Thursday, 21 August 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 10 a.m., and read prayers. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia) —Madam Speaker, I seek your indulgence to raise a point of procedure. As you would know, during the presentation of the Budget on Tuesday night there was some disturbance in King's Hall. During and after that there seemed to have been a large number of police both within the precincts of this House and in places where they can only be with the approval of yourself and your colleague, the President of the Senate. I would ask you to advise the Parliament of the basis on which you now allow people access to King's Hall. It would seem to us on this side of the House that there are two fundamental obligations in terms of the exercise of your authority: The first is that honourable members can undertake their responsibilities within the chamber; the other is the extent to which members of the public should have access both to be able to contact honourable members and also to see at any time those of us who are participating in the deliberations of the Parliament. If there have been changes in the number and frequency of visits of the police, I think that honourable members should be told about it. I understand that on occasions action has been taken by your predecessors to close off King's Hall. So that we should all know the basis on which action is taken by you and what access is given to police, perhaps at an appropriate time you could give a statement to this House on the way in which security arrangements are now being conducted. Some of my colleagues have expressed some concern that policemen, not only in uniform but also in plain clothes, are about this place. Because of the limitations of the exercise of their authority in this place I think honourable members would be interested to know the basis on which they are operating and the extent to which you intend to permit them to do so. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I will take the matter on board and report back at a convenient time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I present a further special report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry which deals with the publication by the Commission of reasons for its ruling given on 5 August 1986 on the meaning of `misbehaviour' for the purposes of section 72 of the Constitution. Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Hayden: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(10.03) —Before the debate was adjourned yesterday I was saying that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty was basically a platitudinous treaty which covered many of the things already covered in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and that, indeed, when it was carefully examined the raison d'etre of this Treaty was really an attack on the French Government and its testing at Mururoa. I would like to emphasise that while I do not support the nuclear testing of the French Government at Mururoa-quite the contrary, I strongly deplore what it has been doing there-this Treaty creates very real problems for a number of our allies, particularly the United States of America and Great Britain, which were asked to sign the protocols of the Treaty. Forcing them-I suspect that will be the ultimate conclusion-to sign the protocols of this Treaty, will clearly generate some instability in our region because of the division and uncertainty which will then exist in the relationship between Britain, the United States and France. Instability in our region at a time when the region is changing substantially both economically and politically is the last thing we want. It is the last thing we want at a time when the Soviet Union is launching significant diplomatic initiatives in the region to gain a foothold and thereby create instability in a region which until now has been free of great power conflict. The second objection I have to the Treaty is that it amounts to the thin end of the wedge in the concept of nuclear free zones. At this stage under the Treaty the United States of America, the British and others will be able to send their ships, whether nuclear powered, nuclear armed or not, into the region; they will be able to visit our ports and the ports of other countries that wish to invite them or harbour their vessels. But the moral implication of the Treaty is that these ships should no longer proceed in our waters. It is not a fact that the Treaty says they cannot; quite the contrary, but the moral implication is the way the Treaty should at least go in the longer term. The United States and Britain have expressed concern about that aspect of the Treaty, but by contrast the Soviet Union has supported the Treaty for that very reason because, as it sees it, it will in the longer term keep the United States out of the region or minimise its role in the region. New Zealand has welcomed the Treaty. Mr Lange almost welcomed it too willingly when it was first drawn up by the Australian Government. Once more, that is indicative of the attitudes that are endemic in this Treaty. In other words, the Treaty is changing the intellectual debate in our region about the Western alliance and the balance of power in the region. The Opposition manifestly does not want to see that happen. The Treaty is also based on the assumption of moral equivalence, which assumes that the United States is as amoral or immoral as is the Soviet Union. That may be acceptable to some Labor members, but my Party and the vast majority of Australians totally reject that doctrine. We regard the United States as one of the bastions of liberal democracy, a country that stands for all we in this country stand for in the world and a country that will guarantee our stability and security. To undermine that role which the doctrine of moral equivalence does in this region is to undermine our own security. I support the Non-proliferation Treaty, I support anti-dumping measures, I support bans on testing, but I think that this legislation and this Treaty are an over-reaction to the French testing at Mururoa. These are matters for a balanced judgment. In this case the Australian Government and some other governments which have been forced against their wishes to sign this Treaty or will be forced to sign the protocols are making the wrong judgment. This Treaty is not in the longer term in the interests of the security of our nation or region. Debate interrupted. Madam SPEAKER —Following the debate in the House yesterday and with the approval of Mr Justice Murphy, I present to the House a copy of the medical certificate supplied to the Presiding Officers and the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry regarding the health of Mr Justice Murphy. Debate resumed. Ms McHUGH(Phillip)(10.09) —The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty or the Treaty of Rarotonga is the reason for the introduction of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. The Treaty has been criticised by some in that it does not go far enough. I remind those who offer that criticism that honourable members opposite in the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia actually oppose the introduction of the Bill at all. On the other hand, it is welcomed by many as a worthy first step and as a precedent. It is particularly welcomed by those of us who acknowledge another Australian Government initiative in international forums to convince the super-powers that many smaller nations are very wary indeed of so-called protection by nuclear weapons. It is a treaty that Australians can be proud of because with it we are joining the people of our region. South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Bill This Bill gives domestic legislative effect to certain of Australia's obligations under the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty and, as we have already said, it is supplemented by the amendments just passed by this House to the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Act 1981, relating to the dumping of radioactive waste, and the provisions of the yet to be introduced Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill 1986, relating to the application of safeguards to nuclear material which cover Treaty obligations referred to but not provided in this Bill. The Bill is quite specific in the application of this legislation. It makes it illegal to acquire, manufacture or carry out research and development relating to the manufacture or production of nuclear weapons. It prohibits the stationing and testing of nuclear weapons in Australia. The conditions of the Treaty require inspections in Australia by Treaty inspectors and this Bill establishes the legislative framework and provides the Australian Safeguards Office with powers to assist the Treaty inspector in carrying out those inspections. In this time of financial restraint this piece of legislation is not expected to have any financial impact on government spending at all. The South Pacific nuclear free zone was an initiative of this Government but the Treaty itself represents a collective effort by the 13 member countries in the forum. Every member country of the forum contributed substantially to the development and drafting of the Treaty and it was endorsed by the 13 heads of government. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said in his second reading speech: At a time when the world has little to point to by way of progress on arms control and disarmament, this Treaty has been welcomed by the international community and widely recognised around the world as a significant measure. He went on to say that the Treaty expressed a strong community of interest which members of the South Pacific Forum shared in environmental and security matters and reflected the deeply felt and long standing concern in the region about nuclear testing, the ocean dumping of nuclear waste and the horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons. The honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) said that we showed negligence towards the Pacific region. On the contrary, it is our Government which is listening, responding to and joining our neighbours in the region. This Treaty did not come out of the blue. The South Pacific Forum was established in 1971. Since then the South Pacific islanders have expressed clearly their opposition to such things as the testing of nuclear weapons and have opposed just as vigorously the dumping of nuclear waste in their region. The decision to test nuclear bombs and dump nuclear waste in the Pacific has been made by those who do not live in the places they choose for their explosions and their waste dumping. The nuclear atolls were the homelands for other people who hardly mattered and whose wishes could be disregarded-it appears by the Opposition in this place as well as by the super powers. The opinions of the other Pacific islanders were never taken seriously by the military authorities of all three testing powers in the Pacific-the United States, the United Kingdom and France. It is the islanders' long experience of this colonial attitude more than anything else that has united them in opposition on all things nuclear. How dare the Opposition refer to this as `a Mickey Mouse Treaty'. Honourable members should remember that none of the nations in the region has the military, industrial or economic muscle alone to be able to influence decisions made by the big powers and many of them are economically dependent on those very same powers. The United States considers its military presence in the region as necessary to defend its political and economic interests. It has warned the Pacific islanders against a nuclear free Pacific saying to newly independent countries such as Vanuatu and Kiribati that if they exclude United States nuclear propelled or armed ships from their territories, the ability of its forces to respond to contingencies would be severely hampered. What was once a United States defensive posture has now become a forward offensive stance to keep a constant pressure on the sensitive Soviet naval military communication and nuclear facilities in the North West Pacific. Both the Soviet and the United States arms build up in the region is making the Pacific the most militarised and nuclearised ocean in the world. The Pacific islands are caught in a situation not of their making and not in their interests. In an atmosphere of increasing tension and uncertainty they need care and creativity in determining their real interests and how to achieve them. This Government is responding to those concerns. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty can form the basis for that achievement. The shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), said that this Treaty was a threat to ANZUS. On the contrary, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs has said, this Treaty does not seek to undermine the factors that have created and sustained the very favourable security environment that the South Pacific enjoys. It does not in any way conflict with Australia's defence arrangements, notably ANZUS. It does not run counter to our support for stable nuclear deterrence. It does not impede in any way our ability to co-operate militarily with our allies. That is true of this Bill. On the contrary, the Treaty seeks to build on those factors by, for example, the provisions against nuclear weapons which will help to ensure that the South Pacific, unlike other parts of the world, does not in the future become a theatre of nuclear confrontation. What does the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty do and what does it fail to do? It prohibits the acquisition of nuclear weapons but Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Tonga, Tuvalu, Western Samoa and Kiribati have all signed the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons binding them not to have their own nuclear weapons, and Vanuatu declared itself nuclear-free in 1982. Article 3 of the Treaty also states what is already the case. Each country promises `not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere inside or outside the South Pacific nuclear free zone'. The honourable member for Mayo questioned why it was necessary to reiterate in this Treaty all those measures already agreed to. I ask: Why is it necessary to oppose it? In my opinion, the most significant article in the Treaty is article 5 which bans the stationing of nuclear weapons-a provision which I believe goes beyond the non-proliferation Treaty. This ban closes off options for the super-powers, and not just the United States of America, in the future. Providing the South Pacific states adhere to the Treaty, nuclear weapons bases will not be allowed on their territory. There exists, however, a loophole in article 5 which gives de facto home porting to nuclear armed vessels. Nuclear weapons could be stationed more or less permanently in the harbours of Pacific countries, if not actually on their soil. Nothing in the Treaty will stop vessels from staying in port for considerable lengths of time. This loophole could be closed, however, if a definition were included of the word `stationing' so as to prevent this de facto home porting. As has been proposed by Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea, such a definition should include a time limit on the presence of nuclear weapons in ports. Article 6 represents the original reason for recognising the need for the Treaty-that is, the testing of nuclear devices by the French. I am deeply concerned that our commitment to the spirit of the Treaty can be questioned if we sell uranium to France. There is no doubt that in contributing to France's nuclear power industry we cannot ignore the fact that that industry includes the production of nuclear weapons and that they are tested in the South Pacific. Article 7 covers the other nuclear activity resented for so long by the Pacific islanders-that is, the dumping of radioactive waste at