be an emotive subject. People do have a concern as to whether, in colloquial language, the farm is sold off. People would prefer the control of economic affairs in Australia to be primarily within the hands of Australians. When we look at the issue of control over foreign investment, there is a balance between our strong desire to encourage activity by foreigners in Australia for our economic growth, the growth of employment and the advance of our technology and our skills, and our concern over the control of our own destiny. Why does Australia need foreign investment? Australia is a young country and it is a country of bountiful resources, but it is a country of a relatively small and young population. It, therefore, has limited domestic savings compared with the more established countries of the northern hemisphere including, of course, Asia and Japan. The established nations look towards us as a stable country for investment. We have few political risks of a kind that are, unfortunately, prevalent in other parts of the world and, indeed, up to the late 1960s foreign investment in Australia was virtually unimpeded. That is something that is forgotten very much in the present debate. It was only towards the end of the 1960s, when there was a rising feeling of nationalism, that foreign investment controls began to be put into place. In the early 1970s a mechanism was set up to screen direct foreign investment, initially just generally through the Treasury, not including a scrutiny of loans or portfolio investment unless the portfolio investment built up to a level where it constituted a controlling mechanism on the company concerned. Eventually this was turned into the Foreign Investment Review Board, which is a body composed of a Chairman appointed from outside the Australian Public Service and members with business experience. It is serviced by the head of the foreign investment division of the Treasury. I want to make it quite clear in my remarks about controls over foreign investment that I make no adverse comment whatsoever on the composition of the Foreign Investment Review Board and the work done by the people in the Treasury who service it. They have conscientiously gone about their work under successive governments. Any criticisms I might have about Government policy relate not to those persons on the Board, or to the officers in the Treasury, but to aspects of Government policy. Since the 1970s, capital inflows into Australia have expanded dramatically, but it must be noted that their composition has changed. If we look at the situation that applied over the three years from July 1971, we find that the average capital inflows during that period were of the order of $1.8 billion per annum. During the early 1970s 78 per cent of the capital investment was direct equity investment in Australian enterprises and only 22 per cent was portfolio or loan investment. So there was a very substantial and solid movement of capital into Australian productive enterprises. If one compares the 78:22 ratio of direct investment to portfolio and loan investment of the early 1970s with the figures for the three years from July 1980, which are accurate figures, one finds an average investment of $6.2 billion at constant 1979-80 prices compared with $1.8 billion in the earlier period. But the ratios had virtually reversed. Only 21 per cent of the investment was direct equity investment, as opposed to 78 per cent in the earlier period, and the balance of 79 per cent was portfolio investment and loans. It is interesting to note by way of side comment that direct investment in Australia did rise substantially during the period, but the ration of investment went substantially in the direction of loan and portfolio. Direct investment under the Fraser Government rose on average each year by 50 per cent compared with the Whitlam Government. There was quite a slowing of investment during the previous Labor Government's period of office. There was an overall increase of 50 per cent on average for each year of the Fraser years after that, which is indicative of the greater attractiveness of Australian investment under the Fraser years compared with the Whitlam years. Obviously if we look at the difficulties of having a higher proportion of loan investment, we will look at the incentive for encouraging more direct investment. What are the difficulties in expanding quite substantially this level of debt versus equity investment? The most obvious one is the alarming increase in our overseas debt, which has direct influence on the balance of payments and affects the standing of the Australian dollar. Currently, Australia has an overseas debt of about $70 billion, which is enormous. That is equivalent to about $4,500 for each man, woman and child in Australia. Let us consider the situation of a man and wife with three children, a family facing the future in Australia. They have the prospect, one way or another, of paying interest on or paying back $22,500 to overseas lenders-that is dividing the number of people in Australia by the total of our overseas debt. It has been said, quite correctly, that our overseas debt is rising to South American proportions. It has trebled in only the last three or four years. It is now approaching the point where over 40c of every dollar we earn in export income is needed to service our overseas debt. We are running up extra debt at the rate of over $1 billion a month because we have a deficit in our balance of payments. In other words, there is a $1 billion gap between what we earn overseas and what we have to pay out overseas. A substantial amount of what we have to pay out overseas is interest on this appalling level of overseas debt. I will describe that in a way which most people can understand by referring to a family borrowing, say, $40,000 from the bank and agreeing to pay back interest and capital at the rate of $500 a month, which is not an uncommon experience for Australian families, although the amount of repayment is going up under current rising interest rates. Relating the example of that family to Australia's situation it is as if the family, instead of paying back $500 to the bank every month, actually has to front up to the bank manager and borrow an extra $500 every month, thus adding to its $40,000 loan and interest repayment burden for the years ahead. The family might feel good during the period it is actually spending the $40,000 it has borrowed. It might put an extension on the house; it might buy a new motor car; it might put a new carpet in the bedroom; or it might spend up big at the local restaurant. While that is all happening-while the money that has been borrowed is being spent-that family might think that it is in good times. However, essentially it is borrowing money that it cannot repay. Its situation is the same as that of Australia at the moment. We are borrowing an extra one billion dollars a month overseas which, under current arrangements, we do not have the productive capacity to repay. So, this is a powerful argument for trying to increase the amount of capital coming into Australia which will go into direct investment in property or enterprises and will not just be added to our overseas debt commitments. Why is it better to have direct investments rather than debt? Well, a direct investment goes into either property or a business. An overseas investor has an involvement in the running of the business. A business employs people. It has a capacity to pay off loans through its earnings so it is not adding to the general burden of debt. It has a capacity to repay. Also, it does not pay back money to overseas investors until such time as it starts to make profits. Of course, if one has a loan from an overseas lender, one has to start paying back the money pretty quickly; one has to pay interest usually from the very time that one negotiates the loan. Of course, the payment back of that interest does not help the balance of payments position and adds to the overseas deficit that we have as a nation. A contribution is made to the productive capacity of Australia if money comes in and is invested in a business or a property. The business becomes a local taxpayer and pays 46c in the dollar company tax. It will pay 49c if the Government's proposed legislation to increase the tax goes ahead. There is also a 15 per cent withholding tax on any dividends that are sent back to overseas investors after a business has become profitable. The business itself can, of course, employ people. It is possible for technology to be brought in more rapidly than would be the case if we were just to pull ourselves up by our own boot straps. Also, overseas investment quite often leads to the improved management of enterprises. They are the arguments for increasing the level of direct investment as opposed to increasing the level of borrowing which is what we have been doing at a substantial rate. It has been generally agreed in recent times that there has been far too much regulation of business. Also, it has been agreed by the Government itself that there has been too much regulation of foreign investment. There is still some of the nationalistic concern evidenced in the late '60s and '70s which led to the imposition of these controls. However, I think most people now realise that in retrospect those controls have been counter-productive, that they have been too onerous and that, instead of going through the filters and meeting the requirements of the Government for additional local participation in particular investments, all they have done is to reduce the overall level of investment in Australia, to Australia's disadvantage, and push up the amount of overseas borrowings. This is a very good example of regulation bringing about adverse consequences which were foreseen by many economists whose advice was not accepted. Sometimes, Mr Deputy Speaker, the advice of economists is correct. In this case, that advice was correct. It is agreed even by the Government that that process has been too closely controlled. Let me talk about the process itself. The Foreign Investment Review Board is required to examine whether certain types of activity fall within the national interest. Foreign investors which, within certain categories, wish to start a new business or take a major stake in an existing business have to apply to the Foreign Investment Review Board which examines the proposal. Certain rules have to be followed in respect of Australian participation. The matter then goes to the Government for a final decision. I have not received too many complaints-I have received some-about the courtesy and the attentiveness of the officers who screen these applications, nor have I received too many complaints about members of the Board itself. I emphasise that my concern is not about the people who are involved in these matters but about the policy itself. The constant complaint that I have heard expressed overseas in discussions with investors from Europe, America and Japan-certainly these concerns now come from people in places such as Hong Kong and Malaysia who are anxious to spread their investments-is that when we look at this set of controls we do not even bother to think about putting up a wide range of propositions which we would otherwise consider. The Foreign Investment Review Board, or the Government on the Board's advice, does not reject many applications. What we see is the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, we ought to be worried about the vast bulk of possible investment propositions which are not even put forward. This matter is of particular concern at the moment because, in the wake of our desperate balance of payment problems with the haemorrhage each month of the billion dollars of our money in the gap between what we earn overseas and what we pay out, we have to worry about just how Australian industry is going to pick itself up by its boot straps to export more, to replace imports to a greater degree and to be more competitive. A very depressing picture of the position is painted by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) whose rather colourful quote is recorded in an article in last Friday's Australian newspaper headed `No quick fix for the J-curve jitters'. I will explain, if I can, in a moment in simple terms what the J-curve is. I hope that what he said will not be considered unparliamentary language. The Minister is quoted as saying: I don't know who invented the bloody J-curve but I tell you it wasn't an Australian who learnt about the Australian economy. This had a particular piquancy because on the same day the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said in this place in respect of the balance of payments figures of the preceding day: Yesterday's figures show some clear J-effect in the current account figures . . . I am encouraged. There was a clear conflict between two Ministers about what was happening in our economy. Let me explain in simple terms, if I can, what the J-curve effect is. We had a very big devaluation of the Australian dollar over the course of the last year. The value went down 25 per cent against the currencies of our major trading partners. So in fact Australia was 25 per cent poorer at the end of 1985 than it was at the beginning of the year. That devaluation ought to have given Australian exporters a better chance to export more goods because of the lower price of Australian goods on world markets. It also ought to have given people manufacturing in Australia an opportunity to replace imports because imports would be more expensive since the Australian dollar was less valuable versus the currency of the more expensive overseas countries. Also, imports would be more expensive. It is hoped by the Treasurer and the Government that, following a period in which the balance of payments deteriorated immediately after the devaluation, there would be what they and the economists call a J-curve effect-in other words, a curve that turns up like the letter `J'-and we would get the positive effects of the devaluation with more exports and more import replacement. They hope that, lo and behold, our balance of payments deficit will reduce and the pressure on the Australian dollar will start to go away. That is the theory, but the theory works only if exporters are able to export into expanding markets. In the case of our minerals and our rural produce that is not so at the moment, so the exporters of those two sorts of products are in a lot of trouble, that part of the J curve really has not been working and the burden has come back on to manufacturing industry to lift its game, to take advantage of the depreciation, to have lower costs, to export more finished goods and, of course, to replace more imports with locally manufactured goods. As Senator Button points out in this article, manufacturing industry does not appear to be doing that. The Treasurer still hopes that manufacturing industry will do it. He claims to see in the most recent pretty dreadful figures some J effect, as he calls it, but Senator Button made those colourful remarks about the J curve simply not applying to the Australian economy. This gets us back by a rather roundabout route to the question of foreign investment. If Australian industry is to be revivified and regenerated and if it is to be more competitive on world markets I do not think Senator Button sees it picking itself up by its own bootstraps, and I do not think I do either. I think it will be perked up only by a substantial increase in foreign investment. Indeed, this happened in the period up to the end of the 1960s when we did not have any foreign investment controls to speak of. We introduced most of them later, so all those activities that could have been attracted to this country if there were not the screening device to the same extent that there is now would have a stimulatory effect on what was going on in Australian industry, not only in manufacturing but also in the bush where some people might like desperately at the moment to sell their farms and to take a capital sum to put into other investments which they might think were more productive. If there were people from overseas prepared to take on some of those responsibilities and bring in new capital and perhaps new ideas, that would be all to the good. Similarly in manufacturing industry and in the tertiary industries, the service industries, there could be a great inrush of people with new ideas, new technologies, new management and of course new capital replacing the loan money currently used by a lot of industry with their own direct equity investment and taking a direct stake in the economic growth and social development of Australia. We in the Opposition believe that the moves taken by the Government in this October statement are far too cautious, and in this we are supported by most of the economic commentators. The headline in the Australian Financial Review on the day that these moves were announced said: `Hawke's cautious moves toward more deregulation'. In the speech that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made to the Business Council of Australia on the night that these measures were announced he said: Business deregulation is an issue which, in the past, has been long on rhetoric and lamentably short on action. But as has been amply demonstrated, we are a government prepared to get things done. And we have taken deregulation out of the `too hard' basket. In the same speech he went on to say: The Government has not accepted in full the recommendations for sweeping liberalisation proposed by the BCA. But we have gone some way to take up the suggestions of the BCA and have also identified other areas where a relaxation of the policy requirements could be achieved without compromise to the Government's basic objectives. Unfortunately the announcement was a bit of a fizzer. All it did was to remove certain requirements for overseas investors to see whether there were any Australian companies that had an interest in any particular situation-the so-called opportunities test, which was ridiculous anyway and which should never have been introduced. That has gone away, which we applaud. There were higher thresholds for takeovers of new business or for real estate. They were really only adjustments that for the most part were in line with the depreciating value of the currency over this period due to inflation. There were some changes in the non-bank financial sector which flowed from the deregulation of that sector and some loosening up of real estate. Also there were some amendments to the overseas takeovers legislation, the current Bill we are dealing with tonight, whereby acquisitions of existing mining rights will be exempt and takeovers of companies that are already foreign-owned will be exempt if worth less than $20m, the previous threshold being $3m. It was a very cautious set of changes. The particular measures in tonight's Bill the Opposition is supporting because they are going in a particular direction, but overall we have to join in the disappointment that certainly would have been felt by most commentators and by the Business Council of Australia that the opportunity was not taken to bring about a major change in the regulation of foreign investment. Let me quote the editorial in the Australian Financial Review of 29 October, which was published before the changes were made. In part, it said: Three main arguments have been used to support the need to maintain a minimum proportion of local equity in foreign investment proposals and a threshold above which FIRB approval of foreign takeovers is required. The first is that the benefits, or economic rents, which accrue to foreign investors need to be controlled. If one agrees with this, and most Australians probably do, then we do not need a FIRB to make sure that this occurs. Taxation policy and trade practices legislation can achieve the same end with less direct intervention in the investment process. The Australian Financial Review, in its key phrase in this editorial, goes on to say: It is more astute to squeeze an economic goose, rather than frighten it so much that it refuses to lay any golden eggs. That is basically what we have been doing for a very long time. To continue: The second argument is that foreign firms, or foreign capital dominated for firms, may restrict research and development and even import more than they allow their subsidiaries to export. Studies have shown that this is generally not the case. To continue: The third argument involved nationalistic and defence considerations . . . The editorial goes on to argue that if, as a result, we get much lower growth rates and living standards, what is the benefit of that and that other policy stances can be taken to overcome those difficulties. In summary, we support the pitiful measures in this Bill. We urge the Government to go back to the drawing board in this matter. It has been far too cautious. We believe that this electorate, like the Canadian electorate, has a much more open view now of the benefits of foreign investment. Indeed, we have had the experience of restricting foreign investment from the late 1960s to the present with the result that we have increased enormously our overseas debt, added to the burden of our balance of payments deficit, not only restricted the inflow of direct capital investment into Australian industry but also very much restricted the inflow of new management techniques, technology transfer, access to broader markets around the world, overseas marketing links which would be useful in developing exports and that ferment of activity throughout the whole of Australian industry, all sectors, without which this country simply is not going to be able to grow at a sufficiently fast rate to satisfy our needs for employment and for wealth. We are in the fastest growing economic region of the world. Compared with other countries in this region, we are gradually going downhill. The 25 per cent devaluation of the Australian dollar over the course of 1985 is one measure of our relative decline. It must be said that Australia is 25 per cent poorer in the eyes of the world, in our world worth, than we were 12 months ago. That means that we have to have quite substantial changes in the way in which we approach the management of our economy. We are saying that in this area of direct foreign investment it is important to be bold, to be decisive and to welcome much more openly, as we did until the late 1960's the foreign investor with ideas, with management, with technology and with a capacity, side by side with Australians, to push this country into a better future. Mr ALLAN MORRIS(Newcastle)(5.30) —The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) had a great deal of rhetoric in his speech on the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill. I shall return later in the debate to contrast that rhetoric with the performance of his colleagues when they sat on this side of the House. The Government, through this legislation which flowed from the review of foreign investment in Australia, is making a number of changes to the Foreign Takeovers Act and to the procedures that govern and control foreign investment. Whilst recognising the benefits of foreign investment and the need to balance out the Australian content and the concerns among the Australian people about the ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources, we have attempted to ensure that a new balance is struck. Let me give an example. In 1982-83, of some 1,170 applications for foreign investment in Australia, some two-thirds were approved without any condition whatsoever. A similar figure was maintained in 1983-84. In other words, some two-thirds of the applications that are examined and dealt with by the Foreign Investment Review Board are approved without condition. That seems to imply a top heaviness in the system. I think the argument about red tape and excessive regulation seems to be supported by those statistics. The fact is that we need regulations, controls and monitoring but it is often very hard for governments to decide when enough is enough. Quite clearly, the previous government had not decided that enough was enough and it maintained an excessive level of regulation on the people from overseas who wanted to invest in Australia. Four clear benefits from foreign investment should be looked at and understood quite well. The first one comes from the funds which will develop the country. The second benefit is access to technology from other countries and from other industries. The third benefit is expertise; in other words, access to people and their skills. The fourth benefit-the one about which we perhaps know so little-is access to markets. I will start with the fourth benefit. It seems to me, with regard to the access to markets that most countries would expect from foreign investors, that Australia has long failed to achieve that access except in a few limited areas, particularly in the case of iron ore and coal. In Australia, we have a number of manufacturing and processing companies which see their only future as servicing the Australian market rather than expanding into overseas markets. The questions raised by the honourable member for Mackellar with regard to lifting our export game in many cases relate very much to whether or not the companies who could be exporting are prepared to compete in overseas markets against sister and brother companies of the same organisations. Clearly, expertise has been flowing into Australia from overseas. A regular stream of personnel from countries around the world have come to this country bringing with them skills that we currently lack. I am sure that aspect of foreign investment is benefiting the national interest. Perhaps we are benefiting to a lesser degree from the technology aspect because Australia is seen more as a domestic market rather than as an exporter. Again, the attitudes and perceptions of other countries and companies may well have to be expanded. The first benefit-development funds-brings me back to the question of the shift between equity and borrowings. The honourable member for Mackellar went to great pains to point out the shift from equity to borrowings in investment in Australia. He made some reference to the shift occurring over a long period. It was not being totally honest to the people of Australia to say that because the shift occurred fundamentally in three years. Of a total of $3 billion invested by overseas countries in Australia in 1979-80, $1.4 billion was in fact in portfolio investments-some 48 per cent. By 1982-83 our total investments from overseas had grown to $9.2 billion-a jump of almost 300 per cent in just two years. However the portfolio investment aspect has grown from $1.4 billion to $6.9 billion-a jump of over 400 per cent. In other words-we can all recall the collapse of the resources boom mentality-our foreign deficit in 1981-82 was around the $10 billion mark. The way that we balanced that deficit under the Fraser Government, with the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard) as Treasurer, was to attract investment funds via high interest rates. We all recall the effect that had. We all recall the implications. We can all now see the pattern that has been established. So the fundamental shift from equity investment to borrowing investment in Australia was achieved, derived and organised by the previous Treasurer of this country, the honourable member for Bennelong. So it is a little facetious of the honourable member for Mackellar to talk about looking at the overall shift in the last 10 to 15 years when, in fact, the fundamental shift took place in just three short years between 1979 and 1982. I am somewhat surprised that the honourable member for Mackellar did not go further and go as far as his Leader, the honourable member for Bennelong, has gone in calling for the abolition of the FIRB. The Canberra Times reported his speech last year to the Liberal Party Federal Council meeting in July 1985 and a resolution adopted by that Council. It stated: Foreign investors may have open slather in Australia if the Liberal Party is elected to Government, after the party's federal council . . . The policy was interpreted by the journalist writing in the Canberra Times as open slather because the Liberal Party was calling for the abolition of the Foreign Investment Review Board. The honourable member for Mackellar was much more moderate. Perhaps he is learning that the Australian people do not want open slather on Australian industries and resources. In Australia at the moment there is a concern about who owns and controls the country and how this is done and why. That concern has developed over many years. It has resulted partly from the fact that we are a proud country and a proud people. We are parochial people. We like to think that Australia belongs to us and that we are Australians. When some of the figures relating to ownership are made known, there is an apprehension in the community as to what they mean. In some ways we may be over reacting and we may be overcautious in terms of our investment in our own country. But for any government to suggest that there is not a need for controls and monitoring in foreign investment and foreign ownership in this country is absolutely ludicrous and totally out of step with the perceptions of Australians. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Mackellar, just told us about the $4,500 per Australian-man, woman and child-that is owed in foreign debt. The implications of that statement are totally misleading the Australian public. It is perhaps more appropriate to put this matter in context. Of our overseas debt of some $68 billion, some two-thirds is not owed by governments or by taxpayers but by private enterprise and private companies. I suspect it is those same companies and enterprises that are constantly calling for the abolition of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I have often failed to understand their logic. One of the people who made such a call was the Treasurer of the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party, Mr John Elliott, who suggested that the FIRB should go. I fail to understand how on one hand the Government is being accused of somehow encouraging or allowing this massive debt to occur against the Australian community and yet at the same time, on the other hand, it is being suggested that the means of monitoring, maintaining and regulating that debt should be removed. Of that foreign debt, some $26 billion is owed by the government sector-State, Federal and local government. The Commonwealth Government has foreign currency reserves of $13 billion. Therefore, at a national level, the Federal Government, on behalf of the Australian taxpayers, has virtually a zero foreign debt. State and local governments have a foreign debt of some $13 billion. Private enterprise and individuals on behalf of themselves and their shareholders-and nobody else-have a foreign debt of some $40 billion. The implication of that is not in terms of volume, as the honourable member for Mackellar has suggested; that is a sophistic and misleading argument. The concern must be in terms of the direction. It is not the quantity, but the quality of the investment. When those investments in areas such as the North West Shelf are aimed at generating foreign earnings, then the Australian community can understand that, if we are using foreign funds to invest in the development of Australian resources in order to sell on overseas markets, in fact the foreign earnings offset the foreign borrowings. What the Australian public fails to understand-this is a view that I am sure most members of Parliament will share-is the principle involved in using foreign borrowings in order to fund purely internal domestic purchases, such as the purchase of an Australian shop or an Australian retailer or wholesaler. This legislation is not massive; the amendments in the Bill are quite small. Many of the other changes announced by the Government have taken place by way of regulation and changes in procedures. The whole thrust of the Government's action has been to try to simplify and to focus on the areas that need attention, rather than to create an excess of red tape or overregulation. We are attempting to ensure that the interests of Australians, both now and in the future, are protected by the Foreign Investment Review Board and by the foreign investment review procedures and that we do not put effort into excessive scrutiny where that seems to be unwarranted. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(5.42) —The Hawke socialist Government's `principled' stance on company takeovers is, in reality, a classic example of sanguinary hypocrisy. It must be said that the high sounding rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on company takeovers has not been matched by his Government's performance. I submit that either the Prime Minister is very thick or he is `bandicooting', which is, of course, the Australian equivalent of `weaseling'. Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member for Denison will use parliamentary language and will not use the type of language that he has used towards the Prime Minister or any Minister or member of this House. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will find the word `weaseling' in the Oxford Dictionary and `bandicooting' is about to go into the Macquarie Australian Dictionary. On the one hand, his Government- Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Nonetheless, I would like the honourable member for Denison to refrain from using such language in this context. If he persists, I will have to ask him to withdraw it. Mr HODGMAN —I do not intend to use it any more today; I bow to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the one hand, the Hawke socialist Government pontificates in the second reading speech on this Bill about `community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources'. I read the exact quote from that speech: The policy modifications were decided upon having regard to the continuing need for a balance to be struck between the economic benefits of foreign investment and community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources. Yet, on the other hand, at the very same time the Government chooses to turn a blind eye to what I consider to be a glaring case of which I am absolutely certain it had knowledge. I challenge the Prime Minister to categorically deny that he had personally been aware of the fact that a group calling itself Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd had owned 7,498,000 shares in West Australian Onshore Oil and that this extraordinary group had at one time been the second largest shareholder in this `Australian-owned' company. Of course the Prime Minister knew who Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd really were. Surely he has now been tipped off that others now know also what really happened. He has only to refer to my Press statement issued last Friday and entitled `Nature Study Notes-No. 1' to get the message. Let me read that Press statement. It is quite brief. It reads: Nature Study Notes-No. 1 Once upon a time there was a man who had a Wallaby Zoo. It was a very good Wallaby Zoo. But one day a new `Wallaby' came to the Zoo-at least he said he was a Wallaby, and he wrote in the Zoo Book that he definitely was a Wallaby. After a little while the new `Wallaby' got bigger and bigger, and before very long he was the second biggest `Wallaby' in the Wallaby Zoo. Then some visitors to the Zoo started to look closely at the new `Wallaby', and the closer they looked the more certain they became that he was not a real Wallaby at all. Some people actually said that he wasn't even a member of the Kangaroo Family-that he was really a Wildebeest-and he shouldn't be in the Wallaby Zoo at all! That was all a little while ago. I am sure it couldn't ever happen again-or could it? Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I am fascinated to know how this reference ties in with the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill. Mr HODGMAN —Absolutely. If you will be patient for just a minute, Madam Deputy Speaker-we have always been good friends-all will be revealed. It is absolutely incredible that our Prime Minister, who boasts that he is more Australian than Gundagai, apparently does not know the difference between a wallaby and a wildebeest. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, what am I talking about? Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd is, in fact, the South African giant, the Anglo-American Corporation. If, at one point, it held a 15 per cent interest in West Australian Onshore Oil, that is very much a matter within the purview of this legislation. If, in fact, the Anglo-American Corporation owned 7,498,000 shares in West Australian Onshore Oil, but in the name of Wallaby Nominees Pty Ltd, and if, in fact, it became the second largest shareholder in West Australian Onshore Oil, that is most definitely a matter that would come within the purview of this legislation and the principal Act. In conclusion, my attention has been drawn to an article which appeared in the latest edition of the National Times in a column entitled `The Overflow Column' by Clancy. This reveals-because, thank heaven, I am not a member of the Hawke socialist Government or its Ministry, I have not been able to confirm that this actually happened, but it has been reported and it has not been contradicted by any Minister-that at a recent meeting of a Ministers committee a person came before them and, in answer to questions put by the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), that person said specifically that, apart from having lived as a child in South Africa, he had no links at all with that country, nor did any of his companies. I would hope that the Prime Minister would understand the anxious concern of all marsupial loving Australians that, if a wildebeest gets into a wallaby zoo under false pretences and flying false colours, something has gone very wrong with the law of this country. Wallabies and wildebeests are quite different and in this particular case I invite the Prime Minister to come into the House and tell us exactly what has gone on. It is one thing for people to fly under false colours; it is very wrong to say that one is a wallaby when one is in fact a wildebeest. The facts are there; but, if the Prime Minister is not prepared to come in here and say why his Government has condoned this situation, then, as the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) has pointed out, this Bill is sham, cant and hypocrisy, and the Government's rhetoric is not matched by its practice. The point that I make in the concluding seconds available to me is that this Government, whether it likes it or not, will hear a lot more about wallabies and wildebeests and that people who say that it has not happened will have their eyes and ears opened and it will be proved to them that it has happened. If it has happened once, the question we must ask ourselves is: Will it happen again? This is not the last we will be hearing about how the wildebeest got into the wallaby zoo. Mr BALDWIN(Sydney)(5.49) —The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is a legislative component of a package of measures that were announced by the Government on 29 October last year in a Press release by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford). The amendments to the original legislation are not major and to some degree they merely make an adjustment to the threshold at which off-shore takeovers are subject to the Act. It raises the threshold from $3m to $20m, which is some-what in excess of indexation over that period; but I do not think it is a very significant change in itself. The amendments also concern the exemption of acquisitions by foreign investors of existing mining exploration rights. I do not believe on the face of it that that is a terribly profound or significant alteration to the legislation. It is perhaps worth while to make some comments of a more general nature about the whole takeover issue and the whole foreign investment issue. What we have seen in recent times is the acceptance of the view that a lesser degree of regulation of these forms of activity is justified while at the same time making clear that there are major issues of national interest involved and that there is a need for an ongoing mechanism to review proposals for foreign takeovers, for foreign investment, and to make an assessment of how we will balance up any economic benefits which are claimed to flow from the investment against the loss of Australian equity and control. Clearly, there has been a traditional concern within the Australian Labor Party about the impact of the degree of foreign ownership and control in our economy. Over a great many years concerns have been expressed on this score. I think that a great many of those concerns deserve serious consideration. I am of the view that the benefits flowing from foreign investment are rather more ambiguous than is widely perceived. I might elaborate on that a little later. However, the first thing I would like to make reference to concerns the whole issue of having available adequate information about the extent of foreign ownership and control in the Australian economy. Honourable members may recall that during the period of the Fraser Government one of the cuts made by that Government-it was obviously thought to be a relatively easy cut in political terms by some people-was to restrict the activities of the Australian Bureau of Statistics and, in particular, to cut out the compilation of statistics on foreign ownership and control. We saw the continuation of the collection of statistics on foreign investment levels in aggregate but, so far as foreign ownership and control in different sectors was concerned, there was an absence of significant information from the mid-1970s to, I think, a couple of years ago when those statistics started to be collected again. It is actually quite interesting to look at trends now that some information about trends is once again available thanks to the resumption of the collection of those statistics. For example, in the manufacturing sector the ABS has produced a paper which shows that foreign owned entities accounted for 31.9 per cent of value added in that sector in 1982-83. That represented a marginal decline since 1972-73-a decline of 0.7 per cent. On the other hand, in the mining sector there has been a marginal increase in foreign ownership and control. In 1982-83 it accounted for 50.4 per cent of value added. In other words, looking at some reasonably long range statistics, so far as the last decade is concerned anyway, there does not seem to have been a huge alteration in the degree of ownership and control in those two key sectors. Nonetheless, that is precisely the sort of information that really ought to be being made available to the Australian people. It really was a most unfortunate situation that we saw a drying up of that sort of data on a most spurious economy ground during the mid-1970s. It has to be welcomed that once again we have that sort of information. I return to the general argument about the costs and benefits of foreign investment. Generally there has been a presumption that foreign investment yields benefits in terms of more rapid economic growth than would otherwise have occurred, that it yields benefits in terms of access to foreign technology, that it involves access to foreign managerial skills-that better managerial skills become available than would otherwise have been available-and that export market prospects are enhanced. I think that if we look we will see that the costs and benefits in that area are rather more ambiguous. For example, in the post-war period Australia had the status of a major capital importing country. It is hard to say that that level of capital importation actually has produced a higher rate of economic growth than would otherwise have occurred. It is rather difficult to come to firm conclusions about that. However, if we review our overall economic performance in that period, where we have declined in terms of per capita gross domestic product from fourth to seventeenth in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development group, it seems to me that there is not much ground for believing that that is so. It is not necessarily the case that the high level of foreign investment has produced a benefit there. Likewise this is the case in regard to technology. On the one hand there may be some tendency to introduce into Australia advanced technology that would not otherwise have come here and, on the other hand, if one looks at the way the transnational corporations structure their activities one sees, I think, a propensity for them to seek to centralise their research and development activities in the home country. Therefore, I think it is distinctly ambiguous whether we have more research and development activity going on here than would have been the case otherwise. With regard also to exports there is some tendency for transnational corporations to try to control markets and I believe the export potential of our manufacturing industry may have been limited to some degree by the fact that some transnational corporations may not have wanted to tread on the toes of other subsidiaries in other countries and intrude in markets other firms may have had. That involves a variety of considerations. It is a subject which really needs to be considered in much more depth. I do not pretend that it is easy to answer the question of what the overall impact of foreign investment has been. I am saying that it is wrong to make the sanguine and automatic presumption that high levels of foreign investment are an unambiguous benefit. There has been some discussion about the level of Australia's overseas indebtedness. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) sought in his speech to create an impression of Australia degenerating to the status of some third world countries, and certainly they do have a very major foreign debt problem. There was some talk about the fact that there has been a significant change in the degree of overseas investment and a switch from equity to debt type financing. Undoubtedly, that has been a major factor. Also it is the case that in part that transition has involved the incurring of debt in order to finance takeover activity. There has been some discussion about the adverse effect of that. Actually, I would tend to agree with the honourable member for Mackellar that it would be in our interests if the level of debt as compared with equity were to diminish. Some anomalies in our tax system which have achieved quite a bit of publicity recently tend to reinforce the trend towards debt type financing. The foreign funded takeover activity that has been taking place recently and the losses to revenue which undoubtedly are occurring as a result of the magnitude of those losses are matters for some debate. The fact that they exist and are of significant magnitude I do not believe to be in significant doubt. I believe those matters need to be looked at rather carefully. This has a bearing on the whole argument about foreign investment; one suggestion which I have heard is that in light of the change which has taken place there may well be a case, rather than scrapping the Foreign Investment Review Board, as has been suggested by some commentators, including the Australian Financial Review, for the FIRB to have a capacity to look at foreign funded takeover activity and to look at the economic implications and impact of that. Therefore, I think that, rather than seeking to restrict the FIRB or to abolish it, as has been suggested by some, there may be some ground for extending its domain somewhat. I conclude by making a couple of further observations about the issue of foreign investment. The honourable member for Mackellar referred in his speech to the lack of domestic savings or the limited nature of domestic savings and the need for an overseas source of investment funds in order to supplement that. It is interesting to look at that comment in the light of the current discussion about superannuation. Superannuation, of course, is a kind of enforced saving, and while there is some doubt about what the effects of a considerable widening of superannuation cover would be on the aggregate level of savings in the economy, it seems to me at least a distinct possibility that we are going to see an increase in the supply of investable funds. It would also seem to me essential that we look at that with a view to marrying the introduction of a wider superannuation coverage with the achievement of certain industry policy objectives and the job creation objectives that might have been otherwise regarded as being necessary to import funds in order to fund them. That is a most interesting and significant potentiality that needs to be looked at rather carefully. The comments I have made were related only to a limited degree to the actual Bill before the House. The changes set out in the Bill are relatively non-controversial so I thought it appropriate to make some more general remarks. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(6.01) —As other speakers have pointed out in this debate, the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill is not of enormous importance in terms of the changing of the structure of Australia's foreign investment guidelines, but the subject matter of the Bill is a matter of vast importance to the economy; that is, of course, the whole matter of investment. It rather surprises me that there has been relatively little interest in this debate, particularly as this is an issue which is absolutely critical to job creation in the years ahead and all politicians profess to be concerned about job creation, as they should be. Investment is an issue which is critical to the whole subject of wealth creation for generations ahead as well, and I guess anybody in public office should also be deeply concerned about that particular issue. Investment, for some strange reason, in the Australian public debate, is not a particularly popular or a particularly trendy issue. We debate in economic terms issues such as tariffs, for example, with great vehemence, but there is seldom heated discussion or even considered discussion on the issue of investment. I think that is a matter of some disappointment and I hope that in the years ahead people will think more about the subject of investment, particularly bearing in mind, as I have already said, the importance of that subject to the future of our country. As I have said, the matters in this Bill before the House are relatively minor but, to some extent, they ease the path of foreign investment into Australia, and for that reason I support them. They follow up the statement made to the Business Council of Australia by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 29 October. Although the honourable member for Sydney (Mr Baldwin) said that those initiatives were not very significant, and I have already pointed out that I agree that this Bill is not very significant, at that time the Prime Minister made a tremendous ballyhoo about this great deregulation initiative that he had introduced and announced to the Business Council of Australia. Amongst the measures included in this Bill, the Prime Minister in that statement pointed out, the Government would be abandoning the opportunities test for foreign investment. I was glad to hear the Government make that commitment and that various thresholds other than those mentioned in this Bill were also to be raised, including those in relation to new businesses and those in relation to real estate. It was also good to see that the Government was committed to a freedom of foreign investment in the area of merchant banking. I very warmly welcome foreign investment into Australia and I have never had the deep concern that a number of honourable members opposite-indeed through the history of the Australian economy even members on this side-have had about the whole concept of foreign investment. After all, as every member of this House knows, the whole economy of this country was originally built on the foundation of foreign investment and until the 1960s we had no foreign investment controls of the kinds we have today. So my view is that in a sense I am an unrepentant internationalist. I appreciate that the world is becoming closer politically and much closer economically. It is becoming increasingly interdependent, and all members of this Parliament need to recognise that fact when they are making decisions and casting judgment on what our foreign investment policies should be. As I said, our foreign investment restrictions used to be considerably more liberal than they are today, and than they have been over the last decade and a half. A passion for restraint on foreign investment was something that developed in the 1960s. To draw an unfavourable comparison, that was a time rather like the 1930s when many countries developed a sort of economic xenophobia, a kind of nationalism, which had not been seen before. Australia developed that way in the late 1960s. Whilst all of us have pride in our country and are, I would hope, enthusiastic patriots, I would not like to feel that we were going to march back down that path of economic xenophobia which was so popular in the later 1960s and particularly during the period of the Whitlam Government. It did seem to indicate to me a very severe lack of national self-confidence, and that was expressed during the period of the Whitlam Government by, above all, Rex Connor, with his whole philosophy and the problems that he ran into with that philo- sophy of buying back the farm. The honourable member for Sydney, in his speech, also alluded to some of these sorts of concerns. His speech, whilst I did not disagree with all of it, was something of a throwback to the economic xenophobia which was so popular particularly during the Whitlam years. Those attitudes in Australia which were prominent in the 1960s and exist to this very day defied international trends. After all, in 1961 Australia signed the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development code of liberalisation of capital movements, which according to that code is designed: . . . to progressively abolish restrictions on capital movement between members. The OECD still supports that. Australia is still a signatory to that code, yet we do not seem to be practising what we are apparently committed to. We apparently adhere very strictly to some international conventions, as we have heard in the debate on the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, but other international conventions that we have adhered to are apparently irrelevant. I think that that OECD code is a matter of some importance and Australian governments should take it more seriously than they currently do. The arguments about whether we are going to restrain foreign investment in Australia are, as I said earlier, seldom heard in this country. That is very disappointing. What the community needs to understand is that economic xenophobia, that dislike of foreign investment or that distrust of foreign investment, imposes very severe costs on the Australian economy and, of course, on Australian society. If we withhold foreign investment in this country then clearly we are reducing job opportunities because, as everybody knows, or should know, investment is the one source, ultimately the only source, of jobs. It we restrain foreign investment we are going to reduce the country's wealth creation potential. We are going to hold back the more efficient allocation of resources in our country and we are going to hinder structural adjustment. The Prime Minister over the last three years has spoken strongly about the need for structural adjustment in our economy. One would think he practised what he preached in this particular instance and ensured that foreign investment flowed rapidly and constructively into Australia without the hindrance of unnecessary regulation so that that process of structural adjustment could take place more easily and rapidly. The other thing that restraint on foreign investment does is hold back technology transfers. I think it is enormously important that we do understand that point. The honourable member for Sydney alluded to it and he was unsure whether foreign investment brought with it technology transfers. There is no academic evidence whatsoever to support the proposition that multinational companies are less likely to engage in research and development in Australia than domestic companies; but more than that, foreign companies do, of course, bring with them the advantages that they have gained in other market-places-otherwise, I suppose, they would not be coming here-and they bring with them technology and ideas which are, of course, part of the dynamism of the Australian economy, or of any economy for that matter. The consequence of this economic xenophobia-what some people describe as the Whitlam factor because it reached its peak during the Whitlam years-has been a very significant fall-off in foreign investment in Australia in proportion to total investment in the OECD. Up until 1973, Australia had about 14 1/2 per cent of all foreign investment in the OECD area. The Whitlam Government was not in power for all of the period between 1974 and 1978 but the effects of that Government certainly remained and the percentage of foreign investment that came to Australia during that period fell to just 9 1/2 per cent. So we are clearly missing out on something in that period that we were able to obtain beforehand. I am glad to say, because honourable members on the other side love to berate the Fraser Government, that those figures did improve during the period of the Fraser Government. The climate in Australia towards foreign investment, this attitude of economic xenophobia that I have described already, is, in my view, beginning to change. I think that in the last few years Australians have understood, to a greater extent than they have perhaps for some time, the need for some foreign investment. Perhaps as we have encountered economic difficulties we are accepting that we are glad to have any investment from whatever source. But the simple fact is that the political climate in Australia has begun to change. Symptomatic of that change have been some quite important calls recently for the complete abolition of the Foreign Investment Review Board and the processes that go with it, because that authority has restricted and hindered foreign investment over the years, a point that the Government itself would seem to concede. Earlier this month, Sir Noel Foley, the Chairman of Westpac Banking Corporation, called very strongly for the abolition of FIRB. He drew a comparison with Canada, which until recently had very strict foreign investment restraints yet in the last year or so has abolished its own Foreign Investment Agency, I think it is called. It is worth looking at what Sir Noel Foley said, because I think his points are extremely pertinent. He stated: . . . potential investment flows to Australia have been weakened and distorted by the operations of FIRB. The board was established in response to a wave of ill-informed xenophobia at a time when it was a sellers' market for minerals . . . But the recent slump in commodity markets must surely give the anti-foreign investment school food for serious thought. Australia is simply not in the position where it can afford to take a high-handed attitude to potential productive foreign investment . . . I think that is a pretty sensible sort of statement. I have not gone so far as to say that the FIRB should be abolished altogether. But what Sir Noel Foley says is indicative of a growing view in the business community, and that is a view borne out partly from great concern about the weakening investment performance of our country. The same views were also expressed at approximately the same time by John Elliott. The Australian Financial Review, in its editorial of 29 October, also expressed very similar sentiments and made quite a significant attack on the Foreign Investment Review Board, pointing out again that it had inhibited economic development in this country, and that it had not encouraged it. One aspect of the editorial in the Australian Financial Review which is worth noting is the concern it expressed about the move towards loan capital being imported into Australia rather than equity capital, partly because of the foreign investment restraints. That is, I think, a very important point. The honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton) spoke with concern and some feeling about the growing foreign debt in this country. Now that it has blown out to $70 billion, it is a matter that we all ought to be worried about and to which all of us ought to look for solutions. Those solutions will not come if we encourage firms to borrow overseas rather than encouraging foreign investment in the form of equity. Perhaps it is not surprising that these trends should have taken place in the last two or three years because in its 1982 platform the Australian Labor party urged policy makers `to increase the portion of capital inflow on the basis of loan capital rather than equity capital'. One can see what the consequences of that policy and that desire have been in terms of the very severe problem we have in this country in regard to our foreign debt. I suppose the Labor Government would now denounce that statement, although I do not know, and I would love to hear its answer to that point. But the simple fact is that that showed the sort of commitment that Party had, and probably many members of it still have. It also showed once more the regressive economic xenophobia which is an anachronism, if it is nothing else, and the impact of that xenophobia on economic development. After all, in Australia we do not have to worry too much about the whole country being taken over by a lot of greedy, nasty foreigners. Australian industry is largely owned by Australians. The honourable member for Sydney pointed that out. It is a fact that 64 per cent of our financial corporations are Australian owned, 67 per cent of our manufacturing industry is Australian owned and 49.6 per cent of our mining industry is Australian owned. So there is no need for people to become overly concerned that foreign investors will gobble up equity in Australia to too great an extent. But even if there were that concern, I do not think it would be well founded. Australia has some very special attractions to foreign investors and we should be able to capitalise on those special attractions. We have an extraordinarily rich and varied endowment of natural resources, including, of course, energy resources. We have a relatively young and mobile population compared with those of most OECD countries. We have a reasonably diversified structure of industries and skills. We have something that is more important than all of those things-a tradition of relatively stable political and social circumstances. Finally, we have something which is also important to foreign investors and which is often overlooked-a standard of living and living conditions which are attractive to managers of foreign companies. We do have those advantages. It seems to me that we ought to capitalise on them. We ought to capitalise on them so that we can maximise economic growth, economic welfare and jobs in this country. But we do have to capitalise on them. We do have to turn these things to our advantage and not just sit back and wait for prosperity to come down in the next shower of rain, because growth and investment in this country will not be automatic. That is perfectly clear from the current state of investment in Australia, which is proving to be static, and far too static given the fact that the economy is going through, or has been going through, a trade cycle upswing. The Economic Planning Advisory Council recently produced a paper on business investment. It was a very interesting paper because it expressed very real concern about the investment performance of this country in recent years and, for that matter, the investment potential of Australia. It showed that during the 1950s and 1960s investment growth at an annual rate in Australia was running at about 6 per cent, whereas during the last decade-which period, of course, includes governments in which members from both sides of the House have been involved-that growth has been only 2 per cent, so there has been a very substantial fall. Obviously, this has severe consequences for employment. Again, the EPAC paper makes this point very strongly. It shows that instead of a 2 per cent investment growth rate we need a growth rate of about 3 1/2 per cent if we are to be able to reduce significantly the level of unemployment. I genuinely hope that everyone in this House is concerned about that, not just in terms of rhetoric, but in terms of practical policies. So the incentive to invest in Australia has apparently been reduced. That is shown very clearly by the statistics produced by EPAC, which states: The incentive ratio-- that is, the incentive to invest- remains low at present. It has been low for the last three years. Let me point out-I like to make a few points about the Fraser Government from time to time-that for almost every single year of the Fraser Government's administration the incentive ratio for investment was higher than it is now. The Fraser Government did have to go through economic upturns as well as economic downturns, which, I suppose, any government must go through. In other words, the incentive to invest in Australia has fallen off during the last three years, and it has fallen off for simple reasons alluded to not just by the Opposition but by the Government's own organisation, EPAC. It referred to the fact that we have a high inflation rate, now running at 8.2 per cent, which is about double that of our major trading partners. It refers to the disincentive created by our taxation system for foreign investors and investors generally to invest. Indeed, although the EPAC paper does not report this, there is no doubt, as anybody who speaks to the business community would know, that there is growing concern about our taxation system and the whole swag of new taxes, from the capital gains tax through to the quarantining of farm incomes, announced in the tax statement of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) of 19 September. We have a very severe interest rate problem which is clearly a very great disincentive to invest and which, according to the EPAC paper-not just according to me-is caused by `large Budget deficits'. Finally, we have the issue of labour costs. It always rears its head in Australia. We never tackle the problem; we never seem to take it seriously. Indeed, so haphazard are we in our attitude to labour costs that we are now threatened with this 3 per cent productivity deal at a time when investment in this country is far too low. In conclusion, I think that the debate about investment needs to be examined much more carefully by members of this House and by the community. We as members of Parliament, representatives of all Australians, have to make our country more attractive for investment. We have to create a tax system which encourages incentive and gives reasonable returns to people who invest. We need a labour market which provides proper rewards to people but which also takes into consideration the need for our economy to be competitive. We need a much more competitive infrastructure in our country, particularly in the fields of shipping and airlines. The simple fact on the investment equation is that if we want jobs, growth and prosperity, we have to get out and attract investment, be it foreign or domestic investment, because the world will not sit around and wait for Australia to wake up. We have to show a lead; we have to get Australia to wake up; and we have to provide those incentives if we are to solve our economic problems in the decades ahead. Mr MILTON(La Trobe)(6.21) —I was interested to hear what the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) had to say about foreign investment. Apparently he is not very worried about foreign investment in this country. He said that there is nothing to worry about. I would have thought that 51 per cent foreign ownership of the mining industry is something to worry about. He did not mention the pharmaceutical industry, which is virtually 100 per cent wholly owned overseas; nor did he mention a number of other industries which are also foreign controlled. In taking part in the debate on the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986, I must admit to some reservations about the foreign investment policies of the Government. The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) has indicated that the aim of the legislation is to reduce the burden of Government regulation on business. The trouble is that I am not convinced that the relaxation of Government regulation is in the interests of all Australians. As I mentioned in a debate several years ago on the Commonwealth Banks Amendment Bill, the well known comment that bankers and financiers generally are in favour of tight money, loose regulation and a warm place to count the profits is relevant to proposals by the Government to relax controls on foreign investment in Australia. I accept that if it can be shown that foreign investment has beneficial economic effects on the Australian economy, it should