sea. The Opposition says that it too is against the dumping of radioactive waste at sea, yet it opposes this Treaty. Protocol 2, article 2, requires the five nuclear weapons powers-the United States of America, the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and China-to promise not to use or threaten to use any nuclear weapon against these South Pacific countries which have signed the Treaty. The most significant advance made at the forum just concluded is securing agreement on the protocols for the nuclear weapons states. The success of the Treaty as it now stands will be in securing the signature of the five nuclear weapons states. The progress made in this direction is already most encouraging. The Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and China have stated that they are favourably disposed to signing the protocols. France is still opposed and no definitive reply has yet been received from the United States or the United Kingdom. It does not sound like progress but, compared with the situation 12 months ago, progress has been significant indeed, and it is because of this Treaty. Unfortunately, the Treaty in no way restricts the firing of nuclear weapons from the zone. A United States nuclear submarine could fire at the Soviet mainland from within the territorial waters of most island states without violating the Treaty, and this aspect is most disturbing. Given the deployment of the United States Trident submarine system in the Pacific, with its deadly accurate firepower, the instability of the area will grow more serious as more and more nuclear missiles are added to the Pacific arsenal and Soviet and American nuclear submarines traverse the region at will. To strengthen this part of the Treaty would require only the addition of an article to protocol 2 to include a ban on the use of nuclear weapons from the zone as well as against the zone. The ultimate objective for the South Pacific must therefore be a comprehensive nuclear free zone in which true denuclearisation could take place. Such a situation would not only prohibit the activities laid down in the Treaty but also would prohibit many other nuclear activities such as the testing of missiles, the transit of nuclear weapons on ships and submarines within territorial waters, nuclear-powered vessel transit and port calls, nuclear weapons, transit on aircraft through territorial airspace, the maintenance of nuclear command, control and communications facilities, joint exercises with nuclear armed forces, the export and processing of nuclear fuels, the storage of nuclear waste and the disposal of such waste on land. As Greenpeace has said of the Treaty: The South Pacific Nuclear Fee Zone Treaty is a valu- able first step along the road to comprehensive denuclearisation, and offers the world a precedent for other such treaties. It should be welcomed for these reasons. It should not be opposed, as it has been by the Opposition, particularly as it is a precedent. Once the ratification of the Treaty has taken place, the task ahead is to work to strengthen it. The most important change that should be made to the Treaty as soon as possible is the inclusion of a ban on missile testing. This could be achieved by adding a new protocol asking nuclear weapons states not to test nuclear missiles in the zone. For a long time the Pacific island states have been opposed to missile testing by China and the Soviet Union in the South Pacific, and I should like to remind the House that it was the Labor Government that decided not to offer support to the testing of the MX missile by the United States. This courageous and correct stand was clearly supported by the Australian people, and I am convinced that the Australian people will support us if we stand by our policy not to sell uranium to France. Australia is held in high regard by our Pacific neighbours. They look to us to use our influence on the super-powers in regard to the testing of nuclear bombs and nuclear missiles and the dumping at sea of radioactive waste. I regret, and I am sure that they will regret, the Australian Government's announcement to resume sales of uranium to France. The Opposition belittled those of us who held this position within the Party. The honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) sneered at us for following the Party line and making flowery speeches because our bread and butter depended upon it. How dare the Liberals, in coalition with the extreme right-wing Nationals, talk about morality on this issue! How dare the Opposition, which supports Star Wars, the testing of MX missiles in this region and the United States in its policy here-I remind the Opposition that the United States is not very discriminatory about its friends and enemies when it comes to bread-and-butter issues such as trade-belittle our stand in this matter! Nuclearism cannot be separated from colonialism in the Pacific region. As long as islands such as Tahiti, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futura are still colonised, the Pacific cannot become a truly nuclear-free and independent zone. The Labor Party and the Labor Government firmly believe that the principles of self-determination and independence should apply to non-self-governing Pacific territories. Our total support must be given to those Pacific neighbours who are still in the chains of the colonial powers. No nation can preach about democracy, freedom or justice when it also maintains colonialism. In a colonial situation there is no democracy and there is no freedom. In accepting the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the countries of the South Pacific Forum have created an opportunity for themselves to make a major contribution to their own security and to world peace. We are setting a precedent and we are proud of so doing. We are part of that contribution and this Bill will make our contribution even more effective. I commend the Bill to the House. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.25) —We have just had some evidence to back up my opening statement: Given that the agenda and rhetoric of our nation's peace efforts are almost entirely dominated by articulate and passionate advocates from the Left and utopian circles in the churches, it is a very risky business these days to criticise a piece of legislation such as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill which we are debating here today. I would be failing in my duty to this Parliament, to my electorate and, indeed, to my own children, who will inherit the security environment which we are today involved in shaping, if I did not inform this House today that this Bill and the Treaty upon which it is based not only will not contribute to the prevention of nuclear war but also will, by the deceptive language and false assurances, significantly distract us from, and hamper us in, the real work of the diplomacy of peace and freedom in the South Pacific. There are three significant threats to the stability and peace of the South Pacific region. The first arises from the struggles of Pacific nations to develop viable economic bases for their communities. Recently, for example, Stuart Inder of the Bulletin, commenting on the trip of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) to the region, identified trade, labour, finance and immigration as the bread and butter issues that most occupy the attention of the South Pacific nations. The second threat arises from the evolution in the newly independent states of their own political systems and foreign policy. Quite simply, many of these states are facing internal debates and external pressures over, for example, whether they should align themselves with the West or with the Soviet bloc, or seek to play the dangerous game of playing the super-powers off against each other. The third threat arises from a combination of these two vulnerabilities-the one economic, the other political, and is posed by the desire of the Soviet Union and its proxies, Cuba and Libya, to gain a foothold in a region which would significantly shift the balance of power in the Pacific and the globe. One would have thought that the Foreign Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, having returned form the South Pacific in May, would have brought before us an integrated policy statement based on these economic, political and strategic threats to peace-a statement for this country to follow or a policy for fulfilling its responsibilities to the region and for pursuing its own national interests. He did not. Instead he brought before us this Bill, pursuant to the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. There are a number of ways we should interpret this Government's advocacy of the Treaty and this Bill. First, it satisfies the need, I believe, of some Labor politicians for that well-known inner glow and for the self perceptions of clean hands in a dirty world, and reflects their tendency to offer us mere moralisms and platitudes whenever they try to move beyond a statement of the problems of a nuclear world towards practical steps and solutions. Secondly, it mollifies the vocal critics from the Left and in some churches. In that sense, this Bill is a sign of philosophical and political exhaustion in the face of the continuing campaigns of the pacifists and neutralists. Thirdly, it represents the last resort of an inadequate statesman who, having failed to influence the underlying political and economic regional factors, now seeks satisfaction in the superficialities of a treaty which formalises moral and diplomatic platitudes. This Bill reveals that the Minister still does not realise that any efforts to deal with weapons rather than the underlying political conflicts are misguided and futile. It reveals that the Government is not heeding the lessons of history. This Treaty and Bill are in the tradition of the Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928, which involves a declaration from all the major powers of the day of the renunciation of war. The authors of that pact believed that it `marked a new date in the history of mankind' and declared: We have made peace at last. The Minister appears to follow in the footsteps of Briand and Kellogg in placing faith in a vacuous declaration of principle. The Minister must realise that this Treaty, like all others, contains an unwritten clause. Where a signatory perceives that substantial changes develop in its security conditions as they existed at the time the Treaty was signed, the obligations established are altered and allow unilateral withdrawal. In international relations and law, that fact is encapsulated in the Latin as `pacta surt servanda, rebus sic stantibus'-`treaties are to be observed, unless things change'. That is, in the last instance, for example-Vanuatu, mentioned by the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh)-could offer bases to the Soviet fleet if it thought that it was in its security interests, notwithstanding its ratification of this Treaty. The final reason why I must urge the House to oppose this Bill is that I believe that it is a concession to those who seek to subvert public acceptance of our alliance with the United States, our support for the West's diplomatic and political objectives in our region, our support for nuclear deterrence, and our active opposition to the Soviet Union, its proxies and its political system. Notwithstanding our feelings about the horrors of nuclear warfare, or the moral qualifications that we place on our acceptance of nuclear deterrence, we should never apologise for that acceptance, nor should we ever concede directly or, as in this Bill, indirectly, the moral equivalence myth, which has been mentioned by the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer), which suggests that the United States is as great a threat to peace and freedom as the Soviet Union. Clearly, this Bill and the Treaty will strengthen the morally simplistic case and rhetoric of those who tell our young people that their peace is threatened by the presence of the United States Pacific fleet in our region and ports-a very sad state of affairs. Leon Wieseltier, in a superb contribution on nuclear peace and nuclear war, has argued: The struggle between democracy and totalitarianism did not end in 1945, because it is a struggle between different answers to some of the most important questions of human life. The nuclear danger has not robbed these questions of their urgency. What is necessary- he warns us- is to proceed with the historically urgent task of nuclear disarmament in a manner that will not have an effect upon the historically urgent task of resisting the Russians. This Bill fails to address that balance between these two tasks in our region and would effectively undermine such a balance. Australia has ratified the non-proliferation treaty and the London dumping convention, so there should be no doubt that we have already adequately addressed the concerns which appear to be priorities in the minds of those who might find the Treaty and this Bill attractive. In that regard, the Treaty and the Bill are superfluous. But let me go further. I repeat that this Bill will not prevent nuclear war in our region because it does not address those factors which would provoke the use of the weapons systems which we all know are so destructive. Nor will the Soviet Union mellow in its attitudes to the geopolitical opportunities which are presenting themselves in our region, among others, because of this Bill. It will take the Bill as further evidence of the weakening of the moral and psychological preparedness of this country to uphold its own and the West's interests in the region. Not enough has been given to preserving peace and strengthening stability and freedom in our region. Not enough thought has been given to the impact of the rhetorical concessions which this Bill involves to those articulate advocates of appeasement, neutralism and pacifism, on the Government's ability in the future to muster public support, especially among young people, for our support for the United States and nuclear deterrence. In that regard, this Bill reflects this Government's sorry record of one step forwards, and two steps backwards in the way it handles our alliance and the promotion of that alliance publicly. I am sure I will be attacked publicly for what I have said in opposition to this Bill. Those who claim the sole rights to the title of peace activists in this country usually deal harshly with those who disagree with their line. My fear is that our nation is being mislead about the things that make for peace in our day and region. I believe that this Bill will further mislead it. I have a picture in my mind of Christ weeping over the impending destruction of Jerusalem. His contemporaries, he said, did not know the things that really made for peace. I must therefore oppose this Bill. Mr MAHER(Mr Lowe)(10.37) —I would like to make a contribution to the debate on the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. I commend the honourable member for Phillip (Ms McHugh), who has been a colleague of mine for some years. I believe nobody in our nation is more genuine and sincere in opposition to nuclear weapons, nuclear arms and uranium sales, and I thought her contribution today was masterly. I have been disappointed with some of the contributions made by my colleagues in the Opposition. If they see the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty as a moral and diplomatic platitude, that is disappointing. But all honourable members of Parliament and all Australians must have a commitment to disarmament, to reduction in the arms race and to the prevention of war and hostilities. I believe that if a nuclear war starts it could result in the destruction of the human race on this planet. I believe in the theory of nuclear winter. I believe that, once one side starts using nuclear weapons, the human race as we know it can be in danger of extinction and nowhere in the globe will be safe. Even if this is only a small step, even if it is only a treaty, as the Opposition keeps saying, we should nevertheless give it our support and invest it with goodwill because it is something to hang on to and it is a start in our region. We live in the South Pacific, an important new part of the world, where many island states are emerging, many of them with very small populations, smaller that my own electorate in Sydney. Some of these nations have very limited finances and natural resources and they look to Australia as the richest nation in the region and a nation which can sometimes guide them. We have all heard of the background to the Treaty. I wish to make a few preliminary remarks about nuclear matters. The first point is that many Australians have experienced a nuclear explosion. Literally thousands of Australians were prisoners of war in Japan in 1945. These people went through the trauma of nuclear bombs going off in their region where they were imprisoned, in camp or held in custody. A doctor in my electorate, Dr Ian Duncan, who is now retired, has examined many of those returned servicemen and found that they have a very high rate of medical illness compared with other returned servicemen of the same age. They have a lot of traumas, psychiatric problems and nervous conditions. There is almost a 50 per cent increase in all of these areas among such returned servicemen as distinct from the other groups of former prisoners of war who were not subject to a nuclear attack. I want to put to bed one commonly held belief that the nuclear explosions in Japan ended the war. All historians of any standing refute the theory that it was the atomic bombs that ended the war. Is there a greater authority than Winston Churchill whom I could quote for the Opposition. He said that it was really not the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan that ended the war. Churchill stated: It would be a mistake to suppose that the fate of Japan was settled by the atomic bomb. Other historians agree entirely. The American bombing of the Japanese cities forced the end of the war. It was about to happen. The atomic explosions may have precipitated it by only a day or two. The British historian Liddell Hart said: The atomic bombs in August merely confirmed what most of the Japanese people, except for military fanatics, had already come to realise. So the notion that atomic bombs win wars or stop wars is in my opinion wrong. But the Australian Government has agreed to peaceful uses for uranium. We are a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Our uranium is sold for peaceful purposes around the world. Some nations-France, Belgium and other European countries-generate half of their electricity from nuclear reactors. The International Atomic Energy Agency closely supervises the use, the reprocessing and the disposal of nuclear waste. No other industry in the world is as closely checked and supervised as is the nuclear industry. Nuclear power is cheap. It enables many countries to sell their products very competitively around the world because they can obtain cheap power. In Germany, the electrical unions almost encourage the use of up to 10 per cent nuclear power because they say it is a subsidy on the cost of generating electricity from coal. Also, in Europe there are enormous problems with acid rain. Basically for me the need is to preserve the fossil fuels around the world because of their use in making pharmaceuticals. They are not replaceable fossil fuels and they have other uses besides generating power. Another argument in favour of nuclear power is that extracting coal to generate electricity is a very dangerous business. We know of the recent appalling accident in Queensland where 12 men were killed. In the Sydney Morning Herald of 17 July, there was a long catalogue of hundreds of people who have been killed in coal mine disasters in our nation over the course of time. But these matters aside, the big argument against nuclear power and using uranium to generate electricity is the toxic waste-the danger of handling used and spent fuel. I believe people hold genuine fears that the uranium used for peaceful purposes will be used in warheads and be used in war. My inquiries have led me to believe that this fear is hard to sustain. There are such checks, counter-checks, investigations and an enormous web of inspectorates that any nation that is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty really can be assured that its uranium will not find its way into warheads. If a nation wants to make plutonium, there are much simpler ways to make it than to try to extract plutonium from spent fuel in a nuclear reactor. There are more simple ways that plutonium can be manufactured. The Treaty we are debating today is one of the treaties that follows on from a number of others around the world. As the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) said, the first treaty of great significance was the Treaty of Tlatelolco in South America in 1967, which followed the Antarctic Treaty in 1959 which made the Antarctic a nuclear free area-an area which should not be militarised. The South American Treaty preceded in 1967, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 1968 and the Seabed Arms Control Treaty in 1971. The Treaty we are debating today contains a number of important clauses. Firstly, it provides that no South Pacific country which becomes a party to the Treaty will develop, manufacture, acquire or receive from any others any nuclear explosive device. Australia has already renounced this right, as have most of the other nations which have signed the Treaty-the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Niue, Tuvalu, Western Samoa and Papua New Guinea. The Treaty also provides that there should be no testing of nuclear explosive devices in the South Pacific; that there will be no stationing of nuclear explosive devices in the territories of the existing states; and that nuclear activity in the region, including the export of nuclear material, will be conducted under strict safeguards to ensure its exclusively peaceful and non-explosive use. Australia has already signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and has pledged to ensure that our uranium which is sold to European countries or Japan is not used for other than peaceful, non-explosive use. The Treaty seeks to prevent the dumping of radioactive material at sea in the region. Other matters have been canvassed by my colleagues and I will not delay the House by raising them. I am disappointed that the Opposition is not taking the opportunity to support this legislation. Our membership and support of the United States alliance is a cornerstone of the Australian Government's foreign policy. The United States has three bases in our nation which are joint facilities. To talk about moral pressure on the United States, as one member of the Opposition did, is absolute nonsense. No nuclear nation admits that its vessels are carrying nuclear weapons. There is no question that United States vessels cannot visit Australia. They can visit Australia at any time, as that is specifically provided for in the Treaty being debated in the House today. I commend the legislation to the House and I ask the Opposition to have another look at the whole proposal. It is not enough to use rhetoric and attack the Treaty because it talks about a nuclear free zone. The Liberal and National parties supported the nuclear non-Proliferation treaty when they were running this country. They agreed not to have nuclear weapons in our nation. They agreed not to have nuclear weapons stationed or manufactured here. Because of this, I feel there is a certain degree of hypocrisy in Opposition members saying that they oppose this Treaty. Mr MILES(Braddon)(10.48) —The honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) said that all people should give a commitment to peace and disarmament and that is certainly true; the Opposition is committed to peace in this nation and the world and it is committed to disarmament. The real question faced by the world, Australia and this Government is how to achieve that objective. That is what this debate is really all about. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) stated in his second reading speech: The purpose of the . . . Bill is to give effect to certain obligations that Australia has as a party to the Treaty on a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone. How long will it be and what number of governments will Australia have to have before we realise that many international agreements are more of a hindrance than a help to this nation? I fully applaud the efforts made by leaders of this and other nations to seek co-operation, harmony and goodwill, but it should not be at any price. This legislation is one of many pieces of legislation which has its raison d'etre in the obligation to fulfil an international agreement, or an agreement with other nations around the world. Other pieces of legislation based in recent years on international covenants have caused anguish and anger to many Australians. I mention a couple of them: The World Heritage Properties Conservation Act and the Australian Bill of Rights Bill, both of which are based on interna- tional agreements. Too often agreements are entered into without the broad approval of the majority of State governments, let alone the Australian people, and too often they impose obligations on Australia that in hindsight run contrary to our best interests. Forcing through legislation that has been developed in international committees often leads to government by remote control-and remote control outside this nation. People from the more distant parts of Australia find it hard enough accepting decisions made in Canberra, let alone Rarotonga. It would not be as hard to swallow if one could rationally accept that they were to our benefit. It is sad to say that so often they are not. No one in charge of all their powers of reason could say that this Bill, if passed, would maintain our security arrangements, let alone enhance them. How plausible is this Government which only six weeks ago reaffirmed its policy not to sell uranium and which, in the Budget only this week, said that it will sell uranium? The Government is all over the place on that issue. Overnight the yellowcake issue has become a hot potato. The same argument applies to foreign affairs and the Government's approach to peace and security. The Government is all over the place. Does the Government believe that the United States is our ally? Does it believe in the Western democracies, as the coalition does? What does the Government really believe? After such an about face on what was a basic plank in Australian Labor Party policy, the Australian people cannot trust that this Government is genuinely interested in protecting the national security of this nation. How can we believe that the reasons given by the Government in seeking to maintain peace by this legislation are genuine? This legislation is just another way of fracturing long established ties with America that may well set us adrift into a sea of uncertainty and insecurity. Pass this legislation and it will become the launching pad for further attacks on our security. It was interesting to note in the Australian today just what is going on in New Zealand-a country which wanted to maintain contact with the people of the United States in the form of ANZUS but which is still virtually denying the fact that New Zealand is out of ANZUS. A New Zealand defence inquiry committee report is about to be released today indicating that when the New Zealand people are given a choice between remaining in ANZUS and not allowing ships carrying nuclear warheads into their ports, they prefer to stay in ANZUS. When the chips are down, they believe in the Western alliance and in a definite defence system. It is interesting to see the response of the peace groups. I am for peace, as I said earlier, but there are many people who are very naive about the way in which we can maintain world peace. It is interesting to see the tactics used by the peace groups. The Australian today reports: Peace group spokesmen last night gave an indication of the tactics they would adopt to undermine the report. The article points out that the spokesmen would say that the way in which the poll was taken was faulty and they would attack the way in which the survey was carried out. The article continues: The peace groups consider the committee placed too much weight on poll results, rather than the weight of submissions presented by concerned groups. How long do we in Australia and the South Pacific have to go on listening to small minority groups of so-called concerned citizens? They are concerned, but they are minorities. They are prepared to attack the fundamentals of our defence system in this region. This shows that the unreality of the present Federal Government exists in New Zealand in the same way. Mr Lange still claims to retain membership of ANZUS, and yet only in the last few weeks New Zealand has been told that it is not part of ANZUS. Mr Lange exists in a world of unreality by still believing that he is protected by that alliance. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) said yesterday that the Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr Lange, regards this Treaty as a first step. A first step to what? It is not a final statement of position in regard to our defence but a cornerstone in putting in place policies that ultimately ban the transit, visit or navigation of any nuclear aircraft or ship through our region. That is what it is all about. Mr Hand —Hear, hear! An excellent idea. Mr MILES —The honourable member for Melbourne says that that is what it is all about. He wants to ban all these contacts and set Australia adrift from the Western alliance. The coalition is firmly committed to the values of that Western alliance. We know where we stand on this matter, as do the Australian people. We are firmly convinced that it is the right place to stand. The Government does not know where it stands on these types of issues. The coalition is committed to a whole range of positive steps for this nation. Let me mention just a few. I refer to individual freedom, enterprise and self-reliance, success and excellence, compassion, family security and, last but not least, national security. What value is there in trying to develop these good, positive qualities in a nation if we do not have external security? Once national security is diminished, fractured and ultimately broken, family security and all the other strong positive qualities that should be the goal of any federal government fade into the background as all the energies and resources are focused on rebuilding the nation's external security. Twenty-four months ago we still had ANZUS intact. It is now defunct. Professor Harry Gelber said earlier this year: Official America thinks about Australia at two levels. At one-the operational-Australia remains a firm established ally. At the other there is widespread American concern at a lack of reality in much Australian thinking! That typifies what Americans think of the present Australian Government. There is a lack of reality in that the Government wants to have things both ways. It cannot be done that way in this world of ours. That lack of reality of which Professor Gelbar speaks is the product of this Government. That is what this Hawke Government has done to Australia. It has developed in the American mind a feeling of unease as to where Australia does stand. Mr Webster —With good reason. Mr MILES —Certainly with good reason. We are reminded of the MX missile crisis 18 months ago. That crisis not only led to the fracturing of our relationship with the United States of America, but also fractured our economic relationship and our viability as a nation. It is that which tipped off the devaluation of the dollar, as most Australians know. This legislation will further erode the confidence and trust of the United States in