be encouraged. What worries me is that it is doubtful whether the majority of foreign investments in Australian resources over the past decade, for example, have been beneficial. It has even been said, in terms of the many millions of dollars involved in foreign takeovers, that for the investors it is like playing an Australian Monopoly game with paper money, but for the Australian people it is real money which is involved. On 22 February 1985 I asked a series of questions of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) in relation to the activities of foreign banks and their participation in foreign takeovers. I am very glad to say that I have now received replies to my questions. It is clear from the answers to those questions that the Reserve Bank of Australia has the power to control foreign investment in Australia. The purpose of my questions was to ascertain the degree of intervention which the Government was willing to exercise to ensure that such investment was beneficial to Australia and was consistent with the view of the Treasurer that the participation by foreign banks in the Australian economy would help to strengthen our competitiveness and our position in the world economy. I am particularly interested in the processes which will be used by the Government to ensure that the foreign banks concerned will honour the commitments made when they applied for licences to operate banking facilities in Australia. I now understand that the granting of licences has been conditional on certain prudential standards set by the Reserve Bank and that the Reserve Bank will be monitoring the information received from the foreign banks to ensure that the standards and arrangements are upheld. The problem as I see it is that it is virtually impossible for parliamentarians such as myself to ensure that the arrangements governing the licenses are satisfactory unless we are aware of the guidelines. I take the opportunity in this speech to ask the Treasurer whether it might be possible, bearing in mind any commercial safeguards, for members of this House to be given a broad outline of the Reserve Bank's guidelines. I note that the Government has carefully considered matters such as the competitiveness and efficiency of the banking sector, the broadening of banking services to the Australian community generally and banking employment at the time each foreign licence application is evaluated by the Government. However, I am still concerned about matters such as union coverage and industrial health and safety in the banking industry. Can the Treasurer give an assurance that the contributions of foreign banks to those matters also will be evaluated by the Government, through the Reserve Bank if necessary. It may be more appropriate to find some other body to undertake industrial relations matters. I have noted that the Reserve Bank is required to report to Parliament on its operations each year, but I remain concerned that an evaluation of the operations of the foreign banks I have mentioned may be lost in the overall economic perspective which will be contained in the annual report. I hope that the Treasurer can assure me that these matters will be specifically considered by the Reserve Bank in its report, as foreign takeovers are very much a part of the business of foreign banks. Thus, an evaluation of these matters will clarify whether foreign takeovers are contributing to business efficiency in Australia. I am particularly pleased to note that information is regularly exchanged between countries, including Australia, on international profit shifting arrangements by multinational companies, including the practice of transfer pricing. I come back to the point I made at the beginning of my speech. If the effect of the present Bill is to improve business efficiency for the benefit of Australian workers and consumers, I applaud the Government's initiative. It is important to note, however, that the prices and incomes accord incorporates a commitment to the introduction of policies of intervention in the Australian economy in a planning mechanism framework. The accord refers also to the need for a close monitoring of economic policies in order to ensure that unemployment is reduced. In this respect the comments I have made in relation to this Bill and the role of foreign banks in facilitating the process of foreign takeovers are very important in terms of the prices and incomes accord. I hope that those comments will be given consideration by the Treasurer and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who is at the table. Debate interrupted. Sitting suspended from 6.29 to 8 p.m. Madam SPEAKER —My attention has been drawn to articles in the Press about the provision of small-wares-that is, cutlery, crockery and similar items for the new Parliament House. The procurement of small-wares will be the direct responsibility of the Parliament and not the Parliament House Construction Authority. The matter has been considered by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House over a number of meetings, commencing in mid-1985. The Committee, at its meeting on 21 February 1986, agreed in principle to the purchase of new items rather than the supplementation of existing crockery, flatware and hollow-ware. The Committee further agreed: That the designs be commercial; that tenders, which are to include the proposed designs, be called from within Australia and overseas and that they be called separately for crockery and flatware/hollow-ware; that present holdings of flatware, crockery and hollow-ware be subsequently sold to effect some cost offsetting; and that specifications for the tenders be prepared for subsequent consideration by the Joint Standing Committee. Honourable members will note that the Committee has decided that an open tendering system conforming to government purchasing policy will be used. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services is providing advice on appropriate tender processes and is assisting in developing a program and the necessary specifications. The effect of this decision is that no commitment has been given to any particular designer or manufacturer. Final decisions on the specifications have yet to be made by the Joint Standing Committee. Some Press articles have referred to costs of the small-wares. Under the proposals determined by the Joint Standing Committee costs have been assessed at $2.7m and funding to this extent has been sought by the Joint House Department in the 1986-87 financial year. Other costs associated with fitting out kitchen and dining areas are included with the overall project budget for the new Parliament House and are funded through the Parliament House Construction Authority. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff) —by leave-Madam Speaker, thank you for making that statement to the House. As you said in the statement, there has been some Press speculation on the subject. As you are aware, one of those articles was such that I indicated that I would seek to say a few words in the House in relation to allegations that have been made, because those allegations directly implicate me and also the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay), Deputy Speaker of this House. You have placed on the record the decision taken by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. There have been two articles, one in the Sydney Morning Herald of 8 March 1986 and one today in the Melbourne Herald. The article which principally concerned me was the one in the Sydney Morning Herald. It is a scurrilous little piece. I would not dignify it by reading all of it into Hansard, but I shall refer to two extracts from it. In a column by one Leo Schofield, it is stated: A right little storm is blowing up about the choice of knives and forks for the new Parliament House in Canberra. Local designers and craftspersons are spitting chips about a proposal to ask expatriate Aussie silversmith Stewart Devlin to design the special flatware for the private suites of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and more modest cutlery for the Members' dining room and staff cafeterias. The article also states: Architect Aldo Giurgola's idea was to make the new Parliament House in Canberra a repository of all that's finest in contemporary Australian art and design. The last section to which I referred was in the context of a particularly scurrilous personal attack on the professionalism of Mr Stewart Devlin. Madam Speaker, the statement you have made has made it very clear that there is no agreement with anyone on this subject. However, the Committee did go through a series of considerations last year. At one meeting Mr Devlin appeared and made certain submissions to the Committee, as a consequence of which, at a later Committee meeting, the honourable member for Grayndler and I were instructed by the Committee to consult Mr Devlin on the intricacies of a new design for Parliament House small-wares, as against supplementation of the existing design. Mr Devlin had made an offer to the Committee to give us the benefit of his expertise free and with no strings attached. The Committee took up that offer. The honourable member for Grayndler and I have met several times with Mr Devlin. His advice to us has been absolutely invaluable in the sense that he knows all the intricacies of designs, how they are transferred on to a plate and incorporated in a spoon, milk jug, or whatever. At all times Mr Devlin has understood that this was a service he was providing to the Committee. So far as the article by Mr Schofield is concerned, if it happens in the end that a design is chosen which is, in fact, a creation of Mr Stewart Devlin it would be because that was the best design submitted. However, so far as I am aware I certainly will not be involved in the selection of that design; I am not aware that the honourable member for Grayndler will be involved either. In fact, I doubt that either of us would be involved, so any contact between Mr Devlin and us has been only for the purpose of giving some assistance. I have also sought some advice on some technical matters from other people outside the Parliament House relating to the manufacture of cutlery, for example, in order to get some matters clarified. So our advice has not been confined to Mr Devlin. I reiterate that Mr Devlin made this advice available to the Committee-not to the honourable member for Grayndler or to me-free of charge. It has given him no advantage in this process. The only advantage has been to those making the decisions on the matter, that is, the members of parliament on the Joint Standing Committee. Our priorities have always been to make the process practical and cost-effective, both now and in the future, and to have the greatest possible input of Australian talent and workmanship. Mr Schofield certainly made no attempt to contact me, so far as I am aware, anybody associated with the Committee or working with Mr Devlin to find out whether there was a grain of truth in this allegation that somebody has made to him for, I would think, fairly transparent reasons. Finally, today the honourable member for Grayndler and I entertained Mr Devlin to lunch in the Parliament House dining room to express to him our personal thanks and thanks on behalf of the Committee for the invaluable assistance that he has given, assistance that I do not think the Committee could have managed without. There is also an article in today's Melbourne Herald. The journalist who wrote this article contacted me yesterday for confirmation of some of his information. Some of it I did confirm; namely, the existence of a piece of paper dated 16 December relating to a meeting that took place in late November last year. The newspaper article refers to the fact that I was not present at the meeting. As I recall, it was on the last day that the House sat last year, and I was absent from Canberra because of a prior engagement. However, I have a copy of that document which is merely notes, as I understand it, of informal discussion between the honourable member for Grayndler, Mr Devlin and Mr John Holdforth of the Joint House Department. Immediately after that meeting the honourable member for Grayndler acquainted me with the subjects discussed, and the notes are primarily for our records. As I understand it, that document had an extremely limited circulation. It is not even a Committee document at this stage. However, it is a document which belongs properly to representatives of the Joint Standing Committee. The motive of whoever leaked this quite extraordinary story to the Melbourne Herald today quite escapes me. The article principally relates to the substance of a report made to the Committee, which was rejected by the Committee in the middle of last year, and which was never going to be proceeded with. Yet it appears from the presentation of information in his newspaper article as though $5 1/2m will be spent on software items. It is a strange little report. I think it adds nothing to the public record on the subject. I wanted to state that since the article says `These documents have since been authenticated by MPs and officials involved in the project'-that is, the documents that I referred to earlier-I was one of the MPs who were contacted for this authentication. The documents that were mentioned to me over the telephone were the notes on that meeting of late November as well as highly selective extracts from the minutes of the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. Those are the documents that were mentioned to me on the telephone. I did actually say `Yes, they do exist', and explained what their relevance was. That relevance escapes me in this article. Mr LEO McLEAY(Grayndler) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to make a few remarks on the same subject. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr LEO McLEAY —Thank you. I support the remarks just made by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) who I think quite accurately set out the circumstances relating to the sub-committee formed by the Joint Standing Committee on the New Parliament House. I would particularly like to refer to the item that appeared in today's Melbourne Herald by Geoff Easdown. This most scurrilous article deliberately misrepresents the position of the Joint Standing Committee, the honourable member for Moncrieff and myself. There is a reference in that article to a memo from me to the previous Speaker. I find it interesting, Madam Speaker-and I will leave it no higher than that-that my understanding is that there were four copies of that memo. One was for myself, one was for the honourable member for Moncrieff and there were two others. Neither the honourable member for Moncrieff nor I provided Mr Easdown with one of those copies of that memo. I think to suggest, as has been done in this article, that the bill for the material for the new Parliament House will be $5 1/2m is an absolute misrepresentation of the truth. The person who is quoted in this article, Mr O'Brien, and the other people who had received the memo would have been well aware that the Committee has never contemplated spending that sort of money in the end. Indeed, my understanding is that the difference between supplementing the existing crockery and smallwares and purchasing new smallwares is a sum of between $300,000 and $900,000, a lot of which will be offset or could be offset by the sale of the existing stock. For Mr O'Brien to suggest that the previous Speaker, Dr Jenkins, was snowed by the Committee is an insult to the intelligence of Dr Jenkins and also a considerable slur on the Committee. It is also interesting in that neither Mr Schofield, nor Mr Easdown nor whoever the leader writer of the Melbourne Herald is, bothered to contact me or, I would imagine, any of the other people who had contributed to that memo. So, it is one of these cases of `let us print a rather inflammatory item and forget about it tomorrow'. I repeat, Madam Speaker: According to the information that the honourable member for Moncrieff and I have, the difference between the purchase of new equipment and supplementation of the present equipment is between $300,000 and $900,000. It is nothing like the $5 1/2m that this article purports to be the cost. As the honourable member for Moncrieff has said, the assistance that the Committee had from Mr Devlin was invaluable to us. Mr Devlin gave of his time quite freely and generously to the members of the sub-committee and the Committee when he addressed the Joint Standing Committee. I think it is deplorable to cast a slur on a man who decided that he would do something for the national good. It is unfortunate that there are not more people in Australia who are willing to put themselves forward for the national good. They could do better than having journalists attack them without those journalists even being in possession of the facts. I support the remarks of the honourable member for Moncrieff and the remarks that you, Madam Speaker, made in your statement earlier this evening. Madam SPEAKER —Earlier today the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), and the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) raised with me separate issues as matters of privilege, namely: An apparent discrepancy between a report in the Brisbane Courier-Mail of 12 March and the Hansard report of a question asked by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper) on 11 March, and the use of an excerpt from the audio record of proceedings of the House on 14 March in a radio and in a television report. In order to accord precedence to a motion in respect of matters of privilege, I need to be satisfied that: The matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, and there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege or contempt. The matter raised by the honourable member for Griffith is an important matter, going as it does to the veracity of the Hansard report, but a matter which should be pursued and resolved through other methods. As I intimated to the House earlier, it does not amount to a matter of privilege; nor was the matter raised at the first opportunity. This afternoon the Principal Parliamentary Reporter checked with the Hansard reporter who recorded the question and also checked the Hansard tape recording of the relevant part of the proceedings. Both checks confirmed that the words `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer' were said by the honourable member for Fisher. Also this afternoon the honourable member for Fisher listened to the Hansard tape recording and he has now written to the Principal Parliamentary Reporter in the following terms: As I have now listened to the tape and as, contrary to my recollection, the words `to the detriment of the Australian taxpayer' were included, I ask that the Hansard be adjusted accordingly. Accordingly, the Principal Parliamentary Reporter will ensure that the words appear in the official Weekly Hansard. The matter raised by the Leader of the National Party is also of significance. Guidelines have been issued to cover the use of excerpts of proceedings. The House certainly has the widest discretion in treating various matters as contempts, and it is quite conceivable that matters to do with, or arising from, the use of excerpts could be dealt with as such. Nevertheless, on the information available to me in this particular instance, I do not find that there is prima facie evidence of a breach of privilege or contempt. One matter which the House may, however, regard as a safeguard for the individual member is that, as we understand the law to be, those using excerpts are protected by qualified, and not absolute, privilege. The Leader of the National Party made two suggestions: That the guidelines be amended so that matters subsequently withdrawn should not be used in the broadcast of excerpts- I totally agree with this; I think it is just sound common sense- And that the organisations he referred to which made the broadcast and the telecast should be asked to withdraw. The first suggestion is a matter for consideration, in the first instance, by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings, and I have arranged for this to happen. The Committee will meet tomorrow morning. The second matter is not for the Chair to comment on. I am not prepared to accord precedence to a motion on the matter. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher) —Madam Speaker! Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member for Fisher seek the indulgence of the Chair to speak on this matter? Mr SLIPPER —I do, pursuant to Standing Order 64. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. Further to my response to the matter raised by the Australian Labor Party Whip, the honourable member for Griffith (Mr Humphreys), earlier today, as you mentioned I have now had the opportunity of listening to a tape of the relevant part of Question Time last Tuesday. Contrary to my recollection, the words which I had believed omitted from my question were said. Accordingly, as you confirmed, I have asked the Principal Parliamentary Reporter to adjust the Hansard. Debate resumed. Mr MARTIN(Macarthur)(8.20) —The purpose of the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill, as we have all been acquainted, is to amend the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975 as a result of the Government's review of its foreign investment policy. That policy was announced last year and the amendments to flow from that were announced by the then Acting Treasurer, the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford), in October of last year. The policy modifications were decided upon having regard to the continued need for a balance to be struck between the benefits of foreign investment and community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources. Obviously this is a matter which has exercised the minds of many of us both within and outside the Government in recent days, but quite clearly this Government, in its assessment of proposals for investment in Australia, continues to give substantial weight to the development and employment creating aspects, as well it should, to keeping the degree of foreign ownership and control within acceptable bounds and to ensuring that, through the Australian equity participation guidelines, there are opportunities for Australians to participate in the development of local industries and resources. We have also heard much in recent times regarding local development and about whether local capital should be put to good use in developing local industries without the need to import foreign capital. Of course, this is a view that many of us on both sides of the House fully support. The policy of foreign investment, as I have indicated, was announced last year by the Acting Treasurer when he indicated that the changes that were introduced would streamline the existing processes, facilitate certain types of investment proposals and contribute to the Government's wider aim of reducing the burden on business of government regulation. That too, I am sure, will appeal to honourable members on both sides of the House. At the same time the policy will continue to recognise the need for a balance to be struck between the economic benefits of foreign investment and community concerns about foreign ownership and control of Australia's industries and resources. The Government's foreign investment policy, therefore, is based on a recognition that foreign investment has made and can continue to make a substantial contribution to the development of Australia's industries and resources. In adding to the funds available for investment and providing access to new tech- nology-a matter which an honourable member took up this afternoon-skills and overseas markets, foreign investment provides scope for growth in economic activity and employment and for incomes to be higher than they would other- wise be. This Government certainly encourages that type of approach. The specific amendments before us tonight, however, are in relation to sections 5 and 13 of the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. It should be pointed out that these represent only one part of the overall package of foreign investment policy modifications announced in October last year. The amendments in fact affect two areas. They exempt acquisitions by foreign investors of existing mining exploration rights and they also increase the off-shore takeovers threshold. Obviously it is the first of these which holds a great deal of interest for me, representing a seat which is vitally concerned with the future of Australia's mineral resources and which has contributed a great deal to the community's wealth through the sale of coal products. I think it is important for the House to recognise as far as this Government's policy in respect of mineral exploration is concerned that, although the Government normally requires at least 50 per cent equity and 50 per cent control by Australian interests in new mining projects, other than uranium, of $10m or more, the 50 per cent equity requirement is flexibly administered. I think that again holds a great deal of relevance today when we are talking about the ability to attract capital to develop such vast resources in mineral wealth that this country possesses. Recently I was in Western Australia in the course of parliamentary duties and had the opportunity to see the operations at Mount Newman mines and a number of our other major iron ore exporting companies. As I have already indicated to the House, my interest in the coal mining industry because of its predominance within my electorate gives me some cause to believe that the future of those two industries is particularly bright. Of course, one cannot do it on one's own. There is a need for some equity arrangement whereby foreign capital is attracted to Australia because it relieves some of the burden on some of the countries which are already here, and of course it appeals to those of us on this side who have a concern about local ownership and foreign ownership. I am not talking about the position advocated by people in years gone by that foreign investment should not be a worry. We are talking about ensuring that the farm belongs to every Australian, and it is through the policies that this Government has developed over time that this has been effected. Of course, my memory is taken back to that very great Australian and resident of the great Illawarra district, a former Minister for Minerals and Energy, Rex Connor, who is long remembered and cherished for his ideals about buying back the farm and for ensuring that the Australian people had a very great say in the development potential of this country, particularly in respect of minerals and resources. Acquisitions of mineral exploration rights do not generally raise sensitive foreign investment policy issues and are not now required to satisfy the normal policy guidelines. Mining exploration ventures are not required to provide for Australian equity participation and any proposed mineral development arising from exploration, however, would still need to be submitted for foreign policy investment approval and would be subject to Australian equity participation guidelines. I think this is quite significant because we as a government are saying that it is fine to talk about Australian ownership, which is something I certainly subscribe to, but one cannot do it on one's own in every case. As my colleague the honourable member for Grey (Mr O'Neil), representing another steel producing area, would no doubt know, it is most important to develop overseas links and to look at the potential for capital importation. Provided that Australia is going to benefit, of course, we have no great concern about that. Many of the issues being raised at present about the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Holmes a Court go to the heart of this matter, but as this issue is now being fought in another place-and I am talking about the market-I guess there is no point in prolonging any further debate on that. I think it important just to look at some of the figures for the level of foreign ownership and control in the mining sector because a lot of nonsense is often spoken about just what control exists. Are we the lackeys of some overseas investors, people who really do not care about Australia but only want to exploit the place? If one looks at some of the statistics available one can see just how true some of those claims are. The degree of foreign ownership and control in the Australian mining industry decreased slightly in 1982-83 compared with 1981-82, and figures suggest that today that trend is perhaps continuing. Foreign-owned establishments in the mining industry accounted for something like 54 per cent of value added in 1982-83, which was down from 51.2 per cent in 1981-82, foreign controlled establishments accounted in 1982-83 for 27.6 per cent of value added in the mining industry, joint foreign and Australian controlled establishments accounted for 19.9 per cent, and so the figures go down. The trends in foreign investment are also quite important. There has been a significant change in the pattern of net investment in enterprises. Mining represents only 3.4 per cent of total foreign investment in 1984-85 against 30.2 per cent in 1982-83. What we have seen in the mining industry is a turnaround with regard to local interests. Of course, we must immediately point to BHP's Utah acquisition and other mining companies' interests in mineral resource development in Australia which clearly indicate that the degree of foreign capital investment in those industries has decreased significantly. In value terms, foreign investment in mining fell from $2,710m in 1982-83 to $81m in 1983-84, and recovered slightly in 1984-85 to $333m. The completion of major resource projects and a few additional proposals in train reflect that the replacement of foreign equity with Australian equity has been a major influence on these results. I think that what has to be remembered here is that the Government is following a policy that has received a great deal of acclaim in the market-place amongst those colliery owners and those major mining and development companies for whom it is so important to develop the resources of Australia. We are a resource rich nation. We have over the years had the opportunity to develop those resources. Certainly in the past we have needed foreign capital to do it, but in more recent times, as I have illustrated, that necessity for foreign investment has tended to decline. That is not to say that we do not need policy guidelines so that we can retain our 50 per cent equity when projects have been developed; rather, what we are suggesting by these amendments is that in the initial phase that 50 per cent equity is not required. That is something which I believe is warranted. It is something that will attract further investment and development in this country and it will make the country continue to grow as a major exporter of raw materials, primary produce particularly, and in mineral development. It will lead to a great deal of further revenue coming to this country. I believe that the Bill before us does in fact reflect an awareness by the Government of its policy commitments. It does reflect a recognition in the community that the Government clearly can demonstrate its grasp of its economic destiny, and I commend the Bill to the House. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(8.31) —Australia in the last decade, like all modern states, has had to face up to a wide-ranging set of challenges on the economic front. We have had to adjust to a quadrupling of oil prices, a development which retarded the economic development of Western economies. It generated inflation, destabilised world trading and destabilised investment patterns. These events occurred just as Australia was launching a huge investment in the mining of coal, iron ore and bauxite and was also extending investment in copper, lead and zinc. Certain sectors benefited, such as the producers of steaming coal. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd investment in oil mining not only benefited the company but also, in co-operation with Esso Australia Ltd in oil production, relieved what would have proved an unbearable burden on our balance of payments as the disbenefits of the oil shock produced a demand for other products of the mining industry. Through it all the Pacific regions grew and countries such as Korea, Taiwan and those of the Association of South East Asian Nations shared in a boom, with Japan setting the pace. We have come through an experience of international economics unprecedented in our history. Our agricultural products remained in their diversity a basic engine of national economic survival. But the icing on the cake was provided by mining, spreading itself into domestic benefits and expanded education, health and welfare benefits and, of course, high wages. It follows that much of the finance for mining and marketing of our mineral resources drew heavily on foreign sources. Overseas financial institutions developed sophisticated relations with Australia, leading recently, as the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) pointed out in his second reading speech on the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill, to the deregulation of the financial system in Australia, the opening of foreign banks and, of course, financial facilities for Australian companies to develop overseas. These financial and economic changes are still having great effects, and we are faced with the need to develop a more sophisticated relationship between political power and the centres of private financial and economic power. The legislation we have before us relates to an Act which became law in 1975. The Act provides for certain controls to be exercised by government intervention to ensure that certain national interests are protected-for example, the protection of Australian equity opportunities, real estate development opportunities for Australians and mining opportunities. Clearly, the very existence of legislative provisions in such an Act presupposes a certain philosophical relationship between the processes of government authority and the processes of private financial and business enterprise. I note that the philosophic aspects of the assumptions of this legislation are of importance and of great significance in the context of the current debate on takeovers. That debate has a large theme which turns on the question of the scope and value of government intervention with what are described as market forces. The principal Act, which, as I have said, was drafted in 1975, clearly represents an effort to affirm a proposition that international investment in Australia shall be subjected to a certain scrutiny and certain rules. Since that set of rules came into being, the world financial and economic environment has greatly changed and a feature of that change is that many nations, not only Australia, accept that economically we live in a world economy which is made up of interdependent national economies where private enterprise is dominant. The key word to describe the nature of this relationship is interdependence. Honourable members will recall that the word came into prominence in this sense when the Brandt Commission induced both the developed countries and the developing countries to participate on that basis in what became known as the North-South dialogue. So there is now, since 1979, the clear presumption in the political approach of most nations to economic relations, a clear recognition and acceptance of the notion of interdependence. We can no longer expect to move in a world which philosophically rejects the American system of free enterprise and all the global activity that American economic institutions generate. The same is true of Japanese and European interaction with the world economies. I mention this aspect in particular because it must be recognised that interdependence implies the need to relate effectively to a system of economic enterprise which operates independently of government. As a consequence, this creates the requirement to define in a special way the relations between a government speaking for a nation and a private institution speaking and working for a number of individual shareholders. This legislation in part constitutes such an attempt. The question then arises as to whether the issues requiring definition are the same whether the relationship is one between an Australian government acting on behalf of the Australian people and an Australian private company acting on behalf of individual shareholders, or alternatively, whether the relationship to be set is between the Australian Government and an international organisation acting on behalf of a group of foreign shareholders. It would be nice to think that the rules for the international relationships and the domestic ones would, in all cases, be the same, but they are not. This legislation carries in it quite distinctive rules for foreign takeover; that is, rules put down by the Australian Government to control overseas private initiatives spawned by activities in the market-place. I do not propose to challenge the need for a distinction. Every country makes that distinction, even the United States of America. We have seen this distinction at work in a case in the United States when an Australian media entrepreneur whom we all know had to forgo his Australian citizenship so that he could accomplish a takeover of certain American media conglomerates. Clearly, one of the rules is one which excludes foreigners from having any large influence in a business which affects the special instruments which sway, on a continuing basis, public opinion. Conversely, Mr Murdoch, having ceased to be an Australian, had to adjust his own holdings in the Australian media, and to do this in a way which sustained an Australian concern against foreigners holding power in our media. Thus there is a general acceptance that each nation will put down rules for foreign investment, and the great centre of private enterprise, the United States, is no exception. What is being shown up in the current debate is that we are very unsure about the rules we should have to govern domestic takeovers, notwithstanding the new realities of the financial environment in which we now live. What is it that distinguishes a foreign from a domestic takeover? Clearly the difference is becoming blurred, if the Australian-registered company is a surrogate instrument backed by international finances. This brings me to the view that the rules or guidelines for takeovers, whether foreign or domestic, should have many elements in common. The recent public debate on the current takeover effort by the Bell Group Ltd, using international financial resources, and the fact that the centre of the bid, BHP, has been a focus of national aspirations touches a number of issues. There are those who argue that the fate of such private monopolies cannot be fully comprehended as the exclusive business of the shareholders. We need to remind ourselves that the rules for foreign takeovers reflect an effort by the Government, acting on behalf of the Australian people, to define an issue of national interest. So it becomes relevant to say that the process of defining the relationship between government and private sector needs to be updated progressively. It is not good enough to let legislation, such as the Foreign Takeovers Act, lie in the statute book defining what could be an inconsistency between a definition of national interest in relation to a takeover generated by an overseas company and one generated by an Australian company with overseas financial dependence. It is to be hoped that an issue which requires a redefinition of national interest, which it is the responsibility of Government to defend, will continue to present itself as one of genuine importance. `National interest' will take on a different description according to the relationship to which it is being applied. But a reference to it in the context of domestic takeovers is, nevertheless, in my view, highly relevant. The key question lies in the area where action in the market-place by private individuals carries a significant implication for the concerns of the majority of Australians. With this in mind, with your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to discuss the confusion that seems to exist in efforts to create an argument for the Government to withdraw before the cry of the market-place. In a foreign takeover, the interests of the market-place join the interests of foreign shareholders with the interests of national shareholders. In a domestic takeover, the interests are principally those of Australian shareholders. In both cases, Australian shareholders of the asset to be taken over are a determining factor. In my view, the `national interest' issues raised by the takeover of an Australian private monopoly are very close to the issues posed by a takeover by a foreign company. In the former, however, some say that the market-place must decide; in the latter, the voices would be raised in a different way. Monopolies have always attracted special definitions of national interest. BHP lasts as a monopoly because there has not come forward sufficient advantage for a competing investment. But, generally, monopolies have been the end objective of a process designed to eliminate competition. The United States, the heart of capitalism, has intervened in the national interest to prevent its system lending itself to abuse of private economic power through monopoly. Most people have heard of the anti-trust legislation. In Britain, there is a Monopolies Commission. Thus, when a monopoly exists because of special historical circumstances and is kept in existence by a special governmental relationship, it cannot lightly be judged to have a fate to be determined solely by its shareholders. These shareholders would be the same concerned people, if a takeover bid were to fall under this Act as a foreign takeover. I began by saying that the sophisticated environment of finance and business does not lightly or clearly assign a difference between, in modern terms, a domestic takeover and a foreign takeover. Where it does, in the modern context, that difference may be more apparent than real. It is time, I believe, to re-examine the relationship between government acting to protect the national interest and the private sector acting on behalf of shareholders. I believe that that re-examination needs to take into account the national interest in takeovers across the board, and the sense of threat to stable relationships between national interest and private sector is not confined to the limited definition assigned to foreign takeovers under this Act. The differences are less than obvious and cry out for definition if the forces in the market-place can claim a legitimate identity and immunity from government intervention. A foreign takeover generally relates to the movement of direct investment in Australia. There is a considerable advantage in direct investment where a technology transfer is involved. The Federal Government has shown very little interest in attracting direct investment of this kind. I think that is a sad truth. The frustration of State governments about the lack of Federal interest in direct investment has led those State governments to appoint special representatives in Tokyo, New York and London. Federal governments have assigned Treasury representatives in New York the role of provoking United States investment in Australia, and of course Treasury interest is focused on banking, with the result that Australia has opened its borders to foreign banks. Foreign financial institutions are behind several current takeover bids and are supporting Australian bids to expand overseas. There has been a decline in the Australian manufacturing sector, as simplistic antagonism of academic economists and bureaucrats has combined with the high wage demands initiated by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he headed the Australian Council of Trade Unions, to destroy the core of Australian manufacturing. An article in this weekend's Australian, by Greg Sheridan, makes the point well. Headed `Where we went wrong in manufacturing', the article demonstrates the parlous condition of Australian manufacturing which has been so incapacitated by a decade of pressures, such as those instigated by Mr Whitlam, when he was Prime Minister, and Mr Hawke, when he was the ACTU head. We find now that industry is unable to gear up to take advantage of the present fall in the dollar. The point is that the question of foreign takeovers in manufacturing has just cause to receive very little attention, since this sector of the economy has carried the burdens of a sustained attack on it. It is worth noting a reference in the article to which I referred to the views of Mr Harold Bolton, the head of the Confederation of Australian Industry's Manufacturing Council. He stands in such a position that everyone interested in the problem must take notice. His views are not special pleading but, I believe, analytical. Let me quote from the Australian, where Mr Bolton points out that high labour costs, high interest rates and lack of investment make the future for new manufacturing cloudy indeed. Lack of investment is a genuine problem. He says: Since the recession of 1982-83, the level of investment has improved a little but not to an acceptable level. We lack investment in new plant and equipment for the next stage. It seems that the problems posed by foreign takeover in manufacturing are less a problem than the domestic problems facing the industry. This point is brought out further in Mr Bolton's arguments. He believes that re-investment will occur only if the fundamentals of the Australian economy are changed. Obviously I agree with him totally on that point. In his view, interest rates, inflation and wage rates would need to fall considerably and the Government would have to revise capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. This is a man of considerable experience, and I believe that his views carry a great deal of weight. Thus, given this legislation and its restraints, and the parlous condition of Australian manufacturing industry, foreign takeovers in this area would appear to pose no major problem. The organisation of international finance has facilitated, however, a takeover bid for an Australian private monopoly-a circumstance for which no adequate guidelines appear to exist. This is the problem which faces the nation at this point as we attempt to relate to the issues of national interest raised. The question of national interest has not been fully and seriously debated in this House; it is one which deserves a great deal more attention. Mr O'NEIL(Grey)(8.47) —The foreign ownership and control of Australian industry and resources is an area of interest and concern for most Australians and I am pleased to speak on this subject tonight. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill has come about as a result of the Government's thorough and exhaustive review of foreign investment policy. The outcome of this review was announced in October last year by the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) and I must commend him for the thoroughness of that review. I also commend him for introducing this Bill into the House. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 proposes amendments to the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. The aim of the Bill is to streamline the existing Act and at the same time to bring the original Act up to date as much as possible. In effect, this Bill aims to cut through some of the unnecessary red tape entailed in the original Act and will help to remove the burden of unnecessary government regulation on business. The Bill will do this in two major areas: First, the Bill will exempt foreign interests which have acquired existing mineral exploration rights from the need to notify such acquisitions under the Foreign Takeovers Act 1975. Secondly, it will increase from $3m to $20m the threshold below which off-shore takeovers are exempt from the notification provisions of the Foreign Takeovers Act. These are the two major provisions of the Bill and, to my mind, both are eminently sensible. Neither of these provisions could be termed in any way controversial or at odds with community concerns about the sensitive area of foreign ownership and control of Australian industry and resources. Other provisions of the Bill make various amendments to bring the Act into line with the recent changes to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 and the Judiciary Act 1903, as well as making minor drafting amendments. As announced last year, the Government has also made a number of other changes to foreign investment policy which did not require legislative amendment but were achieved through administrative action. I do not wish to list those changes during this debate; but, again, they seem to me to be eminently sensible. Both the amendments contained in this legislation and the administrative action referred to previously are indicative of a government that is prepared to prudently modify and fine tune existing legislation when that legislation is deemed not to be working in the best interests of the Australian community. While the opposition parties bluster about irrelevancies such as privatisation and deregulation of the labour market, the Government continues to assist business with genuine reforms that remove obstacles that inhibit growth in the economy. As the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) stated in his speech to the Business Council of Australia on 29 October 1985: Business de-regulation is an issue which, in the past, has been long on rhetoric and lamentably short on action. But as has been amply demonstrated, we are a government prepared to get things done. And we have taken de-regulation out of the ``too hard'' basket. The Prime Minister went on to say: The Government appreciates that competitiveness is not enhanced where additional costs are imposed on industry through unnecessary regulation or excessive red tape. Wherever it is possible, such imposts will now be removed. This legislation removes such imposts but at the same time it maintains the balance between on the one hand the need to attract foreign capital and expertise in order to sustain growth, and on the other hand the need to ensure that foreign investment is worth while and that Australia receives a fair share of the fruits of this growth. The Government quite rightly rejects the call for the sweeping liberalisation of foreign investment policy as called for by some within the community, but it does recognise that some regulation is excessive and should therefore be removed. This Bill and the administrative action referred to earlier will help to achieve this goal. The issues of foreign investment and foreign ownership naturally elicit strong feelings within the community. Those feelings have been recognised by this Government and we will continue to take account of community concerns in this area. We in the Australian Labor Party recognise the contribution that has been made by foreign capital in the post-war development of the Australian economy. We on this side of the House recognise the contribution and acknowledge the achievements that have been made possible by the injection of foreign capital into the economy. We especially acknowledge the role that foreign capital has played in providing employment opportunities and assisting in increasing the standard of living for the Australian community in the post-war period. Capital from other countries continues to supplement our domestic savings and adds to the pool of funds available for investment in new or existing activities. It also provides scope for rates of growth in economic activity and employment to be higher than otherwise it would be. Other benefits that arise from the influx of foreign capital include the access that is provided to new technology, management skills and overseas markets. This Government also recognises the economic benefits of foreign investment that should be balanced against the already stated community concern that the degree of foreign ownership and control should be kept within reasonable and acceptable bounds. These concerns must always be at the forefront of government thinking when initiatives in this area of foreign investment policy are contemplated. In recent times both Labor and coalition governments have directed their policies in this area towards securing an increase in Australian ownership and control of domestic resources and enterprises. This bipartisan approach should be continued for it is in the best interests of the Australian community as a whole that this should be so. A policy of ensuring local ownership and control where it is possible is a desirable policy direction for the Australian Government to follow. This Government adheres to that policy direction. This does not diminish in any way the Government's commitment to the positive role of foreign investment as stated earlier in my speech. What it does mean is that the Government will continue to give Australian interests every opportunity to contribute to the development of Australian resources and enterprises while at the same time encourage foreign investors to make a contribution where such a contribution will provide benefits for the Australian community. There is, however, a very disappointing trend that has become more apparent in recent times. All too often some Australian investors shy away from investing in new and innovative ideas that will provide growth in jobs within the Australian community. Instead these investors look for short term gains by manipulating the financial markets and by investing vast amounts of capital into company takeovers that create no employment for Australians and contribute little else of value to the Australian economy. Instead of contributing to the national cake, these people only concentrate more and more wealth into the hands of fewer and fewer people. This is not the type of entrepreneurial activity that should be encouraged, and I believe that the Australian community is becoming increasingly disenchanted with this. We do not, and rightly should not, tolerate this type of activity from foreign investors. Also, we should not accept it from Australian investors. I believe that the funds presently used for these purposes should be channelled into employment and wealth creating activities-wealth that should be shared by all Australians and projects that would foster and develop new ideas, new technologies, new products and services, as well as new industries. This would have long term benefits for all Australians rather than short term profits for the few. These are the types of benefits we expect from the so-called foreign investment package and we should demand them from our own investors. The acceptance by the Australian Government, and the community in general, of foreign investment is based on the benefits that come from the foreign investment package. The major benefit is, of course, the generation of employment. Much of the foreign investment in Australia in the years since 1945 has been aimed at manufacturing industries that contained significant levels of employment. The employment generated provided wealth for the entire community based around these industries. All the evidence suggests that the development of the Australian manufacturing sector would have proceeded at a quite different pace, and in quite a different direction, had it not been for direct foreign investment. Foreign investment alone did not produce the revolution in manufacturing in the post-war period but it did play a decisive role. The employment generating element continues to do this and the Government supports foreign investment proposals that will generate long term employment opportunities. There are a number of other benefits of direct foreign investment which are shared by the community in general rather than by just those who are employed in the venture. These include the financing of some infrastructure and capital equipment purchases, together with the purchase of intermediate and raw material inputs. All of these have helped with the growth and development of other Australian industries which may not have been developed had it not been for the demand created by the original foreign investment. In essence, the multiplier effect of foreign investment often felt throughout the economy is providing opportunities for growth that may not have otherwise existed. The other important, but at times overlooked, benefit of foreign investment is the introduction of new technologies along with the development of technical and managerial skills that so often flow from the introduction of foreign capital into an industry. This particular benefit has become increasingly important for Australia as we fight to hold our own in the new technological age. To remain competitive we must embrace new ideas and new technologies. Australian industry cannot afford to fall behind in the technological race. Therefore, we cannot turn our backs on imported foreign technology and ideas. We cannot afford to be chauvinistic in this regard. This is not to say that we should not foster and develop new technology and ideas within Australia. In fact, we are world leaders in some significant areas. An example of this is the brilliant technology developed by Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Limited for the toughening of rail heads. This technology breakthrough is now used at the Whyalla steel works and is being exported. The fact remains, however, that we must remain open-minded in relation to the importation of foreign technology. Ideally a mix of Australian innovation and foreign ideas could provide the basis for the regeneration of some sectors of Australian manufacturing industry. All these benefits, along with the access provided to overseas markets make the foreign investment package a valuable contributor to the Australian economy. The Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill 1986 will help to ensure that this contribution continues. The Australian Bureau of Statistics tells us that foreign investment in Australia for 1984-85 was at a record level and that the net inflow of foreign investment rose by 35 per cent on the figures for the previous year. This increase in foreign investment in Australia indicates that the world sees Australia as a nation of unlimited potential. The world sees us as a nation worth investing in. This positive judgment is a judgment on the Government's policy and performance, as well as a judgment on the skills, ideas and competence of our work force. The confidence shown in us by foreign investors yet again proves that this Government is a government of achievement, a government that takes issues out of the too hard basket and provides positive solutions. I am delighted to support this legislation and I commend the Minister for introducing it. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(9.01) —in reply-In closing the second reading debate on the Foreign Takeovers Amendment Bill, I thank all honourable members who took part. There have been some very valuable contributions which will help in the formulation of policy. Madam Deputy Speaker, although I was not able to be present for much of the debate, I can assure you that copious notes have been taken of what has been said by honourable members on both sides of the House and they will be valuably used. The purpose of the policy liberalisation which is a feature of this Bill was to further streamline procedures for the screening of foreign investment proposals, ease the policy criteria for certain types of foreign investment proposals and exempt other proposal from examination. I do not mean to go further in canvassing what I have already said in my second reading speech. But I want to emphasise a few points which were given focus in various speeches made by honourable members on both sides of the House. The first question which came to our attention from honourable members' speeches was whether the liberalisation policy was adequate or inadequate. I respond to that by saying that the changes are expected to exempt from the Foreign Takeovers Act and foreign investment policy about 13 per cent of all proposals and increase by about one-fifth to more than a half the proportion of proposals which may proceed in the absence of special circumstances, without being subject to detailed examination. That is a very significant degree of relaxation. I can assure the House that it has not been motivated only by the desire of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and me to manage to avoid an amount of work which comes to us, because each one of these proposals does come to our desks. The abolition of the opportunities test represented a significant act of business deregulation. That was a motive that we as a government had in mind in putting forward these changes. The test had applied to about 30 per cent of all proposals and had been subject to criticism by foreign investors and Australian sellers of the particular enterprises or part of those enterprises. It seldom led to an Australian person or company acquiring the shares or assets instead of a foreign company. Consistent with the Government's policy of deregulation of financial markets, a more liberal-and I use the word with a small `l'-foreign investment policy regime now applies to non-bank financial intermediaries and insurance companies. The thresholds under the Act and the policy have been increased to levels somewhat in excess of those required to maintain their real values, and policy requirements in respect of real estate have also been relaxed. The October 1985 changes were in addition to earlier policy relaxations in respect of foreign investment in stockbroking and merchant banking and the Government's decision to allow foreign participation in banking. A second question raised in this debate was: Should the foreign investment policy be abolished altogether? Should it be further relaxed? Our attitude is that there is community concern about foreign ownership and control of Australian industries and resources. It would throw into question the sustainability of a decision to abandon foreign investment policy if we reacted to these attitudes which were expressed by the Opposition. An on-off foreign investment policy would damage Australia's reputation with foreign investors. It is far better to be, on the one hand, consistent and certainly, of course, it requires us on the other hand to be balanced in the attitude we take. I counsel those members of the Opposition who were so brash as to suggest that there should be an abolition of foreign investment policy to take that into account. The foreign investment policy and its administration have regard to the Government's other policy objectives. The current policy properly recognises significant economic benefits of foreign capital and the contribution it can make to Australia's development. But great weight is given to proposals that offer increased employment, investment and new technology. These benefits have to be balanced against community concern to keep foreign ownership and control within acceptable bounds. The Australian equity guidelines provide opportunities for Australians to participate in the development of our industries and resources. The present stance on foreign investment policy is a balanced one which is very appropriate to Australia's present circumstances. The policy does not hinder foreign investment that provides worthwhile economic benefits. A third question raised in this debate was the effects of foreign investment policy on foreign debt. There is a current view that foreign investment policy has contributed to the growth of Australia's foreign debt. The policy has direct and indirect effects on the demand for foreign debt and, given the complexity of these effects, it is, not possible to be conclusive as to the net effects of foreign investment policy on foreign debt. It is, nevertheless, of some relevance that the policy predates the growth in private sector foreign debt in the past five years. Also, tax and other considerations are probably at least as important as foreign investment policy in determining investors' choices between debt and equity financing. It is conceivable that, in the absence of the policy and the taxation conditions that are imposed under it to prevent thin capitalisation, inflows of debt relative to equity could be higher. It is relevant also that a large part of the debt has been raised by the private commercial sector for investment in productive projects. It is true that debt investment relative to equity investment has increased. But this can be attributed to a number of factors. I would like to list some of those factors: Different financing patterns have emerged. Increased overseas borrowings by State statutory authorities have also been a feature. Finally, I mention the inability of Australian capital markets to marshal the funds required for large projects. The projects, as honourable members know, have been getting larger and larger. That is also a feature which has led to this debt financing rather than equity financing. This development is not of concern provided that the projects in which the debt is invested earn a sufficient return to repay the interest. Another point that I would like to make is that the number of rejected foreign investment proposals has fallen in the past few years. An important point to make in conclusion is that there is a definite balance in what the Hawke Labor Government is doing. Let me cite a few figures: In 1982-83, 5.1 per cent of the proposals brought to the Treasurer or the Minister Assisting the Treasurer were rejected. In 1983-84, 4.3 per cent were rejected. In the last year for which we have statistics, 1984-85, only 2.6 per cent were rejected. In summary, I assert, and I believe that all objective observers would agree, that the Hawke Labor Government has a balanced approach to foreign investment. It is a balance between, on the one hand, Australia getting help in its development from overseas savings at a time when Australian savings are insufficient, in order to finance that development and, on the other hand, making sure that Australians own Australian assets wherever possible so that decisions which affect our country are made in our country. The Government believes that the revised policy strikes an appropriate balance by removing unnecessary business regulation while ensuring that the interests of the Australian community are protected by screening sensitive proposals. Again I think honourable members for taking part. I believe that this debate has shown that this Bill plays its part in the development of that balance, which is what the Australian people wanted when they elected this social democratic Government to office. I commend the Bill to the House. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Bill (on motion by Mr Hurford) read a third time. Debate resumed from 12 March, on motion by Mr Peter Morris: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(9.11) —The Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 has two purposes: To enable Australia to ratify the protocol signed in Montreal in 1984 amending the Convention on International Civil Aviation to endeavour to prevent a repetition of the shooting down of a Korean Air Lines aircraft, as occurred with the Russians in 1983; and, secondly, to allow as quickly as possible-that is, by proclamation-the giving of effect in Australian law to the provisions of that protocol. The tragic shooting down of the Korean aircraft on 1 September 1983 by a Union of Soviet Socialist Republics fighter is still very much in all our minds. The barbaric murder of 250 innocent civilians would have to be the most disgusting act by a so-called civilised country in recent memory. Senior members of both the Commonwealth Government and the Opposition expressed the horror and revulsion felt by the Australian people. The Minister for ForeignAffairs (Mr Hayden), in one of his statements at the time, said: The shooting down of the Korean aircraft was a clear infringement of customary international law and of the principles underlying the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, to which the USSR is a party. Ten days later the then Minister for Aviation announced that, as with many other countries, Australian airlines for a 60-day period would apply sanctions against Aeroflot, the Soviet Union airline. As Aeroflot does not fly to Australia, direct sanctions were not possible, so Australian airlines were requested not to co-operate with that aviation arm of the USSR for that period. Many Australians considered that that was an inadequate response to such barbaric behaviour. The International Civil Aviation Organisation responded quickly to the challenge that this disaster presented to the Organisation. A meeting of the Organisation in Montreal in May 1984 agreed unanimously to add a new article to the Convention. That is really what we are talking about tonight. This new article requires signatory states, firstly, to refrain from using weapons against civil aircraft flying in their air space; and, secondly, to ensure that civil aircraft under their jurisdiction operate flights over foreign countries for legitimate aviation purposes only. The Bill contains penalties for non-compliance as part of Australia's obligation to enforce the provisions. There is an exemption from prosecution if a pilot is able to show that he genuinely believed that compliance with a direction would be more likely to endanger the aircraft or persons on board than would non-compliance. I have been given some examples of how this could arise. One example might be a requirement to land on an unsafe airstrip. I have been told that the Russians at one stage forced a foreign aeroplane to land on a frozen lake. Another example may be a fuel shortage problem where the required airstrip is further away than the intended destination of the aircraft. The Bill also provides for the provisions to become law upon proclamation, rather than having to wait for two-thirds of the International Civil Aviation Organisation members to agree to the provisions. I understand that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) wants to have this amendment in place before the next meeting of ICAO in September this year and the Opposition has no objection to this prompt implementation. The Korean Air Lines incident is one of the two major barbaric air disaster situations of the past few years. The other is the bomb placed on the Air India aeroplane which caused an even greater loss of life in the Irish Sea. I ask the Minister for Aviation whether, as a result of that terrorist bomb threat becoming so real with the Air India situation-even though the problems of terrorist activities, whether by bomb threats or hijackings, have been around for some years-ICAO is considering any new proposals to endeavour to restrict a repeat of that form of barbarism? I put that as a genuine question. This also raises the general problem of search and rescue and recovery procedures for aircraft ditching or crashing in the sea. The location of both aircraft I have mentioned, the Air India and Korean Air Lines aircraft, was assisted by the use of the United States of America expert on such matters, Mr Bob Kutzleb. Mr McGauran —The Red Adair. Mr LLOYD —The Red Adair of that particular situation. When the Pel-Air Aviation Pty Ltd Westwind aircraft crashed off Botany Bay in October last year, valuable time and unnecessary cost was involved by initially asking the Royal Australian Navy to undertake the task of locating the Westwind wreck; a task for which the Navy was not equipped. The Minister, to his credit, obtained the services of the same Mr Kutzleb-- Mr McGauran —It took a while, though. Mr LLOYD —It took some time and some cost. Nevertheless, Mr Kutzleb was asked and, to his credit, his expertise was such that the wreck of the aircraft was located very quickly. Mr McGauran —Why the delay? Mr LLOYD —That is a very good question, which raises questions for the future of such location exercises and I hope that some hard lessons have been learnt. I believe that it raises some far more significant questions, to which I will come in a minute. The expertise I have just mentioned, together with that of the Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd salvage team and the New South Wales Police Force assigned to the task, has resulted in the Minister being able to announce that there was no evidence of an explosion as the cause of the crash. I have been advised that airframe failure is the expected cause. This is comforting, because of the rumours and allegations concerning Pel-Air which had to be settled one way or the other. However, the Pel-Air crash raises three very serious and related issues which I put sincerely, genuinely and positively to the Minister. I ask: How expert is the expertise of the Bureau of Air Safety Investigation as a result of this exercise? The Bureau was not particularly to the fore in this whole exercise. I refer to the point raised by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran)-the necessity for our authorities to have expertise in recovering aircraft which crash at sea, because of our huge territorial seas and the international aviation responsibility that follows. The second question concerns the failure of the emergency position indicating radio beacons to operate and to indicate the location of the wreck and the black boxes. These beacons have an increasingly valuable role to play in search and rescue and location operations as search and rescue aircraft, Sarsat, the international search and rescue satellites, and Inmarsats, the international marine satellites will be used more and more to pick up these emergency beacon transmissions. I understand that the location of the Air India wreck was largely pinpointed by one of the EPIRBs being picked up by the Sarsat satellite. The third and most important issue raised is the alleged failure of the search and rescue or crash boats of the Department of Aviation located at Botany Bay beside the Kingsford-Smith aerodrome on the night of the Pel-Air crash. These are very serious allegations. I am hopeful that the Minister can answer them. If what I am saying is wrong, I will be pleased to acknowledge that the information given to me is incorrect. As I understand it, two boats have been positioned at the edge of the Kingsford-Smith strip at Botany Bay for the sole purpose of assisting in such a crash. The search and rescue facility was unmanned at that particular time because it was after the closure time of the airport. However, when the operators were summoned the two boats were unserviceable-one because the engine was out for repair and servicing and the other because the engine would not start. Mr McGauran —Is that a coincidence? Mr LLOYD —I think it is a disaster. We have a facility that has been established and manned by the Department of Aviation particularly for that purpose and neither of the two boats would operate at that time. Once again, if my information is wrong I will be very pleased to hear the correction from the Minister. In fact, I am told that it was almost three hours before a police helicopter and launch were able to arrive on the scene. If correct, this raises very serious allegations as to the efficiency of the crash boat service of the Department of Aviation and raises some rather horrifying possibilities if an aircraft with passengers on board crashed off the runway into Botany Bay and if the boats that are there for that purpose will not start and will not work. If this is true, I ask the Minister: What has been done to ensure that this never happens again? If it is not true the Minister should put at ease the minds of many people who genuinely have that information and belief at present. I hope the Minister does respond to the positive and genuine way in which I have put these questions. The Opposition is pleased to support the legislation. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(9.22) —The Air Navigation Amendment Bill seeks to amend the Air Navigation Act 1920. It will enable Australia to ratify the protocol signed at Montreal on 10 May 1984, relating to an amendment to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. The protocol, which is included in the Schedule to this Bill, amends the Chicago Convention through the inclusion of a new Article known as Article 3 bis which reaffirms the general international legal prohibition of the use of force against civil aircraft and provides for the regulation and interception of civil aircraft flying above the territory of another state without authorisation or for any purpose inconsistent with the aims of the Chicago Convention. The 1944 Chicago Convention is the cornerstone of the regulatory structure of international civil aviation. In the early days of flying, a variety of theories were advanced on the subject of freedom of air navigation and the rights of overflight. However, the 1914-18 war brought home to all states the significance of air transport and the potential dangers of aircraft to their security. Any doubts that might have existed were resolved by the forthright nature of Article I of the Paris Convention of 1919. The high contracting parties recognised that every state had `complete and exclusive sovereignty over the air space above its territory', including its territorial waters. This basic principle was reaffirmed by Articles 1 and 2 of the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation to which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is a party. Australia ratified the Chicago Convention in 1947 and made provision for its implementation in the Air Navigation Act 1947. The general objective of the 1944 Chicago Convention involves the establishment of basic principles and arrangements `in order that international civil aviation may be developed in a safe and orderly manner' and `international air services established on the basis of equality of opportunity and operated soundly and economically'. The permanent body established by the Convention to administer that principle is the International Civil Aviation Organisation. The first and most fundamental principle accepted and reiterated in the Chicago Convention, having been proclaimed originally in the 1919 Paris Convention, is that every state has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory. Indeed, Article 6 of the 1944 Chicago Convention states: No scheduled international air service may be operated over or into the territory of a contracting state, except with the special permission or other authorisation of that state, and in accordance with the terms of such permission or authorisation. Both the 1919 Paris Convention and the 1944 Chicago Convention recognised the exclusive sovereignty not only of contracting states alone but also of all states. The fundamental principle was accepted universally that airspace above national territory was exclusively and completely under the control of the subjacent state and that the `legitimacy of any overflight of any aircraft foreign to the subjacent state lay only in permission pursuant to treaty or international agreement'. The right of a commercial airline to operate in the airspace of a foreign state depends, therefore, upon some treaty provision granting such a right to the airline's flag state. But what is the position of an aircraft which has made an unauthorised entry into foreign airspace? The Chicago Convention itself deals with one possible reason for an intrusion. Under Article 25, each contracting State `undertakes to provide such measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its territory as it may find practicable, and to permit, subject to control by its own authorities, the owners of the aircraft or authorities of the State in which the aircraft is registered to provide such measures of assistance as may be necessitated by the circumstances'. Although this provision is stated in the most general terms, it is clear that, amongst parties to the Convention, the absolute and exclusive sovereignty of the territorial state does not give a state the power to deal with intruding civil aircraft in distress at its unfettered discretion. The Chicago Convention prohibits a state, for example, instructing its military aircraft to shoot down the intruder. The most notorious incidents of the use of force against aerial intruders were the shooting down of an Israeli civil aircraft in Bulgarian airspace by Bulgarian fighter aircraft in 1955, a Libyan civil aircraft by Israeli fighter aircraft in the airspace over Sinai, then occupied by Israel, in 1973 and a South Korean civil aircraft by Soviet fighter aircraft on 1 September 1983 when 269 passengers and crew perished. An Australian passenger was among the dead. The origins of this Bill can be traced to the day of the Soviet attack on the Korean Air Lines Boeing 747. It was a cowardly, brutal and barbaric attack. Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said of the tragedy: There is no circumstance in which any nation can be justified in shooting down an unarmed civilian aircraft serving no military purpose . . . it is incompatible with accepted norms of civilised behaviour between nations and contrary to principles of international law. The Soviet Union expressed no regret and no contrition. TASS issued a statement on the attack which amounted to, at least on the first reading, laying the blame on the victims themselves. The Australian Foreign Minister further stated: It is our firm conviction that the continuing failure of the Soviet Union and others to recognise the reality (of South Korea), by attempting to deny the Republic of Korea its legitimate place in the international community and its right in international law, has contributed to the circumstances in which this appalling act has taken place. In response to this outrageous attack on the Korean airliner, the International Civil Aviation Organisation convened an extraordinary assembly in Montreal in May 1984 to discuss ways of preventing a recurrence of the incident. Australia played an active role in the deliberations which finally resulted on 10 May 1984 in unanimous agreement by the 107 states participating to amend the Chicago Convention by new Article 3 bis to require states to refrain from the use of weapons against civil aircraft. Clause 3 of the Bill enables Australia to ratify Article 3 bis. Honourable members have been told that, under the terms of Article 3 bis, countries ratifying the Article undertake to guarantee that weapons will not be used against civil aircraft and that the safety of the aircraft and passengers will not be endangered. However, as at 31 December 1985, only 22 countries had ratified Article 3 bis. To my knowledge, the Soviet Union has not ratified Article 3 bis. Clause 4 of the Bill incorporates Article 3 bis in a schedule to the Air Navigation Act. Clause 5 of this Bill inserts a new section 21A to the Act. This amendment applies to Australian registered aircraft and foreign registered aircraft, operated by an operator whose principal place of business or whose place of permanent residence is in Australian territory, which fly over the territory of another country. Proposed new section 21A also extends the powers of the Commonwealth to make it an offence for the pilot in command of an aircraft, in the circumstances I have just described, to operate that aircraft over the territory of another country for a purpose that is prejudicial to the security, public order or safety of air navigation in that country. This section further extends the Commonwealth's power to make it a requirement for the pilot in command of aircraft I have just described, which is in flight over the territory of a foreign country, to comply with any direction that is given by an authorised official, including a direction to land at a specified aerodrome in the territory of a foreign country where that aircraft is flying without authorisation or where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the aircraft is being operated for a purpose that is prejudicial to the security, public order or safety of air navigation in the country concerned. In addition, Article 3 bis reaffirms the requirement of states to ensure that civil aircraft under their jurisdiction operate flights over foreign countries for legitimate aviation purposes. Indeed, this was always envisaged by the 1944 Chicago Convention. In the circumstances laid down by Article 3 bis, Australia has undertaken to prosecute pilots who refuse to obey a direction to land given by an overseas country because of the difficulties of jurisdiction that might be experienced by that country in the pursuit of a prosecution. A pilot may reject an order to land, or any other direction, if compliance would, in his opinion, endanger the safety of aircraft and passengers. As the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) said in his second reading speech, `Article 3 bis represents a significant step by the international community to ensure greater safety in international aviation'. Because it believes that this legislation will strengthen the safety of international civil aviation, the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian Government, proposes to proclaim it as soon as possible rather than wait for Article 3 bis to come into force. Even though these measures are a move in the right direction, I find it hard to see what real effect they would have on states which refuse to abide by the conventions. Unfortunately, insofar as they relate to certain states, the conventions suffer from a fundamental weakness, because ultimately, there is simply no mechanism by which states which do not fulfil their obligations under the conventions, can be sanctioned. Of course, given the political realities, if an enforcement clause were added to the conventions, I believe that many, if not all, of the present signatories would probably withdraw their support. Thus, many states have concluded that it is better to have an article such as Article 3 bis, which at least sets out some prohibitions and requirements, albeit ultimately unenforceable, as between the states, than to have no Article 3 bis at all. It has been made tragically obvious that certain states are not deterred by the existence of articles, conventions or the canons of international law. They have not been deterred because they believe that they are above international law. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr DOBIE(Cook)(9.35) —It is interesting to note that we can stand up and give total bipartisan support for a measure such as the one we have before us. I am pleased to support the Air Navigation Amendment Bill. I am pleased that the Government is moving to allow Australia to ratify the protocol of May 1984 which amends the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. So much importance is being attached to this proposed legislation that the Government has taken the unusual parliamentary step of making it effective by proclamation before the protocol itself comes into effect. For the latter to occur, two-thirds of the membership of the International Civil Aviation Organisation-ICAO-must ratify the protocol. So, in our enthusiasm to see that this important amendment to the Chicago Convention becomes a reality, we are in fact prepared to walk one step ahead of the rest of the world. We will already have this amendment on our statute books and we will set an example to the rest of the world. It is good to see bipartisan support in this Parliament as a reflection of Australian determination that the horror of the shooting down of the civilian Korean Air Line 747 aircraft in Soviet airspace by a Soviet fighter on 1 September 1983 shall not happen again. On Tuesday 6 September 1983, this House moved a motion to express Australia's shock over the incident, to extend sympathy to the families of the victims and to call for a prompt and truthful account from the Government of the Soviet Union of its part in the incident. It should be remembered that President Reagan said that, despite the savagery of their crime, the universal reaction against it and the evidence of their complicity, the Soviets still refused to tell the truth. They have persistently refused to admit that their pilot fired on the Korean aircraft. I recall that the Opposition moved an amendment which called for a harsher response from the Australian Government and most strongly sought to condemn the Soviet Union for its barbaric act. It also sought to press for compensation for the families of the victims. This amendment, unfortunately, was not acceptable to Government members and, rather than have a division, the Opposition decided to support the Government's motion. It should be recalled that, at that time, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said: The barbaric and savage action was both inhuman and illegal. It was a senseless and impulsive act of murder which will cast a dark shadow over the Soviet Union and its credibility in the international community. However, in the motion that this House did pass, we urged the international community to take measures to prevent the recurrence of the tragedy. In addressing the motion, my colleague the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) said at that time: The position that civilian aircraft infringing on Soviet airspace are automatic military targets has to be confronted and has to be resolved. That is the underlying issue. The wish of the House and, no doubt, the honourable member for Warringah was realised in large measure with the May 1984 protocol. Today we have the opportunity further to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that adequate measures are taken to prevent, as far as can be anticipated, a recurrence of the Korean Air Lines tragedy. Before the honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) leaves the chamber, I would like to say that I support what he said in his speech. I was pleased to see him say it with such vigour and strength. However, it is a quaint paradox that the Soviet Union was one of the original signatories to the Chicago Convention out of which emerged ICAO. It is a further paradox that the Soviet Union is also a member of the 33 member governing council of ICAO and was at the meeting in Montreal in May 1984 out of which came the protocol which we are now seeking to incorporate into Australia's statute books. The Soviet Union was one of the 107 countries at that meeting which gave unanimous approval to the protocol. So it is now to be hoped, when this protocol comes into being on an international scale, that all nations will observe it strictly, particularly the Soviet Union. Is it too much to hope that the new leader of the Soviet Union, Mr Gorbachev, will have a wish to stop his trigger happy air force generals as far as civilian aircraft are concerned? Time will tell, for history is littered with incidents where countries have shown scant regard for conventions and pacts to which they are signatories. This protocol must not be treated with disdain, for last year we saw civil aviation under threat from terrorists on a scale not known before. I believe that civil aviation cannot continue to exist under such a threat, whether it comes from radical minority groups or from sovereign governments. Let us hope that the USSR will get around to ratifying this 1984 protocol which I believe it has not as yet done despite the voicing of its support of it in 1984. So much for the Soviet Union. I was interested to note that the Minister in his second reading speech said: Before the legislation is proclaimed, the Government will ensure that the aviation publications issued for the use of pilots clearly explain these new requirements in the case of interception of Australian-controlled aircraft operating overseas. When I first heard that this was in the Bill I was concerned about the requirements placed on pilots in the command of aircraft, but after consulting with the office of the Executive Director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots it was confirmed to me that there were no objections from that body to the measures contained in the Bill. Under sub-section 21A (4) there exists a statutory defence for pilots who are prosecuted for non-compliance with the direction of an aviation policy. I am pleased to see that this defence is being written into the legislation, because obviously a pilot's first responsibility is to his passengers and if he so chooses to disobey a directive because he believes that to have done otherwise would have been more likely to endanger the aircraft and the people on board, he must not have that discretion taken away from him through fear of prosecution. Finally, I remind the House that Australia has a particular responsibility to support this protocol. We were touched personally by the KAL disaster. Five Australians, not one as the previous speaker suggested, were among the 269 people who perished in the tragedy. We owe it to their memory and to their families and friends to try to ensure that such an incident never happens again, whether it is by the Bulgarians, the Israelis or the Soviets. I think President Reagan put it most succinctly when addressing the people of the United States soon after the tragedy. He said: This crime against humanity must never be forgotten, here or throughout the world. So be it. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(9.44) —I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate in support of my colleague the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris). I understand that some points totally unrelated to the Air Navigation Amendment Bill 1986 which cut directly across my portfolio have been made. That is not the reason I am here to speak today, but perhaps I will comment on one or two of those points before I get into the bulk of what I want to say, most of which would be along the lines of what was said by the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) who has just spoken and, I imagine, by most of those who have spoken so far in the debate. I refer to the relative lack of success of the equipment to hand in the Navy in actually finding the Pel-Air aircraft. Firstly, I think that, with the equipment available to the Navy, it promptly responded to calls and acted as effectively as it could. The fact that it did not have that equipment available to it is in no small measure due to the paucity of appropriate attention by past governments to the requirement for substantial mine counter measure capabilities, which fortunately we are now addressing. That is a problem which will take us a little time to cure, but it will be cured. We can have that confidence now, a confidence that we could not have had under the policies pursued in mine counter measure terms by the previous Government. Mr White —How long are you going to go on with that old business? Mr BEAZLEY —As you well know, Peter, the simple fact of the matter- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Rocher) —Order! The Minister will refer to the honourable member by his electorate. Mr BEAZLEY —I cannot remember his electorate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —You might ask the help of the Chair? Mr BEAZLEY —Can I have some help in remembering the honourable member's electorate? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think you were addressing your remarks to the honourable member for McPherson. Mr BEAZLEY —Thank you very much. As the honourable member for McPherson will know, it takes a considerable amount of time to put into effect a procurement program, and that procurement program is being put into effect at the moment. I have a keen interest in this Bill as an ex-Minister for Aviation and as the current Defence Minister. As Minister for Aviation at the time of the Korean Air Lines flight 7 tragedy, I was only too aware of the very limited measures available to the international community to express its condemnation of the appalling act which caused it. The measures which I was able to announce at the time amounted to a temporary suspension of commercial arrangements between our airlines and Aeroflot and a request for commercial airlines and travel agencies to do the same. These measures were valuable and appropriate within the prevailing international framework, but clearly they were far from being a full, adequate or final response to the KAL7 disaster. This Bill in a very real sense constitutes a final and, I believe, more adequate response to that tragedy by taking clear steps to prevent it happening again. The Bill reflects the fruit of international effort, in which Australia played a prominent role, to strengthen the international framework of agreements on civil aviation to deal with such previously unimaginable horrors as the death of 269 people in one totally avoidable incident. Adherence to the revised provisions of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, known as the Chicago Convention, as set out in Article 3 of the convention, will not give any absolute guarantee that the tragedy of flight KAL7 will not be repeated, but its wide acceptance will add considerable pressure on all the world's governments to control their air defence forces so as to very substantially reduce the likelihood that an innocent civilian aircraft will again be shot down, even if that aircraft appears, from the point of view of the country over which it is travelling, to be behaving provocatively. We need to recognise that around the world at the moment, including in some of the countries over which we fly, there are developing very substantial air defence capabilities and that the improvement in the military capabilities in many of those countries is not necessarily matched by an equivalent improvement in the capacity to handle disagreements amongst states of those regions in a way that causes them to adopt totally friendly attitudes to all those who pass over their territory. So it is a very timely protocol to be developed because the situation that confronts us now is so vastly different from that which confronted us at the time that the Montreal Convention was first developed. The point that might be made is that all Australian aviation companies and international carriers accept an absolute requirement on the part of our pilots to fly over areas that are so designated by the countries over which we operate. As is quite evident, there has been of late a lowering of standards in regard to the treatment of civil airliners and this Bill will be an enormously important pressure point in the international community to defend the interests of innocent travellers, innocent pilots and innocent airlines and at least to preserve that part of aviation from the worst effects of international conflict. The Montreal protocol, to which this Bill gives effect, sets a new standard in the international conduct of aviation both by governments and by individuals. In doing so it makes tragedies less likely. As a one time Minister for Aviation, I am very glad that that has been achieved and I congratulate my colleague the Minister for Aviation on bringing the tragic issue to such a successful conclusion. As the Defence Minister, some of the new standards of international conduct which this Bill enshrines relate directly to my portfolio. As Minister for Defence I am constantly reminded of the considerable power of modern weapons, particularly of modern fighter aircraft and their missiles. We need to make absolutely sure that they are not used and cannot be used recklessly to endanger innocent life, as I said. A key element of the Montreal protocol embodied in this Bill is the following undertaking: . . . every State must refrain from resorting to the use of weapons . . . in flight and that, in the case of interception, the lives of persons on board and the safety of aircraft must not be endangered. Clearly, this puts a serious responsibility on our armed forces, particularly our Air Force, to develop procedures and techniques which protect our sovereignty and airspace without endangering innocent lives. I understand that detailed international procedures for implementing this and other elements of the protocol are now being worked out between participating governments. The aim is to develop uniform procedures around the world to regulate the safe interception of civil aircraft. We will await the outcome of this process before finalising our own new procedures to give effect to these amendments. I point out to the House that no fundamental changes in our Air Force's rules of engagement are likely to be needed. They are already designed to avoid the sort of tragedy that unfolded above the Kamchatka Peninsula in September 1983. I am sure that honourable members will be relieved to hear that our Air Force is already very circumspect in its handling of civil aviation interceptions. Among other things, it increases our confidence that we can adhere to the Montreal protocol without in any way detracting from our national security and the defence of our airspace. I hope honourable members will be even more heartened by the spirit with which wide sectors of the international community have co-operated in trying to prevent any repetition of the horrifying spectacle of 269 people being killed because of a brutal and foolish error. In paying tribute to the people who have played a role in developing safer standards of air travel, which is in part reflected by this legislation, I must refer to the International Pilots Association. I must admit that as Minister for Aviation I did not necessarily always see eye to eye with the members of the Association on most things and, occasionally, on anything. One thing for which I had enormous respect was the pilots' very substantial dedication to making certain that their international aviation operations were conducted in conditions of safety and that their passengers were protected. They have played a very substantial role in Western responses not just to this sort of issue but also to acts of international terrorism and piracy. One might say that they have a self-interest in adopting that position. Perhaps they do. At the same time they have pursued the question in an expert and effective manner and have played a very useful role for their collective organisation, in ensuring that pilots from a wide variety of nationalities are placing pressure on different governments with very different perspectives on these sorts of issues. I think that has been an important development, a development which, as I said, has really been a product of responses initially to acts of terrorism against Western aircraft. This Bill represents the culmination of Australia's part in this heartening process. On those grounds, I commend the Bill to the House. Mr JULL(Fadden)(9.54) —I briefly join the debate tonight on the Air Navigation Amendment Bill to add a few comments and to extend my congratulations to the Government in making sure that the Montreal protocol is in place at this very early stage. Never has the world been so terribly shocked as it was after the shooting down of the Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 aircraft. The fact that five Australians died in that tragedy brought home to the people of Australia the dangers that face those who travel the world air routes at the moment. There is no doubt that one of the fastest growing industries in the world today is civil aviation. This year, when more than one million Australians will go overseas, I am sure that we are all committed to hoping to develop the safest air routes possible between this country and various other countries that are serviced by our aircraft. I say also that it is a great disappointment that at this stage only 22 countries have in fact ratified the Convention on International Civil Aviation. At a time when there is tremendous pressure around the world, I am sure that Australia's lead in making sure we have this protocol in place will stand us in very good stead. There is no doubt that Australia is highly regarded in the international aviation community. It is through moves such as this that we can maintain that presence as a world leader. I agree with the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie), who brought to the attention of the House the fact that last year-1985-was certainly one of the most tragic in terms of the world aviation scene. Situations such as the hijacking of the Egypt Air 737 last year and the forcing down of a Syrian aircraft by an Israeli jet fighter certainly bring home to us once again the very difficult problems that exist in certain parts of the world. I was very pleased to hear the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) make reference to the difficulties in those countries, especially in the Middle East, over which Qantas Airways Ltd flies on a regular basis. Some very real concern has been expressed by a number of international airline operators, especially those who fly over Iranian and Iraqi air space. I am glad to know that the Minister is cognisant of the difficulties that they have to face and that he has brought such evidence to the House. There are probably some spin-off benefits from Australia's lead in making sure that we maintain safe international aviation services and in taking that position as a world leader in aviation. It is interesting to note the projections being forecast around the world with regard to Australia's position in the growth in civil aviation traffic and its position with regard to international world tourism. On most of those projections, it would seem that the next decade will see tremendous growth in that area by Australia. Some figures given to me just recently indicate that one of our biggest growth areas in tourism related to a 12 per cent increase over the last 12 months in the number of Germans coming here. One of the prime reasons put forward for this increase by the international operators was the safety of Australia and the safety involved in getting to this place. It was interesting to note that previously so many of those groups had taken their tours to southern African countries. One of the reasons that they started to turn away from those countries was the fact that there were worried about security not only on the ground but also in the case of the operators of the aviation systems in those countries. I suppose that augers well for us in the future, because there is no doubt that we will see tremendous increases in the number of international airlines operating in this country and, indeed, in the number of international visitors who will fly into Australia over the next decade or so. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) regularly tells us in this place about the growth in this area. He talks about the possibility of two million international visitors coming to Australia for the Bicentenary celebrations in 1988. If those two million international visitors will be coming to Australia there will certainly have to be a tremendous increase in the capacity of our airlines to deliver those people to our shores. All these things are starting to come together now and will make sure that Australia will become a major international destination. It is fairly well established in aviation circles that a great number of international airlines are knocking on our door asking for landing rights in this country so that they can take part in the expansion that is occurring here at the moment. It is not for me to mention them now, but I am sure that the Minister for Aviation (Mr Peter Morris) is fully aware of the tremendous interest that is being generated in such diverse places as Europe, the Indian Ocean states, the Pacific Ocean states and, indeed, parts of northern Asia. People from all those countries want to come to Australia. One of the prime reasons they want to come here is the safety that is involved not only in terms of Australia as a holiday destination but also, I am sure, because a great deal of respect is paid to the high standards that are employed in our civil aviation industry. It is important that we continue to lead the world in legislation such as this. I hope that in the near future the Minister will take heed of the number of operators who want to come here to build up that industry. It is interesting to look at the figures relating to the international airlines that operate in and out of Australia. For the first time in our history, most of the major carriers at the moment are bringing in more international visitors than the number of Australians they are taking out. That is pretty healthy for our economy and for an increase in jobs in this industry. All these matters that we are discussing tonight will certainly help the situation and encourage that sort of growth. Australia has an enviable record in aviation policies. This particular legislation is another example of how seriously we take the problem of safety, not only of Australians going overseas but also of overseas visitors coming to this country. I am sure that the bipartisan support that has been evidenced in this House tonight indicates to each and every one of us how seriously each and every member of this House takes this piece of legislation. Mr GEAR(Canning)(10.01) —The impetus for the Air Navigation Amendment Bill which is before us tonight was the tragic destruction of the Korean Air Lines Flight 007 in September 1983. There is no doubt that legislation such as this is the only constructive happening arising out of that sorry event. The legislation seeks to ensure that military aircraft do not use weapons on civil aircraft and that civil aircraft operate flights over foreign countries for legitimate civil purposes only. It is illustrative to look at two events that will come within the scope of the Protocol signed in Montreal on 10 May 1984. The first is the downing of the Korean airliner, and there are a number of disturbing aspects of this incident. I would just like to refer to Press reports of the incident that were published at the time. The first, from the Australian Financial Review, is headed `How much blame falls on the crew of 007?'. The correspondent had this to say: Aviation experts world wide are coming to the conclusion that in the tragic destruction of the Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 jumbo jet by a Russian fighter last week, the crew of the Jumbo itself must bear a substantial part of the responsibility. The article went on to point out a number of disturbing factors. First, the correspondent asked the obvious question: . . . what was the Korean plane doing so far off course in Soviet airspace at all? He expounded a number of theories which I will not go into tonight. The second question that rightly should be asked is about the apparent lack of any kind of radio communication by the jumbo with either the Soviet fighters or the ground stations, especially in northern Japan. That is another worrying factor. Thirdly, the writer points out that the Soviets claimed that they thought the jumbo was a spy plane. He goes on to say: No US spy aircraft is of the same size as a jumbo. That seems to me to be a reasonable claim to make. He also says: The Russian Air Force locally is well aware of just what regular civil air traffic there is around. That seems reasonable and it also seems reasonable that the Russians should have investigated to see whether a civil aircraft had strayed off its course. The writer goes on to say: The fact that the Russians shadowed the jumbo for over two hours indicates plainly that they did detect an unusual occurrence, and sent fighters to investigate it. It seems reasonable that, if the Russians knew of the plane's existence for two hours, they had plenty of time to establish just what it was. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 5 September 1983, `The view from Washington' column says: The Reagan Administration has revealed that two hours before shooting down the Korean airlines commercial jumbo jet off its eastern coast, the Soviet Union spotted a US reconnaissance plane in the same area-and apparently thought that both aircraft were reconnaissance planes. While this might give some credence to the Soviet claims, it is still unreasonable to think that the Soviets thought the jumbo was a reconnaissance plane, both because of the size of the plane and because two hours is a long time to shadow a plane. As this article also points out, the two planes were at that time 1,000 kilometres apart. In the same newspaper `The view from Moscow' column had this to say: A Soviet general has given an account of the loss of the Korean airliner that implies that a Soviet fighter pilot could have confused the Boeing 747 with an RC-135 reconnaissance plane. That seems to be the standard story from both sides. Later on in that article we have an indication of what the Soviets thought was the motive behind some of the Press reports in the Western world, when the writer says: Since their first major statement on the incident, two days after the Korean plane went down, Soviet leaders have maintained that the plane was on a spying mission, `pre-planned' by US intelligence agencies. That seems a little unreasonable. It seems hard to explain why the United States should ask a Korean civil airliner to do its spying for it. Also, reports from TASS had this to say, and this is particularly disturbing: The crew of the intruder plane- that is, the Boeing 747- carrying out the flight with navigation and collision-prevention lights switched off, which is contrary to the ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation) standards, did not respond to all actions by our interceptor-fighter, whose pilot undertook for a long period repeated attempts to lead the intruder plane to the closest Soviet airfield. We will never know the truth of that because only the Russian planes were up there and I do not know whether we can believe the Russians. Certainly, if the lights were on it would be impossible to mistake the aircraft for a military plane because the tailplane of the 747 would have been lit up and the Russians could have seen clearly from that that it was not a United States plane. As previous speakers have pointed out, the Russians were rightly condemned by the international community for that barbaric act. The honourable member for Fadden (Mr Jull) also alluded in his speech to the second event that I intended to bring to the attention of the House tonight, and that was the interception of an Egypt Air Boeing 737 by four United States Navy F14 jet fighters from the United States aircraft carrier Saratoga last year. In an article in the Canberra Times of 23 October last year, an unnamed journalist had this to say: What was really important, however, was the air-to-air communication. As I said, that was also one of the deficiencies in the Korean Boeing 747 airliner disaster. The article continues: The Egyptians say the US pilot threatened to open fire on the 737 if it refused the order to divert and land. The Americans had said nothing. If the Egyptian allegation were true it would place the US pilot in little better position than that of the Soviet Air Force pilot who intercepted and shot down a Korean Air Lines Boeing 747 with a loss of 269 lives in September 1983. The suggestion that the American pilots had orders to fire is a grave one. Later in the article the writer goes on: Until the conversation which passed between the aircraft is published and until the proper international authorities express some interest in the affair, innocent passengers aboard a commercial airliner cannot be guaranteed safe. The provisions of the legislation before us today are consistent with principles I mentioned earlier. The Bill also has the following provision, and I shall allude to them briefly: It provides that necessary administrative action will be taken early by the Government to ensure that pilots of our military aircraft are fully alerted to Australia's obligations under the first part of Article 3. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) gave us that assurance tonight. Also, a pilot may reject an order to land or any other direction if compliance would, in his opinion, endanger the safety of the aircraft and passengers. That is only reasonable; it is certainly up to the pilot of an aircraft to ascertain the safety or otherwise of any order given to him, and that is a significant part of the legislation with which I am sure all passengers would agree. Also, there is nothing in the proposed legislation which derogates from any obligations imposed by current laws, either Australian or those of a foreign country. The legislation also lays down that, in the circumstances laid down by Article 3 bis, Australia has undertaken to prosecute pilots who refuse to obey a direction to land given by an overseas country because of the difficulties of jurisdiction that might be experienced by that country in pursuit of a prosecution, and the penalties for this are spelt out in the Bill. The Bill also stipulates that a person convicted by a foreign country of an offence to which this legislation refers cannot be convicted in Australia for the same offence-that is, he cannot be tried twice. Before the legislation is proclaimed the attention of pilots will be drawn to these new requirements through the medium of aviation publications specifically directed to them. Finally, the Minister for Aviation is to be congratulated for introducing this legislation and the support of the Opposition ensures that the international community is left in no doubt that Australia supports this international protocol wholeheartedly. Debate (on motion by Mr Smith) adjourned. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.09) —I seek your indulgence, Madam Speaker, to make a few remarks about the statement on privilege, which you made earlier this evening. Madam SPEAKER —Please proceed. Mr SINCLAIR —First, I apologise to you and the House for not being present when you made the statement; but, as I explained to you in your chambers, unfortunately I received advice at 8.10 p.m. that you were to make the statement at 8.10 p.m. and physically it was impossible to get here in time. Secondly, I thank you for the advice in respect of the first matter that I canvassed-that is, that the guidelines that are applicable to the granting of access to proceedings of the Parliament for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts should be examined-and for your advice that the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings will meet tomorrow morning to consider one particular aspect of them. However, on the second point, the question about the particular breach of what we would regard as the existing guidelines, by Channel 7 and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's PM program, I want to make several comments. The first is that within your advice, Madam Speaker, to the House you mentioned that, as we understand the law to be, using your words: . . . those using excerpts are protected by qualified, and not absolute, privilege. I think it would be a great pity if this House in any way encouraged people who feel that they have been in any way affronted by a matter that has been used on a parliamentary broadcast to resort to the law in certain circumstances of this instance. The second follows from that and that is that it worries me greatly that in respect of what are after all guidelines adopted in a trial procedure which members from both sides of the House endorse-the commercial stations essentially should have an opportunity to broadcast the proceedings of this House-there should be breaches of what we regard as the proper form of ensuring fairness, accuracy and the context of those excerpts. It is important that there be an understanding by those who are broadcasters that members in this place, occasionally in the heat of the moment or in the fire of debate, or in the fever of their political commitment, make statements which are thereafter withdrawn. If they are withdrawn and they are used in an excerpt in their original form, considerable injustice could be done to members on either side. Of course, it is for that reason that you, Madam Speaker, properly are saying that you intend to refer that particular question to the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. But I make this point, Madam Speaker, because you have said that you do not believe it appropriate that you ask Channel 7 or PM to withdraw the particular aspersion cast on my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) or my other colleague, the honourable member for Mackellar (Mr Carlton): I believe it appropriate that each of those broadcasting institutions understand the very generous withdrawal made by the Leader of the House (Mr Young) this afternoon and understand that the broadcast they made was in contradiction of that apology. I am quite sure that had they read the Hansard or listened to the total broadcast they would have understood that what they were doing was broadcasting out of context matters that were before the House last Friday and that it was not a fair or accurate report. I believe, Madam Speaker, that in all the circumstances it might be appropriate for you in concluding your remarks on the general matter of privilege that I canvassed to suggest to all broadcasters-those who might consider using the excerpts from parliamentary proceedings-to ensure that they do take note of these conditions for granting access. No member on either side of this House, certainly not in the Opposition, would want a withdrawal of this right which has now been accorded to broadcasting stations. However, if they abuse the conditions I have little doubt that pressure will develop to ensure that there is some change made to those conditions. I think we all feel that it is a worthwhile advance. It would be a pity for it to be frustrated. One would hope, therefore, that they would take note of those conditions for granting access, that they would comply with them and understand that if they breach them there would seem to be only two alternatives: One, that they be sued for defamation on the basis of the qualified privilege they enjoy or, secondly, that the right to broadcast be withdrawn. Neither I believe is appropriate; both I believe will be regrettable. Therefore I suggest that it would be better if they read the conditions and complied with them. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House)(10.14) —Firstly, I am a keen supporter of the way in which the Parliament has now extended the opportunity for commercial radio to use the deliberations of Parliament. However, I was not aware of the point being taken by the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) this morning as to what may have been the problem associated with what was broadcast last Friday night. I still have not heard the broadcast. I have made inquiries subsequently and it appears from looking at Hansard on page 1425 that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) interjected on me when I was making my reply on Friday, and I said: John Howard and Jim Carlton, the two great Liberals, were members of the Young Liberals when old Robert Askin was putting five grand a week in his kick. Hansard states: They were running brown paper bags up to Askin's office. I understand that someone interpreted that to mean that I was indicating that the two people I had mentioned, John Howard and Jim Carlton, may have been responsible for doing that. Let me make it perfectly clear. Mr White —That is a reasonable deduction. Mr YOUNG —Yes, it is the way it appeared, but I do not think anybody listening in the Parliament would have taken it that way. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 10.15 p.m., I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Young-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. Mr YOUNG —(Port Adelaide-Leader of the House) (10.16)-I do not wish to take up the time of the House but it certainly was not my intention to have anybody understand that what I was saying involved the Leader of the Opposition or the honourable member for Mackellar. As I said this morning, if anybody did get that impression not only do I withdraw, but also I apologise. Now that I have had a look at it and someone has said that this is what may have been the interpretation given to it, I most certainly apologise. I made it quite clear to the Leader of the Opposition that I at no time intended that that should have been the interpretation put on the inclusion of his name or his colleague's name. My own view would be that they were in no way connected with any of those activities and I would like to make that perfectly clear to the Parliament. Madam SPEAKER —I thank the Leader of the House (Mr Young) and I also thank the Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) for drawing to the attention of the House those matters with which I think every member of the House would concur. I take this opportunity to say to the media that the conditions for granting access to the proceedings of the Senate and of the House of Representatives for the purpose of recording and broadcasting excerpts have been set down by the Joint Committee on the Broadcasting of Parliamentary Proceedings. I think the guidelines should be used responsibly by the media and in particular I draw their attention to guideline No. 5 which states that fairness and accuracy and a general overall balance should be observed. No. 6 states that excerpts must be placed in context. I suggest also that the media make themselves aware not just of those guidelines but particularly of No. 13 where it states: Access to proceedings for the purpose of recording excerpts shall be on the basis of an undertaking to observe these guidelines. I think that, with goodwill, these excerpts are beneficial to the House and to the members but we are relying on all the media to be responsible in their use. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.18) —I wish to take a few minutes this evening in the adjournment debate to raise the matter of Tilley Devine's Bar which to us on this side of the House is a classic case of monumental government waste. It is a bar predominantly for women in Canberra to which $141,000 of taxpayers' money was given by this Government in a CEP grant in 1984. Mr Slipper —How much? Mr WHITE —One hundred and forty-one thousand dollars was given for the operation of this bar. It was authorised by the then Minister for Territories who is now the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, the honourable member for Reid (Mr Uren). I first raised this matter with the then Minister in 1984. I wrote to him and he wrote back and assured me that everything was above board and that all the guidelines had been met. There is now, of course, considerable doubt as to whether it was above board. The Minister defended his decision in the House last week and he appeared proud of what he had done. It seems to me he is always proud of supporting these left wing marginal causes, particularly when public money is concerned. That is not my view. I do not believe this money should be given to these sorts of causes and I suggest that a lot of honourable members on the other side of the House do not think so either. It is certainly not my view; it is not the view of the parties on this side of the House, and it is not the view of the majority of the taxpayers. I am very pleased to see that some aspects of this matter are under investigation by the Australian Federal Police. I remind honourable members that the objective of this bar, according to a letter written by the Australian Capital Territory Employment Advisory Committee to the then Minister, is as follows: To offer licensed hospitality during long hours of opening with regular live entertainment and exhibitions of women's art supporting the ideals of equal opportunity for women in all areas and providing atmosphere to encourage integration without discrimination for women in all walks of life. To create and strengthen bonds between women, raising general consciousness in the extent of women's art. What a load of rubbish! What an absolute load of garbage! The first thing about it is that it encourages discrimination because men are not allowed on the premises unless invited or accompanied by a woman. The Minister says it is an innovative scheme. It is certainly that. It is almost unique having regard to the waste and expenditure of public money. There are many questions about this grant which still have to be answered. They are: Who were the applicants for the grant? Who sponsored the project? How much did the sponsor contribute? Who owned Tilley Devine's bar when the taxpayers' money, $140,000, was allocated? If the bar was not owned by the applicant for the grant, how was the money controlled? If the applicant for the grant was not the comptroller of the project, what was the applicant's role in this venture? Where is the final audited statement on the venture? Will the Minister for Territories now table all the papers relating to this grant? When is the police report to be finalised? When will that report be tabled? We look forward to having the answers to these important questions which involve government waste of taxpayers' money. Mr SCOTT(Hindmarsh)(10.23) —In 1944 in the Gorbals of Glasgow in Scotland Jimmy Boyle was born. By the time he reached the age of 13, Jimmy Boyle was in trouble with the police. He was arrested at the age of 13. He was running through the Gorbals of Glasgow with pockets full of stolen pennies and chewing gum. It was the beginning of a career which saw him become a notorious criminal and labelled Scotland's most violent man. From his first conviction at 13 until he was 38, Jimmy Boyle spent less than three years outside prisons. In 1967 he was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of a petty criminal who was slashed from ear to navel. After serving over 22 years in prison, Jimmy Boyle must be an expert on prison life and prison reform. The tremendous brutality of Inverness prison only further brutalised Jimmy Boyle and resulted in attacks on prison warders. This resulted in six and a half years of solitary confinement in an iron cage. Jimmy Boyle served a considerable period of his 22 years in prison in the Glasgow prison called Barlinnie. Barlinnie prison established a special unit that was a revolutionary move in prison reform. With minimum rules and maximum relaxation, prison officers smiled, called prisoners by their first names and offered them tea and coffee. Jimmy Boyle said: `It was like being on another planet'. It is little wonder that he should say this, having spent 22 years since he was a boy of 13 inside prisons. The revolution in prison reform, in particular the Barlinnie special unit, is being adopted by Long Bay gaol in New South Wales. The prison reform experienced by Jimmy Boyle, referred to as Scotland's most violent man, resulted in Jimmy Boyle becoming an author of two best sellers-The Pain of Confinement and A Sense of Freedom. The latter has been made into a film that is now showing in New York. Additionally, Jimmy Boyle has the further attribute of being a sculptor of international acclaim. His further achievement as playwright is now being shown to Adelaide theatre goers at the La Mama Theatre in my electorate of Hindmarsh. The play, Nutcracker Suite, had its first Australian production directed by my old friend and comrade Bruno Knez at La Mama Theatre. Jimmy Boyle's introduction to Australia was through the Hon. Don Simmons, the former Chief Secretary of the South Australian Government. Don Simmons has long been a champion of prison reform. He visited Barlinnie prison's special unit in 1978 where he met Jimmy Boyle, who he then met again in 1982 after Boyle's release. Don helped to arrange Boyle's visit to Australia and the production of his play. Prison reform and prisoner reform are matters that must concern all legislators. Jimmy Boyle, a product of over 22 years in prisons, is now an outstanding example of what can be achieved through prison reform. Jimmy Boyle, author, playwright and internationally acclaimed sculptor, is now married to Dr Sarah Boyle, a psychiatrist. They have a daughter. Jimmy and his wife now run the Gateway Exchange in Edinburgh, a centre available to help ex-prisoners, drug addicts and people with mental health problems. While being interviewed on the Mid Day Show with Ray Martin on Monday and again today, Jimmy Boyle referred to the drug problem that has exploded recently in Edinburgh. Edinburgh has the second highest number of acquired immune deficiency syndrome cases after New York. These AIDS cases are drug related, through the multiple use of injection needles. Jimmy Boyle's group is fighting this problem of drugs, particularly heroin by the use, as he calls it, of self-help at street level. The community needs to realise that this drug problem is a community problem and the community must be mobilised and use its resources at the street level. Jimmy Boyle's centre is achieving better results than other programs that rely only on the professionals. Recently in the Canberra Times there was an article dealing with the very question of prison reform. I think it is worthwhile to record that reference. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(10.28) —On Friday afternoon in the adjournment debate I commenced to point out the tremendous difficulties being experienced by Australian home owners and home buyers who are languishing under the highest interest rates for 50 years. I mentioned an anti-interest rate rally which was held at Caboolture and organised by Mrs Cheryl Gibson, Mrs Monika Kenneally and Mrs Gloria Ogden, who reside in my electorate. I congratulate them on their initiative in calling together people who are concerned about the Government's policies. It is a fact of life-and I quote from the Australian: The housing industry has been the hardest hit by the Government's tight money and high interest rate policies. What we should do is contrast the reality with the promises of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in recent times. He stated: At present the outlook for interest rates is as bright as it has been for more than a decade. . . . . We will continue our work of putting the public finances of this nation back in order and creating the conditions where further interest rate reductions can occur. . . . . Australia and Australians will during 1985 reap the interest rate rewards that are flowing from the successful policies of the past 20 months. What a joke! He went on to compound what he had said previously by adding: We've ploughed the fields and sown the seeds. In the very near future we will harvest the crop. The Government is now harvesting the crop. It is hurting the home owners and home buyers of Australia. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) also claimed that interest rates would drop. They have not dropped. In fact, the contrary is the case. Our interest rates in this country are more than double those of overseas countries. In the United States of America they are 7.9 per cent. In France they are 8.9 per cent and in Japan they are a low 5.5 per cent. The situation is critical. It appears that there will be a lowering of the money available from the banking system. There is a crisis in Australia, where men and women are being forced out of their homes and on to the streets by the policies of this Government. I asked a question last week in relation to home owners and home buyers. The point of my question was not to oppose aid to the Philippines but rather to point out that, if the Government can find money for this purpose, what about those people who are being hurt by the deliberate high interest rate policies? The family unit is being threatened and the National Party of Australia makes no apology for supporting the family unit in our society. Marriages are being destroyed and the Australian dream of home ownership is being shattered. People are being forced to walk away from their life's investment. The Courier-Mail editorial of a week ago stated: The Government must tackle high interest rates now. The National Party fully echoes and supports that editorial. The Australian Housing Council has said that interest rates will not fall during 1986. What will happen is that more and more men and women will be forced out of their homes, and repossessions are continuing at a record rate. The people of my electorate of Fisher have sent a message to Canberra. The Government must take urgent steps now. As interest rates are at a record level as a result of the Government's policies, the Government as a matter of urgency must consider the position of these home owners and home buyers, many of whom will be forced out of their homes as a result of their inability to meet mortgage payments. The Government has caused this problem; the Government must take urgent steps to alleviate the situation. Mr PUNCH(Barton)(10.32) —I rise tonight to raise a most pertinent point concerning the budgetary irresponsibility and almost total lack of credibility arising from the promises of the Opposition. On 12 March the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) tabled in the Senate a documented account of the promises of the Opposition to date. It may interest honourable members to know that those promises to date amount to in excess of $5 billion in 1985-86 prices and, to put that in more concrete terms, would add at least 45 per cent in additional expenditure to the current Budget deficit. While the promises of those opposite are worth as much now as they were under the Fraser Government, every Australian should consider with great alarm this expenditure free-fall being proposed by those opposite. What would that sort of free-fall do to interest rates, unemployment queues and the balance of trade? All of that would be happening at the same time as we have no concrete monetary or wages policies coming from those opposite. Indeed, I challenge honourable members opposite to come into this place and say how they will pay for the $5 billion in additional expenditure in 1985-86 prices. More to the point, what cuts would Opposition members make in existing budgetary expenditures? It is with particular concern that I raise this, because of the cruel and continuing hoax that those opposite are playing in a cynical game to win the votes of the aged over the assets test. Of course, in that $5 billion would be $140m from the Opposition's promise of scrapping the assets test. It has to be remembered that in the last election the Liberal Party of Australia ran very cynical advertisements in my electorate deliberately seeking to instil fear in old people. Those advertisements read: `Will you lose your pensions?' The Opposition knew that no more than 2.5 per cent of people would lose their pensions, yet it continued to instil fear in people for its own sickening, cynical political gain. Opposition members interjecting- Mr PUNCH —The consciences of those opposite are starting to come to the fore; those who have one. On 20 February the honourable member for Cook (Mr Dobie) was reported in the St George and Sutherland Shire Leader, under the headline `Assets Test Hits Hard in Hurstville', as saying how the assets test had hurt, supposedly, in my electorate. I take the opportunity to expose that fear campaign and the complete and absolute falsity of the claim. It might be remembered that 1.5 per cent of pension recipients in New South Wales had their pensions cancelled as a result of the assets test and only 1.1 per cent of recipients had their pensions reduced. In the social security regions of my electorate, it is well to note that of the four indices three are below the State averages. The number of pensions cancelled in the Rockdale region was 1.3 per cent or 222 and in the Hurstville region it was 1.2 per cent. The number of pensions reduced in the Rockdale region was 0.9 per cent and in the Hurstville region it was 1.3 per cent. Those figures make an absolute mockery of the honourable member for Cook's claim that Hurstville has been hit hard by the assets test. Indeed, three out of the four indices are below the State averages. I take the opportunity tonight to say to honourable members opposite that they should come clean on their budgetary policy and should stop using fear as a weapon in chasing pensioner votes. Come clean and tell the truth. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(10.37) —I rise tonight to express my very deep concern- Mr Cleeland —The assets test. Mr NEHL —No, we will come to the assets test, comrade. Hold your trap for the time being. I rise to express my very deep concern about the proposed action of the New South Wales Government as expressed by the Minister for Planning and Environment, Mr Carr, who has threatened to close two out of the three dolphinariums in New South Wales. Honourable members will readily understand my concern when they realise that two of the three dolphinariums are in my electorate of Cowper; one at King Neptune's Park at Port Macquarie and the other- Mr Hollis —That one is a disgrace. Mr NEHL —Go and have a look at it. Mr Hollis —I have been there recently; it is a disgrace. Mr NEHL —It is not a disgrace at all; just read the report. One is at Port Macquarie and the other is the Pet Porpoise Pool at Coff's Harbour. The report of the Senate Select Committee on Animal Welfare gave both of those porpoise pools a clean bill of health and praised them for the way they were conducted. I make the point that there is a distinct value for the whole of Australian society and for the scientific community throughout the world from the study of dolphins in captivity. It is very easy for some people to dismiss the possibility of having dolphins in captivity, because a folk mythology has arisen about dolphins. Probably the programs on television which show dolphins playing with children are part of this. I remind the House that Dr M. M. Bryden, the Reader in Anatomy at the University of Queensland, in his evidence to the Committee on Animal Welfare, stated: There is no evidence whatever that dolphins have a particularly high level of intelligence compared with other non-human mammals, such as dogs and sheep. . . . . Many people are intrigued by the thought of a mammal with intelligence equal to or greater than our own, not least the writers of science fiction. We have added ``dolphins are highly intelligent'' to the notions that ``owls are wise'' and ``elephants never forget''. However, such notions have no place in the report of the Senate Select Committee when used to recommend policy. It is most unfortunate that the New South Wales Government is proceeding along this line, probably based on the report of the Senate Committee. I refer to the report of Senator David Brownhill, who gave an excellent minority report. Mr McGauran —Courageous. Mr NEHL —Certainly it was courageous. That minority report certainly did the right thing by the various dolphinariums in this country. Honourable members interjecting- Mr NEHL —There is no doubt, in spite of all the jibes of Government members, that the dolphinariums-I speak particularly of the two in my electorate-have a great value in educating children; they have a great value in educating the whole of society; they do tremendous work in looking after animals that are injured and damaged at sea; and they do tremendous work in extending the understanding of cetacea. One example of the lack of knowledge that has been prevalent throughout the Senate inquiry is that Senator Georges, the Chairman of that Committee, demonstrated his lack of knowledge on the subject during the questioning of Doctor Ron Hyne. Senator Georges asked: Is it possible that the adult cetacea considered that the new cetacea, the young, were a threat to their available oxygen supply or food supply? Any kid who has been to the Pet Porpoise Pool or King Neptune's Park knows that dolphins breathe air through a blow hole in their heads. They are not fish and so they cannot possibly pose any threat to the adult dolphins. In terms of food supply, they are mammals and drink milk from the female dolphin. Mr Deputy Speaker, I emphasise to you and to the House that there is great danger in the wilful closing down of dolphinariums which have great value to the scientific community, to children and, indeed, to the tourist industry in this country. I cannot see any reason why we are wilfully creating unemployment. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TICKNER(Hughes)(10.43) —I want to pay a brief tribute tonight to Dr H. C. Coombs, whose contribution to Australian public life spans some 56 years. I had the privilege to attend a birthday function for Dr Coombs last week that was organised by the Federal Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Tonight I would like briefly to trace through some of the highlights of Dr Coombs's life and to pay tribute to him. Dr Coombs was born on 24 February 1906 and won a scholarship to Perth Modern School, a school attended by a number of prominent members of this House. Eventually his studies took him to the London School of Economics, where he obtained a PhD in 1934. He joined the Commonwealth Bank in a rather lowly status as an assistant economist and was subsequently transferred to the Treasury in Canberra in 1939. Of course he then had a meteoric rise, becoming Director of Rationing and a member of the Commonwealth Bank Board in 1942, and Director-General of Post-war Reconstruction in 1943. He became an adviser to J. B. Chifley in London, Washington and Tokyo and subsequently led the Australian delegations to the United Nations Economic and Social Security Conference and to the formation of the International Trade Organisation. He became Governor of the Commonwealth Bank in 1949 and Chairman of the Bank Board in 1951. In 1959, when the Reserve Bank and the Commonwealth Banking Corporation were separated, he remained Chairman of the former. All parties recognise his forthrightness and clear thinking. That is a subject to which I will return in a moment. He retired from the Reserve Bank in 1968 to become Chairman of the newly established Council for Aboriginal Affairs and the Australian Council for the Arts and in the same year was installed as Chancellor of the Australian National University-such was the diversity of his contribution to Australian public life. He was of course, in addition to the many interests that I have mentioned, an ardent supporter of environmental issues and outspoken on the role and responsibility of young Australians. He joined William McMahon as economic adviser during Sir William's visits to the United States of America and the United Kingdom in 1971 and was, of course, subsequently nominated as Australian of the Year. He went on to serve the Whitlam Labor Government and, of course, he has served the Australian community since his retirement. Such is the diversity of his contribution to Australian society that when he retired as Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, the late Sir Robert Menzies wrote him a very personal letter and recounted how when Nugget Coombs became the Governor of the Reserve Bank there was a great deal of prejudice in the then coalition Government against his appointment. Sir Robert wrote: The cloud soon disappeared as it became increasingly clear to the most prejudiced that we had as Governor a man of the most conspicuous ability and the most shining integrity. It remains a matter of great pride for me to have got to know you as well and to have benefited so much from your great service to our country. That bipartisan respect for Dr Coombs was echoed by Gough Whitlam when Dr Coombs wrote to him following the dismissal of the Whit- lam Government. Mr Whitlam referred in his letter to Dr Coombs to the outstanding interest and achievements of Dr Coombs in Aboriginal Affairs, the arts and rationalisation of public expenditure. He stated: . . . these achievements will endure and make a permanent impression on Australian society . . . is due to your dedication . . . I will conclude by referring to one of Dr Coombs's more recent contributions in his 1984 John Curtin Memorial Lecture. Dr Coombs spoke of what he saw as the great moral issues of our time-nuclear war, Aborigines and unemployment. He talked about the contribution of the Curtin Government and the spirit of the Labor movement that is the driving force of social change in Australia. I conclude my brief contribution tonight by re-echoing his words: May the spirit of John Curtin imbue the Australian people and the Labor Movement in these days when all our values and indeed our survival are threatened. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.46) —I rise tonight to draw the attention of the House to what is, for all sides of the House, a major national problem, a problem that is not easily solved and a problem that, no matter which government has been in power, has not simply gone away. The major problem both sides of the House face is, of course, the problem of unemployment and, particularly, youth unemployment. No one pretends that there is any easy solution to this problem. It must be a matter of some frustration to the Government to have noted the rise in the number of unemployed that is shown in last month's figures. Before this debate degenerates simply into a cheap mud-slinging exercise, I draw the attention of the House to the figures of the Australian Bureau of Statistics which indicated that from March 1982 to March 1983 there was a dramatic fall in the number of full time workers in Australia. Everybody knows that that dramatic fall coincided with the drought and with the fact that there had been wage demands that were, at that time, quite unprecedented. Much has been made by the Government, elected in March 1983, of the recovery that it has pretended has occurred in the number of people engaged in full time work. It needs to be stated that it took from March 1983 until March 1985 for the Government to have the same number of people in full time work as were employed when the Fraser Government was in office in March 1982. It took two full years for us to get back to that point. While the Government has made much of having achieved its target for 500,000 new jobs, the facts are that from ABS figures only 150,000 new full time jobs have been created above the level at the time of the Fraser Government in March 1982. In spite of the fact that only 150,000 jobs have been created and there is a major unemployment problem, I was alarmed to find that in my own area, the Riverland area, in December of last year 2,251 people were unemployed and that as recently as this month 1,500 people were still unemployed. I rise to address the House in this adjournment debate on this matter because the level of 1,500 unemployed people occurs in the Riverland area when grape growers and fruit growers are desperate for casual labour. I was astonished to find in the Murray Pioneer, the local Press of that area, last week that, while there were 1,500 unemployed people in the area, a headline stated: `Fruit pickers are hard to find'. It seems simply unbelievable that grape growers with 1,500 unemployed people at their fingertips have their wives working in order to get together the tonnage of grapes needed to meet the winery's demand. According to the newspaper report, Mr John Hunt said that the situation from an employment point of view was `very bad'. The report stated: He was waiting at the office to recruit any pickers who happened to walk in. `What else can I do', he said, `I have to have my load picked by this afternoon.' He said: `If the winery rings and says it wants your grapes by the next day and there are no pickers your grapes will be left on the vine to rot.' He went on to say: `I have had 12 pickers recently who left after less than half a day's work.' The article also states: Mrs Sharon Moll was busy picking grapes at Monash yesterday while her husband, Rod, was away trying to recruit pickers for their grape crop. The article continued: Mrs Moll had her 18-month-old son with her in yesterday's heat while she continued to pick and hope that her husband would return with hired help. Without extra pickers she said, they would be lucky, even with the help of more relatives, to pick four tonnes of the 6 1/2 tonne load they were to deliver to a winery today. The matter of real concern is not that we should stand here labelling people as dole bludgers but that we should have evolving in our community a group of people who are not prepared to work while there is work to be done. That is the matter of concern to both sides of the House because that augers very poorly for the future of Australia. To suggest that the Riverland climate is simply too hot to work in is to make a blind suggestion indeed. These same people who are not prepared to work would in fact be quite happy to be involved in some form of physical activity in the interests of what they would see as their health. Why then are they not prepared to be involved in physical activity in the interests of the nation? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr RONALD EDWARDS(Stirling)(10.53) —The issue on which I rise tonight concerns the case being put by the Victorian Football League to the Federal Government for an amendment to the Trade Practices Act or for the arrangement of exemptions under the Trade Practices Act to cover the transfer of footballers. Many people would be aware that for some years now there has been a substantial drain of players, particularly from Western Australia to Victoria, from Tasmania to Victoria and from South Australia to Victoria. Also, there have been disputes between clubs and players over those transfers. The only group that have gained out of this process of disputation in fact has been the lawyers who have been more than happy to move in and basically milk for substantial sums of money the clubs and the individuals who are in dispute. An example of this is a transfer of two Western Australian players, Cronan and Narkle, who came from Western Australia to Victoria and, I might say ill advisedly, went to St Kilda Football Club. The Western Australian Football League had to pay about $100,000 in legal costs to fight those cases. I think the VFL sensibly said that the question of transfer should be pursued under the restraint of trade provisions. The restraint of trade provisions, Mr Deputy Speaker, apply equally to your home State of New South Wales where rugby league is the popular game. The same problems that face the VFL also arise between Queensland and New South Wales and between clubs in Sydney. Equally expensive legal wrangling has also occurred in respect of rugby league. As I say, the two areas are the restraint of trade provisions under the Trade Practices Act or the common law provisions of restraint of trade, both of which are equally accessible to players. The VFL has looked at the problem and said: `Well, why don't we try to remove football and footballers from the restraint of trade provisions of the Trade Practices Act?'. My view is that that is the wrong way to go because, equally, every other group in the community could say: `Well, why don't you exempt us in terms of restraint of trade arrangements?'. The far more sensible way to go in fact, and the one that we are exploring in Western Australia, is to put footballers and members of other sporting bodies, if they choose, under the arrangements of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act so that these disputes can be dealt with as if they are disputes between employer and employee. Disputes of this kind arise all the time in the industrial relations area. They are common. They are disputes either over conditions or money. It also happens that disputes in football are disputes over either conditions or money. It also happens that in the 1979 Adamson case the Federal Court judge decided under the Trade Practices Act that in fact a footballer was an employee and a club was an employer. I will not explore the workers' compensation ramifications of that which are rather interesting. But the legal ramifications in terms of transfers are these: If one does not have some device for dealing with such common law disputes, one is going to continue to have a number of common law disputes which will be very expensive for the clubs and the players. Might I add, and I am sure that my colleagues in the House who follow one of the various football codes will agree with me, that it is very disheartening for the supporters of a club to see their players being milked off by clubs such as the rapacious Sydney Swans. I believe that such happenings do not do the game any good either because supporters lose interest in their club when players are lost and there is a substantial drain of money when disputes arise. Imagine how many football jumpers and footballs one could buy with $100,000 allocated for junior competition? Yet, we are seeing that drain of funds into the legal disputes area. The clear way to proceed is not to create exemptions under the Trade Practices Act which would imply some difference of treatment. The way to treat this matter is to use the Conciliation and Arbitration Act either federally or on a State basis in which case disputes would be dealt with as if they were disputes between an employer and an employee. One would seek to conciliate on the matter. If that did not achieve anything, one could then seek to arbitrate. Once one has done that, once one has coverage under industrial law, one then does not have easy access to common law. So one can stop this easy access to common law and stop the continual resort to common law by what now amounts to a growth industry involving lawyers seeking fancy cases in sport. To sum up, in response to the VFL which I believe has many concerns-concerns which are shared by many people in the community who enjoy following that code of football just as people enjoy following rugby league-the view we should take is to use the conciliation and arbitration system rather than the trade practices area to deal with such disputes. I commend that course of action to the VFL and to the House. Mr GOODLUCK(Franklin)(10.57) —I hope that my good friend, the honourable member for Stirling (Mr Ronald Edwards), supports the dolphins in Western Australia. They tell me that he has a very good dolphin area right next to his electorate. I am sure that-- Mr Ronald Edwards —It is further up the coast. Mr GOODLUCK —It is further up the coast. The honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan) is a typical woman-she is always a day late. I remind the honourable member that St Patrick's day was yesterday. However, the honourable member looks very nice. I would like to say just a few words on petrol. Mr McGauran —Tell us about that poem. Mr GOODLUCK —The poem? My friend the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment (Mr Cohen) and I got off to a pretty bad start. However, he has a good sense of humour. He can usually laugh at himself and I believe that he is a very good judge of poetry. The other day Miss Wendy Wicks had an open line Australian Broadcasting Corporation program on whether we should maintain the design of the present flag. A Mr Scruby talked about the flag. If Mr Scruby has his way, the Australian flag will not be flying from the new Parliament House in 1988. It will be another flag. I rang up, interrupted the program and read my little poem. Perhaps honourable members would like to hear it again. Just fortuitously, I have it in my drawer. Mr Cohen —I would rather you read it in here than wrote on lavatory walls. Mr GOODLUCK —Right; that is fine. I will read it. I think most honourable members will agree that it is a dashed good poem. As a matter of fact, I am applying for the copyright of it. The poem, which is entitled `Keep our flag', reads: Australians all please make a vow To keep the flag that we have now It's been our emblem over the years It represents our joys and tears. Our heritage is strong and true Why should we change to please the few Who would turn from all it represents For the ego of would-be presidents. Let's never forget the men so brave Who sacrificed their lives to save Australia and its freedom. Lest we forget their reason for dying Let's keep their proud flag ever flying. Does everybody like that? As a matter of fact, I have had so many requests from unusual people all over Australia who would like a copy of this poem. Mr McGauran —Bruce Ruxton was one of them. Mr GOODLUCK —Bruce Ruxton was one of them. There are other people, too, who wanted a copy of that poem. So, in fact, I could become very successful with that poem. Mr Cadman —You can send him a copy of Hansard now. Mr GOODLUCK —I will send him a copy. Incidentally, the poem is now in Hansard for the second time. I will read it into Hansard for a third time at a later date. I can see by the look on the Minister's face that he is impressed. As a matter of fact, I have always wanted to be an arty person. Does the Minister think he could recommend my poem to an arts board which could give a determination on whether it should be considered for some very important prize? It would please me greatly if he did so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted. Mr Cohen —I require the debate to be extended. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The debate may continue until 11.10 p.m. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment)(11.00) —Over the years that the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) has been here we have had a lot of his artistic pursuits. We have learnt, first of all, that he is a man who probably has the best bird calls of anybody in this House. In fact his bird calls are better than most of his speeches. We have seen him come in here in fancy dress and do his impression of a chicken. We have seen him do his impression of a parliamentarian for the last 11 years! We have seen him imitate Norman Gunston in his role as the little Aussie bleeder or battler, or whatever it is. But I do ask you-can I call him Bruce? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —No, I think you must call him the honourable member for Franklin. Mr COHEN —I ask: Please, no more poems. Question resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.01 p.m. The following notices were given: Mr Scholes to present a Bill for an Act to establish a council to govern the Australian Capital Territory with respect to certain matters and to make laws with respect to those matters, and for related purposes. Mr Scholes to present a Bill for an Act to enact certain transitional provisions, and to amend certain Acts, in consequence of the enactment of the Australian Capital Territory Council Act 1986. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to ensure that section 50 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 does not apply to certain acquisitions. Mr Lionel Bowen to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the law relating to trade practices. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Australian Wine and Brandy Corporation Act 1980, and for related purposes. Mr Kerin to present a Bill for an Act to repeal certain legislation relating to wine research, and for related purposes. Mr Hurford to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1922, and for related purposes. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 18 March 1986: Australian National University Act-Statute-No. 185-Termination of Academic Appointment. Remuneration Tribunals Act-Remuneration Tribunal-Determination-1986/2-Holders of public office on the Australian Trade Commission and other bodies. Seat of Government (Administration) Act-Determination listing fees and charges for the purposes of the Health Services Ordinance, dated 10 March 1986. The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 1441) Mr Blunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What advertising campaigns and research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Minister's Department since March 1983. (2) Did any other Government agencies advise or co-ordinate any of these campaigns or research studies. (3) If an advertising agency or market research firm was used (a) what was its name and (b) what amount was it paid. (4) What was (a) the cost and (b) in the case of advertising campaigns, the split between agency fees and actual campaign costs for each campaign or study. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The following advertising campaigns/research studies have been conducted or commissioned by the Department of Education since March 1983: A. (1) In October and November 1984, a campaign to inform the public about the Government's financial guidelines to the Commonwealth Schools Commission. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $7536. (b) Not applicable. B. (1) In September and October 1984, a campaign to encourage young people to stay in the education system and highlight benefits which were to be available during 1985 under various student assistance schemes. (2) Yes. The Department of the Special Minister of State. (3) (a) Connaghan and May Ayer. (b) $24,324. (4) (a) $364,633, provided by the Department of the Special Minister of State. (b) $24,324 and $340,309. C. (1) In January 1984 a survey of private overseas students in Australia was prepared for the Committee of Review of Private Overseas Students Policy. (2) No. (3) (a) MSJ Keys Young Planners Pty Ltd. (b) $23,384-20. (4) (a) $16,741-70. Balance of cost paid by the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. (b) Not applicable. D. (1) The National Survey of Language Learning in Schools was conducted in the final school term of 1983. The survey sought information on languages other than English taught at primary and secondary school level throughout Australia. It looked at student enrolments and the number of teachers teaching or potentially able to teach languages other than English. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. E. (1) In 1984, Dr Audrey N. Grant and a research team were commissioned to undertake a research project in adult literacy needs and provisions assessment. Entitled `Opportunity to do brilliantly: TAFE and the Challenge of Adult Literacy Provision in Australia', this paper identifies adult literacy needs which are not adequately met by current provisions according to the perceptions of the client groups, and examines innovative methods for meeting these adult literacy needs. The immediate purpose of the research report was to assist TAFE Council in its recommendations to the Commonwealth Government regarding adult literacy funding and provisions during the triennium 1985-87. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. F. (1) A research team consisting of Dr Edward Booth from Wollongong University and Ms Mary Kalantzis and Mr Bill Cope from Macquarie University was commissioned early in 1985 to undertake a project related to the professional development of teachers in contact with adolescents of non-English speaking backgrounds. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable. G. (1) The Institute of Applied Social Research, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland was commissioned in April 1984 to undertake the Metcalf/Vanclay study: `Analysis of readers' responses to questions about Commonwealth support for alternative lifestyles'. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $5,875 was provided for the study. (b) Not applicable. H. (1) In June 1984 a study was conducted on the feasibility of a youth co-operative training venture in Healesville, Victoria. (2) No. (3) (a) Michael L Ireland and Associates. (b) $20,000 has been spent. Several reports have been received-the final report is currently being prepared. (4) (a) $20,000. (b) Not applicable. I. (1) The Institute of Applied Social Research, Griffith University, Nathan, Queensland was commissioned in November 1984 to prepare a research report on the characteristics of alternative lifestyle participants-Metcalf/Vanclay report: `Social Characteristics of Alternative Lifestyle Participants in Australia'. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $7,500 was provided for the study. (b) Not applicable. J. (1) The Work Resources Centre, Australian National University, was commissioned in April 1985 to prepare a report-Williams report: `Working and Living Co-operatively-A Planning Guide'. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $11,800 was provided for the study. (b) Not applicable. K. (1) The Conference of Australian Youth Organisation (CAYO) was given grants in 1984-85 and 1985-86 for a youth outreach study-Tansky Report: `Outreach Youth Work in Australia-(An overview)'. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) $22,200 was provided for the study. (b) Not applicable. L. (1) The Centre for the Study of Higher Education at the University of Melbourne was commissioned in September 1984 to undertake the Powles study: `Financial Arrangements between Parents and Young People in TAFE'. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. (4) (a) A contract was signed on 6 September 1984 with a maximum of $40,000 for the project. $29,000 was paid to the Centre in 1984. (b) Not applicable. M. (1) In June 1984, a campaign to publicise International Youth Year. In January 1985 the proposed advertising campaign was discontinued. (2) Information Co-ordination Branch, Australian Government Advertising Service. (3) (a) The Campaign Palace (b) $31,289. (4) (a) $15,556 was expended on production costs and $29,230 and (b) on other non-media costs. N. (1) Between April and December 1984 Spectator Australia was contracted on a job by job basis to obtain corporate support for IYY. (2) No. (3) (a) Spectator Australia. (b) $106,992.44. (4) Not applicable. (Question No. 1512) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment, upon notice, on 20 August 1985: (1) What brands of computer or ADP hardware are in use in the Minister's Department and each authority for which the Minister is responsible. (2) For each major system (a) what is its principal function, (b) when was it installed, (c) what was the hardware cost, (d) what is its anticipated life and (e) what action is being taken in relation to its replacement. (3) Is any major system shared with any other user, if so, who and for what main purpose. Mr Cohen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment Central Office (1) AWA Sequel VMS/3260; various brands of micro-computers including NEC, AWA Corona and DEC. (2) (a) AWA Sequel-initially enabled a number of bureau-based computing applications to be consolidated onto a single facility and has further enabled the implementation of new applications to improve the internal and external functioning of the Department. (b) May 1984. (c) $499,000 (including upgrades). (d) 5 years. (e) None. (3) The Australian Heritage Commission maintains and operates its Register of the National Estate on the AWA Sequel. The departmental Library is the central entity of a library cataloguing union of environment related libraries; the cataloguing and enquiry system (ELSA) resident on the AWA Sequel is used by a number of the union members, primarily from within the portfolio, and the Victorian Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands. The Department also uses the computing facilities of CSIRONET for computationally intensive and special applications. Australian Archives (1) PRIME 9950; NEC micro-computer. (2) (a) PRIME 9950-provides support for essential operations of the Australian Archives in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Archives Act. (b) January 1985; peripheral equipment still is being installed in regional offices and repositories. (c) $2.04m over 3 years; there will be additional costs due to exchange rate variations but as yet these costs have not been finalised. (d) 5 years. (e) No action is yet planned; it is anticipated that the system will be upgraded at least once before replacement is considered. (3) No. National Film and Sound Archive (1) NEC micro-computers (2) NEC lap-type personal computers (5). (2) (a) Word processing. (b) Mid-1984. (c) $7,800 (2 micro-computers); $4000 (5 personal computers). (d) 3 years approximately. (e) Word processing will shortly be available on a multi-terminal NGEN system. (3) National Library's FACOM via remote Ericcson terminals to access FLICS (Film Locations and Information Control System) for film cataloguing and collection control. Australia Council (1) DEC 358; WANG 30. (2) (a) DEC 358-registration of grant applications, financial control, including general ledger and assets register, statistical reporting on Registry/Finance; WANG 30-word processing and label printing. (b) DEC 358-23 June 1977 with upgrades through to 5 February 1983; WANG 30-30 June 1980 with upgrades through to 24 June 1983. (c) DEC 358-$83,680 including cost of upgrades; WANG 30-$49,125 including cost of upgrades. (d) Early 1986 for both systems. (e) Both systems are being replaced with a new DEC VAX-11/70 mini-computer. (3) No. Australian Film Commission (1) Honeywell Level 6 Model 57; Honeywell Level 6 Model 53; Apple Macintosh (3); IBM PC (1); Honeywell 6/10 Micro systems (2). (2) (a) Honeywell Model 57-general accounting, production, costing, industry assistance and sales and stock control costing; Honeywell Model 53-automation systems (including word processing) and contract maintenance. (b) Model 57-January 1981; Model 53-June 1982. (c) Model 57-$151,325 (secondhand); Model 53-$55726 (secondhand). (d) 9 years (both systems). (e) As part of an ADP strategic plan, replacement consideration for both systems will be made during the 1987/88 financial year. (3) No. Australian Film and Television School (1) IMS; PRIME; IBM; Jacquard and ICL. (2) (a) IMS-database, word processing and spreadsheet; PRIME-accounting control functions; IBM-technical services planning; Jacquard-word processing; ICL-accounting control functions. (b) IMS-1980; PRIME-1984; IBM-1985; Jacquard-1979; ICL-1976 (c) IMS-$20,000; PRIME-$44,000; IBM-$7,310; Jacquard-$15,050; ICL-$17,362. (d) IMS-5-10 years; PRIME-5-10 years; IBM-3-5 years; Jacquard-5-10 years; ICL-currently being phased out. (e) IMS-none; PRIME-none; IBM-none; Jacquard-review of word processing needs currently being undertaken; ICL-currently being phased out. (3) No. Australian Heritage Commission (1) AWA supplied terminals and printer linked to Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment AWA Sequel VMS/3260. (2) (a) to maintain and operate the Register of the National Estate. (b) $18,000. (c) January 1985. (d) 10 years. (e) None. (3) The Commission's own equipment is not shared with other users. Australian National Gallery (1) WANG; AWA. (2) (a) WANG-works of art registration system; AWA-finance system. (b) WANG-October/November 1980; AWA-August 1985. (c) WANG-$120,000; AWA-$248,000. (d) WANG-5 years; AWA-10 years. (e) WANG being replaced by AWA computer. (3) No. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1) Hewlett Packard HP1000. (2) (a) Acquisition, management and dissemination of scientific information and data. (b) Early 1981/82 financial year; upgrades 1983 through 1985/86 financial year. (c) $41,966. Upgrades: $64,048-1983; $19,967 1984; $30,800-1985; $33,000 1985/86 financial year. (d) 10 years. (e) Purchase of later model HP1000 Series A900 model or HQ3000 model 39 is being considered for 1987. (3) A link to CSIRONET has been established to allow access to various software packages and data bases. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (1) DEC VAX-11/750, Hewlett Packard HP9845. (2) (a) DEC VAX-11/750-development of natural resource inventories (data bases) on the Great Barrier Reef. (b) June 1985. (c) $300,000. (d) 5-7 years. (e) None. (3) No. National Library of Australia (1) FACOM; Ericsson; IBM; Burroughs; Datapoint. (2) (a) FACOM-provides support for the Library's data processing activities, in particular the Australian Bibliographic Network. (b) 1980; upgraded 1983. (c) $3,858,000 approximately. (d) 10 years. (e) Replacement is dependent on assessment of capacity to serve the Library's computer needs. (3) Extensive use of the system is made by participants and dial-up customers of the Australian Bibliographic Network from all over Australia. The National Film and Sound Archive uses the Library's computer for the film control and accessioning system (FLICS). The MEDLINE medical information network is run jointly by the National Library and the Commonwealth Department of Health on the Department of Health's computer. The Library provides administrative support, trains users and conducts searches on the database. Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region (1) Hewlett Packard HP1000 (1 Jabiru, NT, 1 Sydney); HP86 (1); HP150 (1); KAYPRO Micro-computer (1); Apple Macintosh (2) Remington NBI Word Processors (6). (2) (a) HP1000 systems-scientific data acquisition, analysis, storage and retrieval (Jabiru); development of environmental models (Sydney). (b) 1981. (c) 1981-$90,000. Additional disk storage tape and terminals and software, processor upgrades: 1982-$51,000; 1983-$115,000; 1984-$39,000; 1985-$62,000. (d) 5 years. (e) Planning and evaluation with a view to calling tenders for replacement of the machine within the next 12 months. The new and old machines will run in parallel for several months while data bases are transferred. Some existing peripherals (disks, tapes, plotters, terminals) may be used with the replacement machines. (3) No. (Question No. 1688) Mr Jacobi asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 September 1985: (1) Further to parts (40) to (46) of my question No. 11 of 22 February 1985, dealing with the `fit and proper' person provisions of the Insurance Act, will he consider making provision for appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal when the Minister has objected to a person being appointed to manage the affairs of a body corporate. (2) Will he give consideration to proposing amendments to section 51 of the Insurance Act in line with section 54 of the Life Insurance Act so that (a) the Commission may demand in writing from any company information on any matter in connection with its business and (b) that the function of a Principal Officer, who would be the Chief Executive Officer, should be included as is provided for in the Life Insurance Act. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) As indicated in part (24) of my answer of 19 November 1985 to question No. 11, an examination is currently in progress regarding possible proposals to amend the Insurance Act to incorporate provisions concerned with oversighting the suitability of directors and owners of authorised insurers. In the course of this examination consideration will be given to the question of inclusion of an appeals provision of the kind mentioned by the honourable member. (2) I do not see any need for an amendment for the purpose mentioned in (a). In this regard it is relevant that sub-section 51 (1) of the Insurance Act 1973 already authorises the Insurance Commissioner, where he considers that an authorised insurer is unable to meet its liabilities, to direct that insurer to furnish specified information in writing concerning matters relating to that company's affairs. Sub-section 44 (9) and section 115 of the Act are also relevant in that they enable the Commissioner in the ordinary course of his administration, to obtain information on an insurer's operations. The question of an amendment to the Act in respect of the matter mentioned in (b) will be considered during the examination referred to in (1) above. (Question No. 1882) Mr Downer asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 18 September 1985: Can he indicate (a) what Australian companies currently trading with South Africa are in receipt of Export Market Development Grants and (b) what is the value of each such grant. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: I am unable to supply a list of Australian companies trading with South Africa as this and other commercial information is provided by companies on the understanding that it will remain confidential to the Australian Trade Commission. The secrecy provisions of the Australian Trade Commission Act preclude the Commission from divulging information in respect of the affairs of Export Market Development Grant (EMDG) claimants other than the names of persons to whom the Commission has authorised payments of grants and the respective amounts of those grants. This particular information has been published in the Annual Reports of the Export Development Grants Board (now incorporated into the Australian Trade Commission) since the inception of the EMDG scheme. (Question No. 1888) Mr Langmore asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 19 September 1985: (1) What are the provisions relating to the liability and indemnity in the port of Fremantle for visiting nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed ships and sub-marines. (2) What navigational controls are applied to other shipping during the time that nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed ships are entering or leaving Fremantle. (3) What provides the capability at Fremantle to remove a nuclear-armed or nuclear-powered vessel to a designated safe anchorage. (4) Where is the safe anchorage and how far is it from (a) Fremantle and (b) Perth. (5) What is the (a) name and safety organisation designated to carry out a radiation monitoring program at Fremantle and (b) names of those in charge of the organisation. (6) Is he able to say what procedures the organisation plans to use to safeguard the public in the event of a release of radioactivity following an accident at Fremantle. Mr Beazley —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I refer the honourable member to the answer given to part 3 of Question No. 629 in Hansard of 10 October 1985, page 457 on liability and indemnity arrangements which apply generally to visiting nuclear powered and nuclear weapon capable US and UK warships. (2) The only controls that apply during visits to Australia by conventionally-powered nuclear weapons-capable vessels of the USA and other allied navies are the normal operational ones of navigational safety and berth availability. These are applied in the knowledge that safety procedures on board nuclear weapons-capable warships effectively preclude the possibility of an accidental nuclear detonation. Nuclear Powered Warships (NPWs) are not permitted to berth or anchor in Fremantle Harbour, but must anchor outside in Gage Roads. Because Gage Roads is in open waters, additional navigational controls which would normally be adopted to ensure that no other vessel is in confined waters with an NPW entering or leaving a port are not necessary. (3) For nuclear armed warships, see the first part of the answer to question 2. When a capability to remove a nuclear powered warship is required under the 1982 revised conditions of entry, this is normally provided by a RAN tug. (4) (a) & (b) The remote anchorage for Fremantle (Gage Roads) is at 32* 02.6' South, 115* 39.9' East. It is at a distance of greater than 2 km from the shoreline and approximately 7 km from Fremantle and approximately 15 km from Perth. (5) (a) Safety arrangements for visiting NPWs including radiation monitoring and arrangements, are undertaken by State and Territory Governments with Commonwealth assistance. In the case of Fremantle and Cockburn Sound it is the Port Safety Organisation, which comes under the control of the Western Australian Government, which is responsible. It is assisted in radiation monitoring by the Australian Radiation Laboratory and the Australian Atomic Energy Commission. (b) The Minister for Emergency Services, Western Australian State Government. (6) As I indicated in the answer to Question 5 (a) safety arrangements are the responsibility of State and Territory Governments. In the event of a nuclear reactor accident the safety arrangements are detailed in the Port Safety Scheme for the port of Fremantle and Cockburn Sound which was prepared by the Western Australian Government. The honourable member should approach the Western Australian Government for details. (Question No. 2203) Dr Klugman asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 17 October 1985: (1) Are any Australian university departments (a) able to make and/or (b) interested in making a contribution to the US Strategic Defence Initiative Research Program. (2) Would these departments or universities require any Australian Governments permission to participate in the program. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) (a) I understand that the SDI Research Program encompasses a number of generic technologies applicable to a range of high technology products and processes. These include microelectronics, communications, new materials, laser and information technologies. As many Australian universities possess research expertise in these fields, they would, in theory, be able to make a contribution to the US Strategic Defence Initiative Research Program. (b) To date, I am not aware of any Australian university department being interested in making a contribution to the SDI Research Program. (2) No. Universities are self-governing bodies and Commonwealth Government permission is not required for them to participate in research programs which have the approval of the responsible university authorities. (Question No. 2223) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Is part of the prices and incomes accord an agreement to pay the expenses of unionists who travel overseas on official trade missions. (2) What other categories of Government overseas delegations or missions are unionists similarly paid for. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The practice of including trade union representatives in certain official trade missions does not arise from an agreement under the prices and incomes accord. However, the practice is consistent with the Government's policy of involving trade unions as well as business in its operational and consultative processes, including those related to international trade. Trade union attitudes in support of export have not been fully explored or utilised in the past and, generally, union attitudes have been remote from the mainstream of Government policy and Departmental operations. The trade union movement is important in Australia's efforts to revitalise export performance and hence to enhance employment opportunities. (2) Apart from trade missions there are no other overseas delegations or missions organised by the Department of Trade which involve representation by the trade union movement. (Question No. 2224) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 16 October 1985: (1) Will the Government be paying for all the expenses of the union members who are part of the wool textile mission going to China in November 1985, under the arrangements of the prices and incomes accord. (2) Will the business members of the mission have to pay for their own expenses. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) See my answer to Question 2223 (part 1). (2) Yes. As the Wool Textile Mission is expected to foster direct commercial benefits to the industries represented by the business members including their own companies, they will be required to meet their own direct costs of participation. The Government considers that the Mission will benefit from the inclusion of union representatives and will be meeting the costs of the union representatives. (Question No. 2586) Mr Lloyd asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 20 November 1985: (1) Why have freight forwarders been excluded from the revised Export Market Development Grants Scheme. (2) What amount was provided for freight forwarders in each of the 3 most recent years for which figures are available and who were the successful applicants. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The continued eligibility of freight forwarding services under the Export Market Development Grants (EMDG) scheme was considered during the review of the scheme last year and the decision was initially taken that they should be excluded as from 20 May 1985. However, in the light of representations received on this matter, I asked my Department to review the original decision in conjunction with the then Export Development Grants Board (now the Australian Trade Commission). This review has now been completed and it has been decided that freight forwarding services will not be excluded from the EMDG scheme. (2) The Export Development Grants Board did not maintain records of claimants by individual industry categories within the services sector and accordingly separate information on EMDG payments to freight forwarders is not available. Action has been initiated to improve the collection of statistical information under the EMDG scheme. This arose out of the review of the scheme and the information collected is to be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the scheme on an ongoing basis. This will give the Government access to more detailed information on the type of goods/services which firms are promoting and to which overseas markets. However it will not be possible to make information public in so far as it relates to individual claimants. In particular, the secrecy provisions in the EMDG legislation as now embodied in Section 94 of the Australian Trade Commission Act preclude the Commission from divulging information concerning the affairs of individual claimants. (Question No. 2799) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-Aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) Since March 1983 the Department of Education has continued to increase the number and range of identified positions requiring an understanding of Aboriginal culture and/or ability to communicate effectively with Aboriginals. Currently there are 336 such positions out of a total 2020 on the Department's establishment. The Department has also taken the opportunity to provide training opportunities through the National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) and the Community Employment Program. As at 1 October, there were 161 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people employed in the Department out of a total of 1502. This figure represents 10.7% of the Department's workforce, and is well in excess of the 1% (approximately) ratio of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the rest of the Australian population. In addition, the Department's Aboriginal Secondary Assistance Scheme and the Aboriginal Study Assistance Scheme support students enrolled in secondary and post-school education, thereby improving career opportunities for Aborigines in many sectors of employment. The way in which the services under these schemes are provided to Aborigines has recently been examined by a Departmental Working Party. The recommendations of the Working Party are still under consideration and cover: Staffing arrangements, including definition of the type of work and the levels and categories of staff required; Development of a policy on Aboriginalisation for the Department; and Development of training policies and programs for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal staff. (2) Available employment figures do not match the dates specified. However, the following figures will serve to represent the change in employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Department from 1982 to 1985: As at 1 October Full-time Perm- anent Temp- orary Part- time Total 1985... 101 39 21 161 1982... 35 14 5 54 (Question No. 2801) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: (1) What action has been taken by the Minister's Department since March 1983 to ensure that career opportunities for Aborigines and Islanders are increased to a level not less than the ratio of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population to the non-aboriginal population. (2) How many Aboriginal and Islander employees were employed in the Minister's Department at (a) 30 November 1985 and (b) 31 March 1983. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Aboriginal staff have been recruited to the Department of Trade during the last two years under the following arrangements: (a) the normal public service selection processes; (b) the Aboriginal Services Recruitment Program; (c) as National Employment Strategy for Aboriginals (NESA) trainees. The Department also participated in arrangements to redeploy Aboriginal staff when the National Aboriginal Conference Secretariat was disbanded on 30 June 1985. Several potentially surplus staff were offered positions in the Department of Trade. The Department's Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Plan which was lodged with the Public Service Board on 4 October 1985 outlines measures such as training/work experience opportunities and special induction arrangements which will provide more attractive career opportunities for disadvantaged groups. (2) (a) Three. (b) One. It should be noted that during the last two years two Aboriginal staff were promoted from the Department of Trade to other Departments, two National Employment Strategy Aboriginals (NESA) trainees took up other positions and one Aboriginal officer resigned. (Question No. 2828) Mr Tickner asked the Minister for Trade, 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 Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No instructions are issued by my Department directing officers towards the use of a particular domestic airline. The percentages during 1984-85 were: (a) 77.05%; (b) 22.80%; (c) 0.12%; (d) and (e) 0.03%. (Question No. 2912) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: Is the Curriculum Development Council taking any action to (a) conduct research on consumer education; and (b) seek the inclusion of consumer education in the curriculum at all levels of formal education; if so, what are the details? Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) The Curriculum Development Council has adopted a collaborative model of national curriculum development to ensure that its activities reflect the priorities of the Commonwealth and of State and Territory Governments. Current program priorities include language and learning, mathematics education, Australian Studies, Aboriginal education, education and the arts, and the education of girls. At present the Curriculum Development Centre has no projects operating specifically addressing consumer education issues. In 1979 the Curriculum Development Centre and the Department of Business and Consumer Affairs jointly funded a Consumer Education Study Group to overview the area and make recommendations. The report of this group was published and widely distributed in 1979-80. (b) The Curriculum Development Centre has in collaboration with some States and Territories conducted consumer education projects in the past, and student and teacher resources from these projects continue to be available from, and continue to be advertised by, the Curriculum Development Centre. These materials include: ``Being Poor in a Consumer Society'' (Student Book and Teachers Handbook). ``The Consumer in Society-Case Studies'' ``Consumerism and the Alternatives'' (Student kits plus teacher's notes). ``Dollar Decisions'' (Student board simulation/game). There has been a steady demand for these materials over the past few years. The Curriculum Development Centre currently has two avenues for making curriculum information available to the wider educational community. The Centre publishes on a periodical basis ``Curriculum Development in Australian Schools'', which has a print run of 40,000 and is distributed to all Australian schools. The Centre is a contributor to the Australian Curriculum Information Network, an electronic based information system established co-operatively by State and Territory education systems together with the Curriculum Development Centre. Significant issues and innovations in consumer education could be brought to the attention of schools through these media. (Question No. 2921) Mr Tickner asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 29 November 1985: What sums were or are to be paid to each non-government school within the Electoral Division of Hughes during (a) 1982-83, (b) 1983-84, (c) 1984-85 and (d) 1985-86. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The information requested has been incorporated into the following Attachments: Attachment A lists the amount of recurrent grants paid for non-government non-systemic schools in the Electoral Division of Hughes. Attachment B lists the amounts of recurrent funds allocated to non-government Catholic systemic schools in the electorate. General Recurrent Grants are paid on the basis of a calendar year not on the basis of a financial year. The amount for the 1986 calendar year is an estimate based on the schools' 1985 enrolments. Systemic schools are those schools administered by a System Authority. Grants are paid to the System Authority which allocates funds to schools according to their needs. Attachment A GENERAL RECURRENT GRANTS PAID TO NON-GOVERNMENT NON-SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF HUGHES Grants Paid School Name and Location 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $ $ $ $ $ Boys Town, Engadine... 58,020 66,246 48,626 50,360 54,520 Sylvania School, Kirrawee... 36,730 16,758 19,806 42,241 44,835 Sutherland Shire Christian School, Menai... 177,378 241,422 329,738 413,288 439,032 Inaburra High School, Menai... 105,092 245,100 371,070 475,316 480,342 Attachment B GENERAL RECURRENT FUNDS ALLOCATED TO NON-GOVERNMENT CATHOLIC SYSTEMIC SCHOOLS IN THE ELECTORAL DIVISION OF HUGHES Funds Allocated School Name and Location 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 $ $ $ $ $ St Joseph's Primary School, Como... 244,436 288,623 272,053 255,806 358,245 St John Bosco School, Engadine... 466,534 552,323 551,083 512,142 772,920 St John Bosco High School, Engadine... 444,297 603,185 575,083 782,141 824,208 Holy Cross School, Helensburg... 88,104 112,611 131,325 160,889 142,785 St Joseph's Primary School, Moorebank... 211,268 250,535 275,054 256,860 371,925 Christian Brothers College, Sutherland... 650,825 758,721 888,633 979,895 992,796 Mary Immaculate College, Sutherland... 797,852 990,049 1,031,524 1,271,741 1,043,640 St Patrick's Primary School, Sutherland... 424,771 503,440 460,046 427,886 593,370 (Question No. 3140) Mr Price asked the Minister representing the Minister for Education, upon notice, on 12 February 1986: (1) Is a major increase in the Secondary Allowance Scheme for years 11 and 12 students anticipated. (2) How many bursaries are offered by each State Government for years 7 to 10 and what are their values. (3) What income tests apply to the bursaries. Mr Dawkins —The Minister for Education has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The maximum benefit available under the Secondary Allowances Scheme (SAS) has been increased from $23.05 a week in 1985 to $35.00 a week in 1986, with family allowances absorbed into the new rate. In addition, the qualifying income limit for maximum benefit has been raised by 5 per cent to $14,995 for 1986. Because of these measures, it is estimated that the number of students who will receive SAS benefits in 1986 will increase from approximately 67,000 in 1985 to 78,000. (2) and (3) I am unable to provide the information on bursaries offered by each State Government. (Question No. 3177) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, upon notice, on 13 February 1986: How often does he meet with senior ministerial staff to discuss the co-ordination and promulgation of government policy and are minutes kept of the meetings. Mr John Brown —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: Meetings are held with senior ministerial staff as and when the need arises and it is not considered necessary to keep minutes of such meetings. (Question No. 3249) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: (1) How many repatriation beneficiaries were there in each State and Territory in (a) 1980, (b) 1981, (c) 1982, (d) 1983, (e) 1984 and (f) 1985. (2) What was the number of services supplied to beneficiaries in each of those years in each State and Territory. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The following tables show the two main populations of ``repatriation beneficiaries'' by State for the dates requested. Table 1A VETERANS AND DEPENDANTS IN RECEIPT OF A DISABILITY PENSION AND/OR A SERVICE PENSION AS AT 30 JUNE (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 (e) 1984 (f) 1985 New South Wales... 196,405 200,032 202,231 211,216 218,220 222,106 Victoria... 141,473 143,102 144,654 151,051 155,799 158,350 Queensland... 96,917 99,964 103,043 108,063 113,013 116,948 South Australia... 53,815 55,778 57,359 60,346 62,701 63,834 Western Australia... 47,369 48,422 50,078 52,718 55,456 57,408 Tasmania... 21,795 22,031 22,419 23,361 24,020 24,229 Overseas... 2,979 3,038 3,057 3,368 3,661 3,672 Australia... 560,753 572,367 582,841 610,123 632,870 646,547 Table 1B ESTIMATED NUMBER OF VETERANS AND DEPENDANTS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE MEDICAL TREATMENT AT DEPARTMENTAL EXPENSE AS AT 30 JUNE (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983 (e) 1984 (f) 1985 New South Wales... 117,000 118,000 121,000 124,000 126,000 129,000 Victoria... 83,000 83,000 85,000 87,000 88,000 91,000 Queensland... 54,000 55,000 56,000 59,000 61,000 63,000 South Australia... 30,000 31,000 31,000 32,000 33,000 34,000 Western Australia... 27,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 29,000 31,000 Tasmania... 13,000 13,000 13,000 13,000 14,000 14,000 Australia... 323,000 328,000 335,000 345,000 352,000 362,000 Notes: Statistics for Northern Territory and Australian Capital Territory are included with South Australia and New South Wales respectively. The treatment population in Table 1B is made up of veterans in receipt of a disability pension, service pensioners eligible for fringe benefits, war widow pensioners and certain non-pensioners who are eligible for full or limited treatment. Any discrepancies between totals and sums of components are due to rounding. (2) The following table details certain services provided at Departmental expense to entitled beneficiaries in the years ended 30 June: LMO consultations Private specialist consultations *Other LMO and private specialist services Out-patient attendances at Departmental hospitals for repat. beneficiaries (a) 1980 New South Wales... 1,133,007 367,107 165,557 Victoria... 735,801 163,849 158,584 Queensland... 392,930 126,257 99,863 South Australia... 177,422 27,399 69,903 Western Australia... 167,786 31,808 47,337 Tasmania... 95,580 13,250 35,663 Australia... 2,702,526 729,670 576,907 (b) 1981 New South Wales... 1,230,593 124,999 330,472 126,118 Victoria... 623,170 58,163 132,402 149,906 Queensland... 473,159 41,137 101,146 106,929 South Australia... 186,456 5,389 29,355 74,847 Western Australia... 182,352 4,641 16,460 45,595 Tasmania... 99,904 6,063 9,727 35,650 Australia... 2,795,634 240,392 619,562 539,045 (c) 1982 New South Wales... 1,169,192 163,499 434,334 125,313 Victoria... 735,542 63,330 148,789 156,633 Queensland... 513,616 44,809 137,388 96,214 South Australia... 205,448 5,320 35,779 80,403 Western Australia... 191,519 5,826 17,069 51,000 Tasmania... 98,366 7,842 11,042 34,133 Australia... 2,913,683 290,626 784,401 543,696 (d) 1983 New South Wales... 1,136,573 152,152 460,328 148,849 Victoria... 648,503 72,140 175,723 185,192 Queensland... 538,943 43,700 134,544 111,813 South Australia... 192,548 5,306 36,815 84,371 Western Australia... 186,556 7,675 17,468 55,128 Tasmania... 104,429 8,206 11,452 32,918 Australia... 2,807,552 289,179 836,330 618,271 (e) 1984 New South Wales... 1,263,136 148,298 491,570 150,627 Victoria... 732,809 74,133 196,423 183,360 Queensland... 479,789 55,874 158,729 122,829 South Australia... 203,212 5,472 43,594 86,247 Western Australia... 207,305 9,141 21,712 66,656 Tasmania... 106,047 8,276 13,762 32,752 Australia... 2,992,298 301,194 925,790 642,471 (f) 1985 New South Wales... 1,111,972 145,500 496,679 154,798 Victoria... 733,481 84,537 237,712 183,441 Queensland... 514,662 58,893 e...171,920 e...115,838 South Australia... 191,058 5,895 37,279 85,749 Western Australia... 184,729 10,362 17,141 105,573 Tasmania... 100,982 8,976 16,757 31,560 Australia... 2,836,884 314,163 e...977,488 e...676,959 e. estimate. LMO Local Medical Officer * LMOs and private specialists are authorised to perform those services listed in the Medicare Benefits Schedule, subject to prior approval by the Department in some cases. Statistics of `Other LMO and private specialist services' represent the number of such services other than consultation items. Notes: Statistics of private specialist consultations and other LMO and private specialist services are not available separately for the year ended 30 June 1980. Statistics for NT and ACT are included with SA and NSW respectively. Consultations and services provided as part of in-patient treatment in non-Departmental institutions are included in the relevant columns in this table. However, statistics relating to consultations and services provided in Departmental institutions are not maintained separately. Allied health services such as dentistry, podiatry, physiotherapy are excluded from the above table. Statistics of services provided cannot be directly related to the populations shown in part (1). Some recipients of pensions shown in Table 1A are not eligible for treatment at Departmental expense, e.g. dependants of incapacitated veterans, service pensioners not eligible for fringe benefits and dependants of service pensioners. In addition, certain clients in the treatment population shown in Table 1B receive treatment for service-related disabilities only. (Question No. 3250) Mr MacKellar asked the Minister representing the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 February 1986: How many accounts for payment for medical treatment of repatriation beneficiaries have been outstanding for (a) more than 6 months, (b) between 5 and 6 months, (c) between 4 and 5 months, (d) between 3 and 4 months, and (e) between 2 and 3 months at 18 February 1986 in each State and Territory. Mr Holding —The Minister for Veterans' Affairs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) Over 6 mths 5-6 mths 4-5 mths 3-4 mths 2-3 mths N.S.W. ... 88 29 49 57 117 Vic. ... . . 1 22 118 372 Qld ... 5 1 12 38 68 S.A. ... . . 1 . . . . 2 W.A. ... . . . . . . . . 3 Tas. ... . . . . . . . . . . Note: Statistics for N.T. and A.C.T. are included with S.A. and N.S.W., respectively. Most of these accounts relate to services provided by hospitals. Delays have occurred because claims have not been supported by sufficient documentation or there are doubts about the eligibility of the patient to receive services at the expense of the Department of Veterans' Affairs. The backlog of accounts for Local Medical Officers, Local Dental Officers, specialists and optometrists has been removed. As of 28 February 1986 there were only 10,709 treatment accounts from these practitioners to be paid. This is less than two weeks' intake of accounts for the whole of Australia. (Question No. 3272) Mr Jacobi asked the Minister for Health, upon notice, on 20 February 1986: (1) Further to his answer to my question No. 1386 (Hansard, 17 October 1985, page 2460) concerning the Model Food Act, have all States adopted the model; if not, (a) what is the reason for the delay and (b) will he introduce federal legislation to alleviate the problems. (2) Has the proposed National Food Standards Council of Ministers come into operation; if not, why not. Dr Blewett —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Model Food Act has been adopted in Queensland, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. In New South Wales, the final parts are before Parliament for passage in the Autumn Sittings. In the Northern Territory, the legislation is being drafted and in the Australian Capital Territory, the new Food Ordinance has been drafted and is presently with the Health Authority. There is therefore no indication of the need to introduce overriding Federal Legislation. (2) The Commonwealth/States/Territory Agreement to establish the National Food Standards Council of Ministers has recently been re-negotiated and has recently been considered by the Australian Health Services Council. It will be placed before the Health Ministers' Conference in the first week of April 1986. If endorsed it will be referred to the Prime Minister, Premiers and the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory for signature.