Australia. Any serious rupture with the leader of the Western nations, the United States, should not be taken lightly. The Opposition does not take it lightly. We are convinced of where we stand on maintaining peace, and it is not down this track under the form of legislation that is now being proposed to the House. The present Government does not want to maintain the security which has been developed over many years by this nation under former governments. The Government is here to provide a platform for people to get a foot in the door to argue against those alliances, and it will be to the detriment of this nation. We should make sure that this type of legislation is rejected and we should affirm our strong position in the Western alliance. Mr LANGMORE(Fraser)(11.00) —I wholeheartedly welcome the introduction into the Parliament of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill which, together with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Bill and the Environment Protection (Sea Dumping) Amendment Bill forms a legislative package designed to give effect to Australia's international non-proliferation obligations, under various treaties, including the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Treaty of Rarotonga. This Bill will contribute measurably to increasing Australia's national security. Australia is the first country to introduce legislation of this type and the introduction of this Bill to the Parliament is, I believe, indicative of the seriousness with which this Government takes arms control issues. The package of Bills goes far beyond the minimum technically required for the purposes of ratification of the Treaty of Rarotonga and will, I hope, give encouragement to other countries in the South Pacific to ratify that Treaty. Ratification will enable it to be deposited with the United Nations along with the Treaty of Tlatelolco, the Latin American nuclear free zone treaty, as a reminder to the international community of the determination of the peoples of the Pacific to rid this region of nuclear dangers. Article VII of the Treaty for the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons recognises the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties so as to ensure the total absence of nuclear weapons from their respective territories. The South Pacific region has borne the brunt of the nuclear age. From the mining of uranium and the testing of nuclear weapons and delivery systems, to the visits of nuclear ships and the disposal of nuclear waste, the Pacific has been involved in all aspects of the nuclear cycle. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was launched from the Micronesian island of Tinian. Many residents of Bikini and Rongelap Islands suffered tragically as a result of United States nuclear testing in Micronesia. The Polynesians of Tahiti also suffer increased health problems and dislocation of their economy and society as a result of French nuclear testing. The French bombing of the Rainbow Warrior last year drew world attention to the South Pacific islanders and their anti-nuclear aspirations. It also illustrated the lengths to which the French Government will go to cover up the effects of nuclear testing in the Pacific. This is one important reason why Australia should not export uranium to France. I believe that the proposal to sell uranium to France would be inconsistent with this opposition to French action. Not only do the French continue testing, despite the opposition of all countries in the region, but they also refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty or to take part in serious arms control or disarmament negotiations. Continued nuclear testing by the French Government has provoked increasingly strong opposition from all Pacific governments, whatever their political orientation. Threats by the Japanese Government to dump nuclear waste off the Northern Mariana Islands in the late 1970s led to unprecedented protests from island leaders throughout the region. In short, the nuclear issue is one of the most unifying issues in the South Pacific, and the region is one of the most sensitive areas of the world to nuclear issues. Thus it is not surprising that the South Pacific region should become the second inhabitated region after Latin America to introduce a treaty aiming to limit nuclear activities. The negotiation of this Treaty has a long history and its final form is a compromise. Nevertheless, its coming into force will represent an advance in arms control measures of regional and global significance, particularly if the five nuclear powers can be convinced to sign its protocols. The initiative for a nuclear free zone in the South Pacific was taken by the New Zealand Labour Prime Minister, Norman Kirk, in the early 1970s. At the 1975 United Nations General Assembly a resolution sponsored by New Zealand, Fiji and Papua New Guinea, urging the creation of a South Pacific nuclear free zone, was carried. However, with the demise of Labor government's in Australia and New Zealand in the mid-1970s, the proposal did not resurface until the Canberra meeting of the South Pacific Forum in 1983 after the election of the Hawke Labor Government. The Treaty of Rarotonga, which was opened for signature at the 1985 meeting of the South Pacific Forum in the Cook Islands, is more comprehensive than the Treaty of Tlatelolco. It outlaws the dumping of nuclear waste at sea and so-called `peaceful nuclear explosions', both of which are permitted by the Latin American treaty. Perhaps the most controversial aspects of the Treaty in the region have been that it does not prohibit the passage of nuclear armed and powered ships, fails to prevent missile testing, such as that conducted by the United States in Kwajelein in the Marshall Islands, and says nothing about uranium mining, processing or export. During the negotiations, four forum island members, Papua New Guinea, the Solomons, Vanuatu and Nauru, urged the inclusion of a ban on nuclear missile testing. Vanuatu and Nauru also sought to include bans on uranium exports. Countries such as Vanuatu and the Solomons, which ban the transit of nuclear powered or armed vessels in their territorial waters, argued that such a ban should be mandatory within the zone. However, the consensus reached was that this should be a matter for individual countries. The Rarotonga Treaty was signed by eight South Pacific countries-Australia, the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, New Zealand, Nieu, Tuvalu and Western Samoa on Hiroshima day, 6 August 1985. It was later signed by Papua New Guinea and Nauru, but not by Vanuatu or the Solomons, who claimed the provisions of the Treaty were not comprehensive enough. Tonga has not signed on the grounds that it believes the Treaty is too restrictive to the nuclear powers. Despite the fact that many had hoped it would go further, the Rarotonga South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty represents an advance in arms control. An integral part of the Treaty is the protocols to be signed by the nuclear weapons powers. So far, only China has indicated definitely that it will sign the protocols. The Soviet Union has welcomed the Treaty but has not yet indicated whether it will sign. The United States initially ridiculed the Treaty but later announced that it was being studied. More recently there are indications that it will probably sign the protocols. Britain will obviously be guided by whether the United States signs and it is most unlikely that France will sign. The Australian Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Lionel Bowen) said on 11 August that the four nuclear weapons powers other than France would sign. Whether this means that the United States State Department's Pacific Bureau, which apparently favours the signing of the protocol, has won a debate with its European Bureau, which is concerned about the exemplary effect or the `contagion of the anti-nuclear allergy', and in turn overridden any Defense Department objections, is unclear. Thus, it looks as if four of the five nuclear states will now sign the protocols of the Treaty. Once the Treaty has been signed and ratified by eight members and registered with the United Nations, it will provide a legal basis for pressure from the international community on the nuclear powers to abide by its requirements. The Treaty is also a demonstration to other countries that steps can and should be taken by regional groups of countries which will limit the nuclear activity of the nuclear powers in other regions. In the South East Asian, Indian Ocean and African regions, proposals have been initiated for nuclear free zones, inspired by the Treaty of Rarotonga. At its most recent meeting of Foreign Ministers, the Association of South East Asian Nations commissioned a working group to look into the possibility of inaugurating a nuclear free zone in the South East Asian region, modelled on the South Pacific zone. The proposal for a zone of peace in the Indian Ocean, which was first initiated over a decade ago, has received new impetus since the finalising of the Rarotonga Treaty, as have proposals for zones in Africa and various parts of Europe. Nuclear free zones are clearly a way for smaller countries to send a message to the nuclear powers that they wish to see nuclear activity reduced or halted altogether. The initiation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, despite its limitations, is an action with ramifications out of proportion to the small populations of its sponsoring countries. It is an initiative which can set limits to nuclear proliferation in this region which is, unfortunately, becoming an area of increased super-power contention. This legislation, which provides for verification and monitoring of the provisions of the Treaty, is an important contribution by Australia to entrenching the Treaty and encouraging other countries to do the same. It will also prevent tests like those at Maralinga and their permanently radiation polluting results from ever happening again in Australia. However, there are indications that several South Pacific countries, including the Melanesian states of Vanuatu and the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea are dissatisfied with the Treaty because it allows the super-powers free access with nuclear powered vessels to the region. In 1988 the United States will begin deploying its Trident 2D5 missiles which will be highly accurate and will have first strike capacity. Australia will be involved in communications for this first-strike weapon through its hosting of the joint United States-Australian communications facilities. There are also other reasons for grave concern about the current United States policies. The massive annual increase in United States military spending-8 per cent per year in real terms for the last six years-are of greatest concern. But policies such as the strategic defence initiative, the attack on Libya, the decision to produce a new generation of chemical weapons, the abandonment of SALT II, the long refusal to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear test ban or even to respond constructively to the Soviet Union's test moratorium and the failure to approach the Geneva arms control and disarmament negotiations seriously suggest, even to friends of the United States such as Australia, that the current Administration wishes only to prevaricate about arms control and disarmament while dramatically increasing military strength. That is clearly the view of the United States Congress. The Reagan Administration is acting in ways which can only be described as aggressive. The Australian Government has criticised or opposed each of those policies, yet verbal protest by allies have made no impact on that behaviour. Therefore, more direct action will be required to emphasise to the United States Administration the strength of opposition to its current policies. New Zealand has already taken such action by prohibiting visits by nuclear powered and armed vessels. Australia could well consider withdrawing agreement to locate one or more of the joint communication facilities in the country for the same reason. The North West Cape communications station is the joint facility with least justification, for its purpose is to maintain reliable communications with submarines of the United States fleet serving in the Indian and western Pacific oceans. It is an integral part of the United States military system but has no subsidiary role in early warning or verification of arms control and disarmament agreements as do the other two major joint facilities in Australia. There are no unique geographic or other features which require the North West Cape facility to be located in Australia. Therefore, the threat not to renew the agreement covering the North West Cape when it expires in 1988 would be a significant but not particularly disruptive action indicative of the strength of Australian opposition to many aspects of current United States military policy. It is a possibility which Australians must seriously consider. The Rarotonga South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is a clear expression of the extent of concern about the nuclear arms race in the region. It embodies significant constraints on action by present and future governments of signatory countries on the action of nuclear powers in the region. It sets an example to other regions. However, it is only one step, and many more steps are required before the arms race is effectively ended. Mr ROCHER(Curtin)(11.14) —The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) in his speech in November last year remarked that the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty would establish `only the second nuclear free zone in a permanently inhabited region'. He indicated in his second reading speech that the first is the Treaty of Tlatelolco signed in 1967. He went on to say that that Treaty broke important ground by establishing the first nuclear weapons free zone in a populated region-namely, Latin America. The Treaty of Tlatelolco was a Latin-American initiative towards arms control. It prohibits the direct or indirect possession of nuclear weapons. However, since only Latin American nations involved include Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela as full parties without reservation, it has become the lazy practice to say that Latin America is a de facto nuclear free zone. Unfortunately, neither Cuba nor Argentina is a full party to that Treaty and, although both Brazil and Chile have ratified the accord, they have stipulated that it will not enter into force for them until all eligible countries have fully ratified it. The zone is thereby incomplete and not, as the Minister might have led some to believe, of more than marginal relevance to this measure. What is more, while the United States of America, during the Carter Administration, did ratify protocol 1 under that Treaty, which calls upon non-Latin American states with territories in the zone to place them under treaty restrictions, France has not acceded. To talk about nuclear free zones in that general context reminds me of the chairman of a committee who reports that unanimous agreement has been achieved except for those who dissent from a measure. Having found both the Government's history and its comparative analysis not particularly compelling we are left with the substance, such as it is, of the South Pacific Treaty itself. We do not need to go beyond its title to encounter our first brush with a brutal lack of reality, as it refers to the `South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone'. Although the Rarotonga agreement may purport to foster a nuclear free zone, it does no such thing. It does not establish or seek to establish a zone in which all nuclear activities are banned. If one were to be very polite one might describe it as a partial nuclear free zone or an attempt at one. It is really just a sort of regional arms prevention agreement with one non-wea-pons prohibition in the form of a ban on the dumping of radioactive wastes which has been thrown in, as it were, for good measure. All other sections of the nuclear fuel cycle are unaffected. Biomedical, energy and resource uses of nuclear technology are not banned. As to its effectiveness even as an arms prevention agreement, opinion has not been exactly ecstatic. Greg Fry of the Australian National University has noted that the Treaty has significant limitations. Writing in August of last year, he argued: Some direct weapons involvement and weapons-related activities are unaffected by it. He concluded: . . . it cannot be said that the Rarotonga Treaty even established a nuclear weapons free zone, let alone the broader concept of a nuclear free zone. There is a fairly widespread view that the nuclear free label is designed to give the impression of a comprehensiveness that does not exist. The object is apparently not so much to impress the misnamed peace movement which, incidentally, rejects this Treaty as insufficient in itself, it seems to set out to reassure voters at the margins that the Australian Labor Party is really doing all it can. I turn to the major provisions affecting or determining the conduct of each party to the South Pacific Treaty. What are its arms prevention objectives? The first is not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device inside or outside the zone or to seek or receive assistance with such activity, or to give assistance to other states engaged in this activity. The second is to prevent the stationing of any nuclear explosive device in its territory-the word `stationing' being defined specifically as `emplantation, emplacement, transportation on land or inland waters, stockpiling, storage, installation and deployment'. The third is to prevent in each territory the testing of any nuclear explosive device and not to assist in the testing activity of any State. In relation to the latter two disciplines the word `territory' refers to and is defined as `internal waters, territorial sea and archipelagic waters, the seabed and subsoil beneath, the land territory and the air space above them'. This adds up to an attempted prohibition on the presence of nuclear weapons, or on their manufacture or testing, anywhere within the territories of the participating South Pacific states up to the 12-mile sea limit. Attached to the Treaty are three draft protocols which respectively invite Britain, France and the United States to apply key provisions of the Treaty to their territories within the zone; seek undertakings from the five nuclear weapons states to undertake not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against a party to the Treaty; and seek undertakings from the five nuclear weapons States that they will not test explosive devices within the zone. It is patently clear that France is unlikely to agree to propositions one and three and that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is very likely to use proposition two as a stick with which to beat Australia about the head over the existence of the joint American-Australian facilities. There can be no doubt that in due course the snake oil merchant, which is the misnamed `peace movement', will take up that line of argument. As geographically defined, the scope of the treaty is ambitious to the point of ridicule. Although the actual area of application is confined to the territories of the South Pacific Forum countries and of any dependencies for which an administering power might sign, the Treaty defines the geographical scope of the South Pacific nuclear free zone in a very broad fashion. Its boundaries stretch from the border of the so-called Latin America nuclear weapons-free zone in the east to the west coast of Australia in the west, and from the border of Antarctica in the south to the equator in the north, with some extension into the northern hemisphere to include Kiribati. This encompasses a vast area of ocean over which the Treaty signatories simply and plainly do not have jurisdiction. It is also instructive to note under a section headed `The Global Framework', in a pamphlet printed by the Foreign Affairs Department entitled `Australia and Disarmament: Steps in the Right Direction' that the Department seems not only to be deficient historically, but also betrays through the authors of that document a very shallow view of the world. In welcoming the slightly improved relations between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics over the past 18 months or so, the pamphlet alleges that this development followed on from a period `when relations between the two superpowers reached their lowest point for more than 30 years'. Either the Foreign Affairs Department was asleep during the Cuban missile crisis and other sharp disagreements that have permeated superpower relations during the past 30 years or, as is more likely, excessive caution was taken in that document not to offend the prejudices of the target audience, which is undoubtedly the misnamed `peace movement'. Either way, it is not good enough. Nor is the substance of the pamphlet's presentation on superpower conflicts good enough. It claims: . . . progress towards nuclear disarmament will inevitably be slow and painstaking since it involves the fundamental security interests of each of the superpowers, steady confidence building between them to overcome the fears and suspicions born of very different cultural backgrounds and historical experiences, and nuclear arsenals similar only in their size and destructive potential but made up of weapons systems mostly dissimilar in characteristics and capabilities. Is that the substance of the Department's understanding of the causes of differences between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? Is it merely fears and suspicions born out of cultural difference and historical experience, with complex weapons systems making negotiation difficult and the need for both sides to recognise each other's security interests? Is the USSR just a power like any other, albeit with greater resources? Is it all really a question of greater understanding to overcome reconcilable differences? Again, either the Department is seriously deficient in historical and contemporary analysis, or it is genuflecting towards the prejudices of the target audience. Why not tell the truth? Self-delusions concerning the urbane sophistication of Australia's international outlook vis-a-vis the supposedly `naive' American approach, dominated, so we are told, by a `cold war mentality', may be flattering to many members of Australia's foreign policy establishment, but it is not an honest response to the realities that we face. This measure is a perfect illustration of that failure to explain and to face reality. We would be better to tell Australians and our allies among the island states of the overriding and mutual need for the Americans to be able to move their naval units freely around the South Pacific. Whatever our reservations, that would at least be frank. The nuclear-free genie is now well and truly out of the bottle. The Treaty itself, and especially the Bill, lays the foundation for further and more restrictive practices of this kind in future. I am implacably opposed to the Bill. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(11.25) —Today we reach the high-water mark of the Kosciusko-like hypocrisy of the Hawke socialist Government. In 20 years in politics I have never seen a greater example of hypocrisy than what is happening in the chamber right now. Less than 40 hours after the Hawke socialist Government announced that it would be resuming the sale of uranium to France, the same hypocritical Government comes into this chamber and asks the House of Representatives to pass the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill. If that is not the greatest example of hypocrisy, double standards and doublespeak that anyone has ever heard of, I do not know what is. That Government is revealed as a motley, discredited collection of two-faced bandicoots, ferrets and bushrats. How it can have any credibility in the eyes of any thinking Australian is beyond me. Whatever view one takes on the nuclear question, the plain fact remains that just 40 hours after saying that the green light is to come on and it is all systems go with sales of uranium to France, the Government asks us to pass legislation which it knows in its own mind is more than likely to be breached by a purchaser of Australian uranium. Let me make this quite clear: In an ideal world, I should like to see the South Pacific nuclear free. I would like to see the world nuclear free. Surely no member on either side of the House would contradict that proposition. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and not a dream world. I commend and respect the views of those who push for what is known colloquially as unilateral disarmament-some very well-meaning and well-intentioned people who firmly believe that someone should make the first move-but it is my fundamental belief that in maintaining the security of our nation, the preservation of the Western alliance and those things which we hold dear, the only form of disarmament acceptable to me and to the majority of Australians would be multilateral, simultaneous and verifiable disarmament. Anything else would be a repeat of the tragedy of the discredited policies of appeasement in 1930s. Anything else would bring Australia in 1986 the debacle of Munich. Anything else would place the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in a position in which he would be remembered long after he left the political scene as the Australian latterday equivalent of Neville Chamberlain. Do the people of Australia realise that under the Hawke socialist Government-and I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) who is one of the more honourable past leaders of the Australian Labor Party; a person who at least stuck by what he said, right or wrong-clause 11 of the Bill provides the power to make it illegal for an ally of Australia to bring into our waters and ports in time of war vessels which are nuclear powered? I want to emphasise that and I am going to quote what the Minister for Foreign Affairs said on this point in his second reading speech. This Bill, if enacted and if taken before the International Court of Justice, would as a matter of law, override the ANZUS Treaty. Why is that so? One of the most fundamental propositions of statutory interpretation is that where there are two conflicting pieces of legislation, the courts, including the International Court of Justice, determine which piece of legislation represents the views of the Parliament and the people of Australia. The Bill is clearly in conflict with ANZUS and it would prevail in law. Let me put it to honourable members quite simply that if Australia were subject to a military attack and if the United States, under the ANZUS Treaty, were called to aid us, under this legislation United States vessels could not enter Australian waters. I suggest to honourable members that this legislation is quasi-treason and that no patriotic Australian in his right mind could vote for it. The honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), in a magnificent speech last night in this Parliament, made the statement that it had been said to him by a person high in authority in the Government-although he did not name that person: `Don't worry. If that situation developed in time of war we would ignore this Treaty. We would give effect to ANZUS'. I think, Mr Deputy Speaker, you may have been in the chamber at the time. I uttered the words `Was that Old Silver?', and the honourable member for Kooyong, being a most honourable member and a most statesmanlike person, said that he would not name the person who made the statement. Mr Goodluck —Allen Blanchard, was it? Mr HODGMAN —The Deputy Speaker is not only silver haired-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I trust there is no reflection on the Chair in those remarks. Mr HODGMAN —Certainly not. I think everybody knows who Old Silver is; I am sure everyone does. Anyway, having said that, that is the sort of nonsense that is going on. I must just say in passing that I wonder how the sincere and genuine members of the peace movement feel about that sort of doublespeak coming on top of the monumental, Kosciusko-like hypocrisy of a government which 40 hours ago said `We are going to sell uranium to France' and then comes into this Parliament and says `We want you to pass this Bill which will provide for a nuclear free zone' when it knows damn well that the uranium it is selling to France will be coming back in another form. I just cannot believe it. I thought the Hawke socialist Government had reached the depths of intellectual and moral bankruptcy months ago. I did not believe that it could go lower, but surely it has. Let us have a good look at the Bill, drawn up by somebody who ought to be on the payroll of the Soviet Embassy. What fantastic legislation this is! What did the Minister say? He said that it had been widely recognised around the world as a significant measure. I will be quite frank. I have followed world opinion on this matter and the only enthusiastic comments I have seen about it have appeared in Pravda or have come from Tass, and I am told that the night it was introduced into this Parliament by the Minister for Foreign Affairs the vodka ran very freely in the Soviet Embassy right here in Canberra. People there must have been tickled pink. Mr Goodluck —Red. Mr HODGMAN —I bow to the honourable member. Sixty years ago Lenin made a very profound statement. He said: `We will overcome the West; we will hang them'. But, interestingly enough, he also said: `The West will provide the rope with which we hang them'. This is another strand in the rope with which the Hawke socialist Government has carefully manufactured and put together in conjunction with its lunatic colleague across the Tasman, comrade Lange, because in the last two years more damage has been done to our national security than ever before. Let me continue with this premise: We are less defended today than we were on 3 September 1939. We have a Minister for Defence, from your home State, Mr Deputy Speaker, who said that he was going for a 3 per cent increase in defence expenditure. He got a one per cent increase in money terms, which is a cut in real terms; yet he told a Press conference yesterday that he had a magnificent victory. Mr Rocher —And with the fringe benefits tax, another $116m out of it. Mr HODGMAN —Indeed. I just do not understand it. I would think that if I went for 3 per cent and finished up with minus one per cent I would have had a pretty rugged defeat, that I had been rolled in that inner sanctum around there next to the fuhrerbunker where the Cabinet of the Hawke socialist Government meets in secret conclave. But this Minister comes out and tells the world that he has had a great victory. I do not understand it. Let us never forget that the MX missile crisis started the plunge of the Australian dollar. Why? It was because we betrayed an ally. I have told this House before how the New York Times, in an article syndicated and read by over 60 million Americans, sons and daughters of the servicemen and women who fought alongside the servicemen and women of this nation in World War II, wrote that Australia had reneged on treaty obligations and that Premier-that is what the New York Times called him, but it meant the Prime Minister-Hawke blamed a split in the Party. We have the situation in which the Tasman Sea is now a Soviet naval playground. There is no naval surveillance by the United States because it does not have access to New Zealand ports. The Royal Australian Navy, which I love and which celebrated its seventy-fifth anniversary this year, is an absolute disgrace. It is tiny, almost useless and run down. That is how this Government gave it its seventy-fifth birthday present. We also have the situation of fishing deals being done with the Soviet Union in Kiribati, using maps which were prepared by a surveying team from the Australian Army. My time has nearly expired, unfortunately. Opposition members-Oh! Mr HODGMAN —I thank honourable members for their support. Mr Hayden —Your time runneth by, Michael. Mr HODGMAN —My time in this debate, Minister, not my political time. I want to ask the Minister to explain, when he replies, whether it is due to the fact that he is slightly deaf or that he is very forgetful that never since he has been Foreign Minister have we heard one squeak from him or any other member of the Hawke socialist Government-this two-faced, bandicoot, ferret and bush rat Government-stand in this Parliament and say something about the testing of Soviet missiles in the Pacific. I note with great pleasure the presence in the chamber of a senator who says what she thinks, even though I do not always agree with her. Senator Vallentine from Western Australia might like to follow up this matter. Why has the Hawke socialist Government not uttered one squeak of protest about the fact that recently the Soviet Union engaged in test firing SS18 Mark 4 missiles with a range of 16,000 kilometres and with 10 warheads, each 50 times more destructive than the Nagasaki weapon, into the vicinity of the Cook Islands? The Cook Islands are not very far from Australia; they are not very far from New Zealand. The Minister has gone on his walkie-talkie. He will be told that his advisers have not heard about it. It has been written up in the Bulletin; it has been written up in the international Press. If we are going to have a nuclear free zone, let us have it totally nuclear free. Let us not capitulate to and appease the Soviet Union and destroy the Western alliance which saved this nation once and is our only hope for salvation in the future. I oppose the Bill, I will vote against it and if I had the chance I would vote against it, twice, thrice and as many times as I was allowed. Mr COLEMAN(Wentworth)(11.38) —I feel at some disadvantage following such a superb speech by the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman), but I will do my best. I want to deal with three matters of concern in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Bill which, in my view, justify a total rejection of it and the substitution for it of other measures better suited to attaining those objectives of the Bill which should be attained. I am referring to such things as the dumping of nuclear waste. From one perspective, the Bill is, as the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) put it last night, a Mickey Mouse Bill, a splendid example of Hawkespeak. We know that the Bill is a Hawke initiative to con the anti-nuclear movement in this country. The Left asks, reasonably: `What sort of anti-nuclear measure is it that allows the passage of nuclear-powered and armed vessels freedom of movement?'. Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands have not signed the Treaty, SPINFIZT, as it is called, for that reason. The Bill is seen as a confidence trick, rather like the Keating Budget. Within the Mickey Mouse clauses-this is my first cause for concern-is one article which is not a con or a charade. I refer to article 5 of the Treaty which is followed up by clauses 11 and 18 of the Bill, which provide penalties of 20 years gaol and $500,000 fines. Article 5 prohibits the stationing of any nuclear explosive device in the territory of the country concerned. Stationing is defined in the Schedule as including deployment. This means on one view that even a ship visit could be prohibited. That view has certainly been put forward strongly by the Prime Minister of New Zealand. But on any view, it means that in a future grave crisis Australia would be prevented from having nuclear-armed vessels here for a longer period than a mere visit. In other words, this treaty-SPINFIZT-overrides ANZUS. It is unconscionable, to say the least, although not surprising, that the Government should be proposing this without explaining it or even trying to justify it. That is the first reason for rejecting it as a threat to Australian security. I am sure that the Minister will comment on article 5 in his reply. My second reason for rejecting the Bill is that even if we assume that my reading of article 5 is debatable-no-one can say that it is definitely wrong-and even if its meaning is uncertain, it adds a great element of uncertainty and instability to an already unstable region. All questions of this character in the world today come down to the Soviet question-to the role and expansion of the USSR and its gulag. We are in a region in which, compared with 20 years ago, the Soviet Union is moving forward dramatically. Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam is the largest Soviet forward deployment base outside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Soviet Pacific fleet has doubled over the past 20 years and is expanding. With 800 ships, it is already the largest of the Soviet fleets. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has signed a fishing agreement with Kiribati, paying to Kiribati one tenth of its annual budget, and is trying to negotiate other such agreements with, for example, Fiji. Of course, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has promoted the Pacific Trade Union Forum as one of its most active arms throughout the region. In this region, too, New Zealand has scuttled ANZUS and moved as it were, off the planet. Under New Zealand's proposed nuclear free zone legislation, New Zealand officers could spend 10 years in prison for even attending a United States military staff college. It wants to New Zealandise the whole region, of course to the applause of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. In New Caledonia, there is the Kanak independence movement, developing at times into insurrection, with backing from Colonel Gadaffi. Vanuatu has become the first Pacific member of the non-aligned-that is, the anti-Western-movement. The Cuban and Libyan presence is already apparent there. This region is being destabilised and the opportunities for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are growing. In this context, the Bill and the Treaty weaken the capacity of the United States and its allies to respond or at least add to the uncertainties of the region with a treaty containing uncertain articles. One can never eliminate uncertainties from world affairs. Great events, including the Hitler-Stalin alliance, Pearl Harbour, the Korean war, the Yom Kippur war, the fall of the Shah, the Falklands war and so on, took the world and its intelligence services by surprise. No one can eliminate the unexpected from world affairs, but one can at least refuse to add to the uncertainties, as this Treaty does, and for the most cynical and frivolous reason of alleged party advantage. But there is a third reason for concern. The egregious Prime Minister of New Zealand-a country and a people, although not a government, that enjoy the greatest respect and affection of Australians-has welcomed the treaty as an `important first step'. He says in effect: `Yes, the Treaty still permits the passage of nuclear vessels, but it prevents the deployment of weapons.' Of course, later we can take further steps, such as the notorious steps already take by the temporary government of New Zealand. Prime Minister Lange says that even port visits violate the treaty, and he would want that spelt out more clearly at a later stage. In this House, the honourable member for Hughes (Mr Tickner) has said that, in his view, the mining and export of uranium is inconsistent with the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. Others have welcomed the treaty because it overrides ANZUS as a step towards a unilaterally disarmed or neutralist Australia, and others want to take it as a step towards making the whole Pacific Ocean a nuclear free zone, totally excluding the United States fleet. Mr Halfpenny is associated with that view. They have some reason on their side. The Bill can be seen as a step in that direction. Mr Hayden —I am sorry, Peter, what direction? I missed something. Mr COLEMAN —As a first step towards a more extreme interpretation of the measure-towards a neutralist Australia, the banning of uranium mining and making the Pacific Ocean a nuclear free zone, excluding the United States entirely. Those views have been put forward by the people supporting the Bill, although they are dissatisfied with it in its present form. I referred to the honourable member for Hughes, Mr Halfpenny and others. More generally, the Bill and the Treaty involve another nitpicking quarrel with our allies and associates-in this case, the United States. But with whom has this Government not quarrelled? It has quarrelled with the United Kingdom by refusing to service HMAS Invincible. It has quarrelled with the French by its stupid banning of uranium sales and by constant and ignorant attacks on the defence policies of this Western ally. It has quarrelled repeatedly with Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. It insulted Papua New Guinea recently by the way in which it informed that country of the reduction of Australian aid. We have irritated Israel by our withdrawal from the Sinai peacekeeping force. Whom have we not irritated, insulted or alienated? There are one or two, principally communist Vietnam. Now we are further antagonising the United States. Whatever the Government may say-it says some sensible things from time to time-its record is marked by the cowardly MX cave-in and by its niggling criticisms of United States policy on everything from Nicaragua to Libya to the strategic defence initiative, which it says we will not join no matter how much it would be in Australia's scientific and national interests to do so. Now we have this Treaty aimed exclusively at inevitably weakening the United States vis-a-vis the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in this region. The Government is doing this, first, to appease its own loony left and also to try to take a leadership role among the island states, whose leaders are anti-nuclear, belong to a post-war generation with no experience of Japanese conquest and see Soviet totalitarianism as a long way away. The Government hopes to achieve this leadership role and at the same time offers the United States a set of winks, nods and nudges suggesting that it should not take it all too seriously. It is another example of the Government's frivolity. Real leadership in the region would be of a different character. It would mean persuading and explaining the facts to the island states and their leaders: The facts of deterrence, the facts of nuclear energy and the facts of Soviet expansion. It would mean offering alternatives to this foolish measure. That would be leadership, but this Government prefers con jobs and Mickey Mouse jobs to real leadership. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(11.48) —in reply-The Government is extremely pleased with the achievement that this legislation represents. The South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty is one of the most substantial achievements of any nation state in the area of arms control, and it has been put in place in a relatively short period. Moreover, it has had widespread support among the island states of the South Pacific. Ten of the 13 states entitled to sign it have done so. There are four ratifying signatures to the treaty, and there are clear undertakings from four more countries that they, too, will ratify it. The formal ratification and its deposit at the United Nations are only a short time away. The debate followed fairly general themes of criticism from the Opposition. Accordingly, I shall reply to those largely in the same general way. However, I must say that the debate was enlivened by a characteristically flamboyant rhetorical display from the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman). I would say this about his performance: As usual, it is a hard act to follow-extremely hard. In fact, I found it to be totally incomprehensible. He appealed to thinking Australians, which I thought was a rather novel and excessive presumption on his part, given the status that he has managed to establish for himself in this Parliament. I mention only two matters from the lengthy discordant statement that the honourable member for Denison made to the House. He said that the only nuclear disarmament acceptable to him would be multilateral and verifiable. What of armament? What of instances where there are new areas of competition and new geographical areas? If he was unable to achieve total multilateral and verifiable disarmament measures, does that mean that he would take no steps at a regional level and that he would stand by and watch this proliferation affect the global order and create the tensions and instability that these things tend to do? His principle seems to be that, if he cannot avoid all sin, there will be no prescription against any sin. If this is so, life for him is a cavalcade of temptation unresisted. The other matter he mentioned was a criticism of the Government party for not objecting to Russian missile testing targeted near the Cook Islands. I have discussed the matter with experts from the Department of Foreign Affairs who are in the House, in the despatch box, and they are mystified by this. The honourable member might be kind enough to give us the information on this. The only information we have about Russian missile testing concerns missile testing in the north Pacific. There was, of course, a Chinese test in 1980 which landed near Fiji, not the Cook Islands-but no matter, the geography is pretty shonky all the way through if one cannot distinguish between the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and China. I was Leader of the Opposition then and I clearly recall having expressed a public criticism of that testing. I can recall no objection and no criticism from the Government of the day led by the then Prime Minister, Mr Malcolm Fraser. I find much of the criticism which has been made by members of the Opposition difficult to fathom. It seems to me that they are struggling to manufacture objections and that at heart what we have done is something they probably very much would wish to have done themselves or something like it. I refer to their documentation entitled `Policy on Peace and Disarmament', released by one of their more distinguished members in May 1985. On page 12 it is said of the South Pacific: We will oppose any proposal for a Nuclear Free Zone which restricts, or could have the tendency to restrict . . . I will run through the restrictive criteria which would be unacceptable to the Opposition. The presumption is that other matters outside the ones which are stipulated would be acceptable. The unacceptable restrictive criteria are: Nuclear power generation or nuclear medicine-this Treaty quite consciously does not stand in the way of that; the purchase or sale of uranium for peaceful purposes-again, this Treaty does not stand in the way of that, the transit of nuclear-powered and/or nuclear-armed ships, submarines or aircraft quite explicitly does not stand in the way of that and we have made that clear; visits and port/air base facilities for the above-again, the Treaty does not stand in the way of that; the operation of communications and surveillance bases-the Treaty has been very carefully drafted to make sure that it does not stand in the way of that, that being a role we fulfil as did the conservative coalition parties in government. There is a bipartisan commitment on this; and missile testing-the Treaty does not stand in the way of missile testing and does not refer to it although there would obviously be objections from the Government Party in relation to such a proposal affecting Australian sovereign territory. But on all of the criteria which have been stipulated here as those which, if restrictive, would be unacceptable to the Opposition, not one of them is embodied in the Bill or in the Treaty. On the criteria which have been set down by the Opposition, this Bill should be acceptable. Of course, spurious opposition has been mounted to try to gain a little publicity perhaps and to create a little concern. There have been some extraordinarily excessive statements about the scourge of the red menace in the region. It will be unfortunate should any of those be believed in their excessiveness, because then we will be tilting at distorted images, and if we tilt at distorted images in developing policy we are not developing appropriate policy responses. The Opposition claimed in various ways that this Bill and, of course, the Treaty represent a sort of wedge which will be driven into the Western alliance to fragment and weaken it and that they favour the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. This is nonsense. In fact, insofar as our alliance associations and our commitments to support and protect Western interests go, this Bill will not stand in the way of those commitments and obligations. What it does do-I think that this is in the interests of all people on the globe-is establish an obligation on the countries which become members of the Treaty not to do certain things-not to allow the testing, stock- piling or manufacturing of nuclear weapons on their territory. That is an important contribution to the halting or the breaking of aspects of the nuclear arms race. Importantly again the Treaty on Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons under article 7 specifically refers to the right of states to conclude such regional treaties. So what is being done is being done with all of the authority, credibility and respectability which the non-proliferation Treaty, the most important anti-nuclear weaponry international convention that we have in place, can provide. The nuclear powers, to some extent in the case of protocol 1 to the Treaty and in all cases in respect of protocols 2 and 3, are encouraged to sign those protocols. Protocol 1, for France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, prohibits manufacturing, stationing and testing of nuclear explosive devices. Protocols 2 and 3, covering all of the nuclear powers, require undertakings not to use nuclear explosive devices and not to test anywhere. The obligations for protocol signatories are consistent and even as between East and West. I believe we have a highly desirable set of propositions both in the Treaty and in the protocols. Those propositions are designed to restrain the nuclear arms race, one of the most destabilising and potentially the most awesomely threatening prospect that we have in the globe. It was said by one speaker that concern had been expressed about the Treaty by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. This just is not true. Indeed, no country, none of the nuclear weapon states, has signed the protocols to this point for the simple reason that it was only a fortnight ago at Suva that the protocols were finalised. Some speakers from this side of the House argued for variations to take place in the Treaty, for instance, that the Treaty should be strengthened to prevent the sale of uranium. If a country wishes to go beyond the floor of obligations which were established in this Treaty, it is entirely within the sovereign authority of that country to do so. An obvious example of a country going further than the Treaty is New Zealand with its policy of prohibiting port access for American nuclear-powered or presumed nuclear-capable vessels. It was suggested by another speaker on this side of the House that the Treaty and the legislation should be amended to prevent the firing of nuclear weapons at sea. But it is quite specifically declared in the Treaty that this Treaty, and indeed the legislation, insofar as it binds us to the Treaty as a legislative expression of our committment, cannot do that. It cannot do that for the simple reason that it is well established at international law that sovereign states do not have authority to restrict the open seas or the open air-space, that there is freedom of shipping movement and aircraft movement in those respective spheres. The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs matters said, among other things, that the dumping of nuclear waste should be provided under a separate convention. It was our view initially and until quite recently that dumping should be prohibited under the South Pacific regional environmental program. But the countries of the South Pacific made it clear that they preferred to have the prohibition included in the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty. We have been persuaded of the advantages of doing that and that is why the proposition is included. But I stress that this is a Bill for an Act covering a regional treaty. That regional treaty could be put in place only if there were general agreement about the base or the floor on which the countries of the region were prepared to stand commonly. The floor could be lifted no higher than those countries commonly were prepared to accept. If particular countries want to go to a higher elevation, that is a matter for them. They can proceed past the floor provided under the South Pacific nuclear free zone. The point I am making, very simply, is that the final result is very much a matter of negotiation, as it must be with treaties, between the member countries of the South Pacific. I said that I would address the matters raised in a general way, and I have done that. But the exception I will make is that I intend to address some of the comments made by the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) as the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs matters. I regret that I will address only some of the remarks, but time limitations are the determining factor. I make this exception because his was a carefully thought out statement. His views were cogently put and there is considerable force to them. But that does not mean that I endorse them, which will be of no surprise to him. The honourable member for Kooyong said that it is no wonder that the Soviets have so embraced this Government's South Pacific nuclear free zone. I am unaware of that. I am aware that the Chinese have been quite encouraging in their comments. But from my recollection the only comment from the Soviet Union brought to my notice is a rather ambiguous one and a bit of a cop-out. My recollection of the only comment from the Soviet Union brought to my attention is that the Soviets are prepared to sign the Treaty if all of the other nuclear powers sign it first. Mr Peacock —That was their more recent statement. They had earlier endorsed it. I have the copies. Mr HAYDEN —If I can take the dictum that was handed down by `Justice Hodgman' a little while ago, it is the most recent declaration that always prevails in these matters. The honourable member for Kooyong said: `It restricts the United States-the only weapons state to deploy in the defined zone-yet the Soviet Union's power base at Cam Ranh Bay will be unaffected'. I am rather mystified by that. Cam Ranh Bay is rather removed from this particular zone. But his comment also ignores the fact that the Americans are at Subic, Clark and Guam-all much nearer to this particular zone. At another stage he said: `While Soviet penetration and actual gains are still restricted in the South West Pacific region, it is important that we appreciate the opportunity the increased regional destabilisation has given them'. Again, I am mystified about this increased regional destabilisation. There is a difference between the ANZUS parties over New Zealand's porting policy. It is indisputable that there is more activity in the South Pacific on the part of the Soviets. On top of that, there are some developing tensions; for instance, New Caledonia was referred to by at least one Opposition spokesman. But in their magnitude these things are not huge and they certainly do not represent destabilisation. That is the sort of unwholesome exaggeration which can cause the general public, if they listen to such comments and accept them at face value, to presume the situation to be much more serious than it is. Accordingly, they could be encouraged to respond to unwise policies, excessive policies, or policies that go past a target that does not even exist. Many of these problems are more appropriately attended to by diplomatic undertakings by the professionals in the Department of Foreign Affairs in this country, in New Zealand and in the other countries of the region. The Soviet presence in the South Pacific occurs because the Soviets are prepared to enter into fishing agreements under which they make payments which go beyond what would be regarded as sensibly commercially justifiable by Western commercial interests. So it is quite clear that the Soviets are out to pay a relatively small moiety to gain a relatively advantageous political presence. However, the important thing is that, if we are active in the region in heading off those things that cause countries to head in a direction which goes beyond merely a commercial engagement and which allows the Soviets to establish land-based facilities and from that to embark into whatever other activities they want to embark into-activities which most often bear little resemblance to straight commercial activity-we are going in the right direction. Kiribati has been sedulous in ensuring that its commercial agreement does not provide for any sort of land-based operations or facilities. That should be acknowledged and should not be exaggerated, as was done in the course of this debate. There are other problem countries in the region too. The United States attitude towards the fishing rights of its tuna fishermen has been one of the most discordant presences in the South Pacific. We trust that this will be resolved soon. With regard to nuclear testing we see the perhaps imperious way in which some policies are proceeded with by France in the region. At least that is the way in which they are seen by the Pacific island countries and the way in which those countries express themselves about these things. These things create some strain and some disaffection among the island states of the South Pacific. But these things are more likely to be resolved by persistent and constructive diplomatic endeavour. The only matter I refer to from the honourable member for Kooyong's speech is his invocation of Prime Minister Lange's statement that frequent Australian port visits by United States warships could be interpreted as stationing, which is disallowed by the Treaty. It would be better to leave to the Government of Australia the interpretation of what we regard as stationing or not stationing in relation to visits by United States warships. It is our right to determine that. There is absolutely no dispute that the visits of United States warships in no way conflict with the provisions and obligations under this Treaty. This has been a most constructive debate. The Government is most rewarded that it has been able to bring this legislation into the Parliament to effect the provisions of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty. It is only the second such treaty, putting aside the Antarctic Treaty as a special case, that has been established in the global order to this point. Question put: That the Bill be now read a second time. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr C. A. Blanchard) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 16 —— Baldwin, P. J. Hurford, C. J. Beazley, K. C. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blewett, N. Jones, BarryBowen, Lionel Kelly, R. J. Brown, John Kent, L. Brown, Robert Keogh, L. J. Brumby, J. M. Kerin, J. C. Campbell, G. Klugman, R. E. Charles, D. E. Lamb, A. H. Charlesworth, R. I. Langmore, J. V. Chynoweth, R. L. Lee, M. Cleeland, P. R. Lindsay, E. J. Cohen, B. McHugh, J. Cross, M. D. McLeay, LeoCunningham, B. T. (Teller) Maher, M. J. Darling, E. E. Martin, S. P. Dawkins, J. S. Mayer, H. Dubois, S. G. Mildren, J. B. Duffy, M. J. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Price, L. R. S. Free, R. V. Punch, G. F. Gayler, J. Saunderson, J. Gear, G. Scott, J. L. Gorman, R. N. J. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Griffiths, A. G. Theophanous, A. C. Hand, G. L. Tickner, R. E. Hayden, W. G. Uren, T. Holding, A. C. West, S. J. Hollis, C. Willis, R. Howe, B. L. Wright, K. W. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Young, M. J. Aldred, K. J. Hodgman, W. M. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F. Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C. Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B. Braithwaite, R. A. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R. Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T. Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G. Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C. Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanDobie, J. D. M. Rocher, A. C. Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M. Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D. Edwards, Harry Sharp, J. Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Goodluck, B. J. Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hawker, D. P. M. Webster, A. P. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) White, P. N. D. Hodges, J. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Mountford, J. G. Watson, Dr D. J. H. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith. Motion (by Mr Hayden)-by leave-proposed: That the Bill be now read a third time. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(12.17) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I only want to take one minute to place on record in this Parliament, before honourable members leave the chamber, my belief that Australia will live to rue the day when this Bill is passed. This disgraceful legislation, which is an absolute gift to the Soviet Union, is anti-United States of America and anti-Western alliance; it is a scandal. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr HODGMAN —I am speaking on the third reading, sir. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will allow the honourable member to proceed. Mr HODGMAN —I will finish in a moment. It is only a matter of time before the mob opposite will be paid in roubles instead of dollars; it is only a matter of time before that coat of arms over the Speaker's chair will be taken away and replaced by a hammer and sickle. Shame on the Hawke socialist Government! This is disgraceful legislation-it is Pearl Harbour all over again. The Government will live to regret this day; it will be thrown out at the next election. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a third time. Consideration resumed from 20 August. Consideration of Senate's amendments. Senate's amendments- No. 1-Page 4, after clause 4, insert the following new clause: Entitlements of members of the Parliament ``4a. (1) Determination No. 11 of 1986 of the Remuneration Tribunal dated 6 June 1986 is modified by omitting paragraph 7.1 and substituting the following paragraph: `7.1 For the purposes of this entitlement, ``nominee'' means: a parent; a son or daughter other than a dependent child as defined in paragraph 1.19; or a brother or sister of the senator or member, and may in special circumstances include one other person (except a member of the staff of the senator or member) approved at the discretion of the Special Minister of State.'. ``(2) The determination of the Remuneration Tribunal referred to in this section as modified by this section has effect as if it were a determination of the Remuneration Tribunal.''. No. 2-Page 6, Part IV, lines 1 to 13, leave out the Part. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.19) —The Government proposes that amendment No. 2 be agreed to and amendment No. 1 be disagreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the Committee to consider amendment No. 2 first and, when that amendment has been disposed of, to consider amendment No. 1. The CHAIRMAN —Does that course of action suit the convenience of the Committee? Mr Spender —Yes. Mr YOUNG —I move: That amendment No. 2 be agreed to. The Government has tried to streamline the procedure a bit. We do not hold very strong feelings about the amendment. It related only to the way in which ministerial salaries would in future be dealt with. The Opposition considers that this still requires the use of Public Service time to draft legislation rather than proceeding by way of regulation, which would still have the same scrutiny. For a party that cries out for smaller governments, it is a strange amendment; the first the Opposition has moved in this new session. I appreciate that the Opposition members in this chamber do not know anything about it but that is what their colleagues have done in the Upper House. The second amendment is even stranger, but in view of the time factor the Government agrees to the first amendment. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.22) —The Special Minister of State (Mr Young) said that we will use public servants' time drafting amendments and that they will be presented here. Of course that is so, but he seems to have overlooked that if it were to be done by regulation, precisely the same amount of Public Service time would be required to deal with the regulations and have them brought here. Therefore, there is no saving of time in what the Government had proposed. By adopting, as the Government is prepared to adopt, what we believe to be the correct course these matters will come back to the House, as they should. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.23) —I move: That amendment No. 1 be disagreed to. This relates to the amendment moved by the Senate to extend the definition of nominee for overseas study travel, the purposes of which have been considered by the Remuneration Tribunal. It would establish a most undesirable precedent for the Parliament to override a determination of the independent Tribunal. Referring to the matter of salaries, which was rejected earlier in the legislation, the proposals put by all parties to the Tribunal were that we should merely follow the cost of living, which is what the Government has accepted. In rejecting the 11.7 per cent recommendation the Tribunal pointed out that it felt it had a statutory obligation to bring up the date for salaries. That was not accepted by the Government, and nor is this amendment. The Tribunal has examined all these matters, and it has seen a clear demarcation between the purposes for which people may be nominated for internal travel as against overseas study leave. The amendment moved by the Senate is not acceptable to the Government. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(12.24) —The amendment which was agreed to in the Senate and which is being disagreed to by the Government would have the effect of removing the existing definition of nominee and the provision dealing with entitlements for overseas travel and substituting a definition in the same term as that applicable to interstate travel-that is, a member is entitled to take with him overseas a spouse, a parent, a son or daughter other than a dependent child, a brother or sister or other person approved by the Special Minister of State. The amendment avoids members being entitled to the expenses of overseas travel of de facto spouses. That is its purport and the Opposition supports it. Question resolved in the affirmative. Resolution reported; report adopted. Committee of Reasons Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That Mr Maher, Mr Lindsay and the mover be appointed a committee to draw up reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to amendment No. 1 of the Senate. Mr YOUNG(Port Adelaide-Special Minister of State)(12.25) —On behalf of the Committee appointed to draw up reasons for the House disagreeing to amendment No. 1 of the Senate, I bring up such reasons which have been circulated to honourable members. The reasons read as follows- The Senate amendment is not acceptable because- Proposals to extend the definition of nominee for overseas study travel purposes have been considered by the Remuneration Tribunal, including in its 1986 Review, and not accepted. It would establish a most undesirable precedent for the Parliament to override a Determination of the independent Tribunal so as to widen an entitlement available to Senators and Members. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That the Committee's reasons be adopted. Debate resumed from 5 June, on the following paper presented by Mr Beazley: Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities-Ministerial Statement, 3 June 1986. and on motion by Mr Young: That the House take note of the papers. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(12.26) —In continuation of my remarks in this House, the Guam doctrine made it clear that the United States of America would protect its allies against nuclear threats but that it would expect its allies to bear a greater share of their own defence burdens. It was obvious that, henceforth, we would have to make more of an effort to look after ourselves. Regrettably, the Fraser Government pursued a globalist view based on the assumption that Australia's security was dependent on a great and powerful ally. Our preoccupation with distant commitments left us with serious deficiencies in our force structure. The 1976 Defence White Paper recognised some of these deficiencies and identified increased self-reliance as primary requirements for Australia's security and defence policies. But the Fraser Government did not pursue self-reliance to the extent that the 1976 White Paper intended. The Fraser Government took little account of our regional defence needs, which assumes that the American alliance can no longer be related as closely to Australia's security as it was before the Vietnam war. The election of the Hawke Government in March 1983 firmly committed Australia to a policy of self-reliance and to strengthening the bonds between Australia and its great ally, the United States of America. In an essay published in the Journal of the Australian Naval Institute in February 1984, Lieutenant-Commander R. J. Willis, Royal Australian Navy, wrote: Regardless of the political nature of future Australian governments, the self-reliance posture is likely to remain as an enduring concept in defence planning. Australia will probably never be able to achieve absolute self-reliance, so the likely enduring problem is to determine an appropriate level of self-reliance based on both the strategic outlook and budgetary constraints. It is a policy that has been required by our great ally, the United States of America, since the early 1970s. It is a policy that must be pursued by a loyal and responsible partner of that alliance. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) in his tabling statement correctly observed: The ability to defend itself is the absolute minimum that any self-respecting country could contribute to an alliance. There is no doubt that just as a policy of self-reliance contributes to the strength of the Australia-United States alliance so, too, does the Australia-United States alliance contribute to Australia's ability to defend itself. Australia's access to intelligence and surveillance sensors, advanced technology such as the FFGs and FA18s, opportunities for combined exercises and availability of logistic support, greatly assist us in being able to provide for our own defence. I agree with the Dibb Review of Defence Capabilities that our force structure should be based on a strategy relying on three key elements. I refer first to Australia's area of direct military interest; secondly, layered defence within this region; and, thirdly, priority being given to meeting low level threats which could develop quickly, rather than developing capabilities more suited to higher level threats for which we would have more warning. There will never be enough money in peace-time defence budgets to satisfy all the apparently sensible proposals that come forward. However, over the last four Budgets of the Hawke Government, defence spending has grown by an average of 2.7 per cent. This year the defence bill is over $7.4 billion, that is, almost 10 per cent of total Commonwealth outlays and 2.9 per cent of gross domestic product. Only 17 countries in the world spend more absolutely on defence than Australia. In per capita terms we now spend three times more than Japan, and a defence budget of 3 per cent of GDP puts us in middle rank of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries. The Dibb report deserves full marks for its rational approach to our defence needs in the short term. However, we must ensure that our allies know exactly what we are doing and why we are doing it. The Government must emphasise that we stand ready in the long term to shoulder our regional commitments and to offer whatever assistance we can to those allies should any perceived threat to the stability of this region arise. Difficult decisions will have to be made on how to accomplish a policy of self-reliance. Although these decisions may disturb long held beliefs and traditions, Australia cannot afford any longer to avoid the challenge of reality. I am reassured by discussions held in the United States of America last week in this regard. I refer honourable members to the comments on the Dibb report by the Secretary of Defence, Mr Weinberger, who said: We think it is very desirable for Australia to strengthen their military forces to act in the various regions set out in the Dibb report . . . we think if the Australian forces are strengthened . . . that will benefit all of us. The Dibb report on defence is good news for Australia and it is particularly welcome news for northern Australians. For the people of northern Australia it is tangible recognition of their persistent pleas to successive Australian governments to defend the north. I am very pleased that the Government has decided to transfer the Royal Australian Air Force's No. 9 helicopter squadron from Amberley to Townsville. The move, which will take place in early 1989, will follow the re-equipping of the squadron at Amberley with Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopters. No. 9 squadron is currently equipped with Bell Iriquois helicopters. These will be replaced during 1987-88 by the Black Hawks, the purchase of which, along with eight Sikorsky Seahawks for the Royal Australian Navy's missile frigates, was announced on 1 May 1986. The move of the Black Hawks helicopters from Amberley to Townsville will considerably assist the training and capability of the Army's Operational Deployment Force already based at Townsville. Where other governments have failed, I am sure that the Hawke Government, by implementing most of the recommendations contained in the Dibb report, will earn the confidence and respect of the people of north Queensland. The report's recommendations are realistic and they are financially sustainable. The report proposes to retain the F-111 force with an appropriate update, for service until around the mid-1990s. The report recommends that eight light patrol frigates be built in Australia to enter service from the mid-1990s as the last three destroyer escorts and the first five Fremantle class patrol boats pay off. The new vessels would perform ocean patrol and sovereignty tasks in Australia's key maritime areas for which smaller patrol boats would be unsuitable. These vessels would be equipped with reconnaissance helicopters, missiles, air defence systems and a gun. This is in addition to the two guided missile frigates presently being constructed at Williamstown dockyard. The report states that many of our northern approaches are susceptible to mining and their closure would have a substantial political and economic effect. Ports such as Dampier, Port Hedland, Darwin, Gove and Weipa could be seen as particularly attractive for mining operations. The major ports of the south, essential for national survival, are also vulnerable. At present Australia has a single token mine countermeasures vessel, suitable only for training. This has resulted from poor planning and procrastination over many years. This deficiency is unacceptable and Australia needs, as a matter of priority, a capability to clear mines. Accordingly, programs for mine sweeping should be accelerated as a matter of priority. The report confirms Australia's need for new submarines. It notes that submarines are versatile and can be operated very formidably for intelligence collection, surveillance, mining and special operations in addition to their traditional anti-shipping and anti-submarine capabilities. Members will recall how effective submarines were in the Falklands crisis of 1982. The Hawke Government is proceeding with plans to acquire new high capability conventional submarines, appropriate for our circumstances. The report proposes that Australia's main submarine base be located at Cockburn Sound, Western Australia-HMAS Stirling-with a secondary base on the east coast. The report proposes to retain the approximate present size of the regular army of about 32,000 personnel. The report proposes to base units of the regular army in the Darwin-Tindal area beginning in the early 1990s with at least an infantry battalion and in the longer term a brigade-size formation. In respect of ground surveillance forces, the report notes that there would be a priority for surveillance and reconnaissance elements, particularly for the timely identification of enemy activity during a period of heightened tension or in the early stage of hostilities. The review encourages the further development of the largely reserve regional force surveillance units, including the possibility of increasing the regular army component. In this regard, units of the Townsville 11 Field Force Group, commanded by the dynamic Colonel George Mansford, AM, have deployment exercises planned for September and November 1986 and May 1987. Colonel Mansford proposes to conduct platoon level deployment exercises into the Cape York Peninsula area. These exercises are designed to practise platoons and companies in battle procedure, add realism and variety to training and practice marry-up procedures with regular troops. The report urges the establishment of an airfield facility on Cape York Peninsula and a new naval facility on the north-west coast of Western Australia. The report identifies the need to conduct a program of sustained exercises in the north with support from the south to identify logistic weaknesses. It is recommended that the Army's Operational Deployment Force, based at Townsville and commanded by the extremely able Brigadier Michael Harris, MC, be further developed. One of the most important recommendations in the Dibb report is for the rapid expansion of our intelligence and surveillance systems. The report, therefore, gives special attention to the over-the-horizon radar project which offers a very real possibility of allowing continuous monitoring of the great expanses of our sea and air approaches. The report proposes the establishment of at least five such radar systems by the mid-1990s. I urge the Government to give the highest priority to this recommendation. These are just several of the recommendations contained in the Dibb report. I regard their early implementation as a national priority. To his credit, Paul Dibb has produced a report which attempts to structure the defence forces to meet Australia's strategic circumstances within a realistic budget. It is without any shadow of doubt the most realistic document of its kind in military, political and economic terms ever prepared in Australia. The Northern Territory News in its editorial of 11 June 1986 said: It is to the enormous credit of Defence Minister, Mr Kim Beazley, probably the best and most far-sighted Defence Minister Australia has had since 1945, that he immediately undertook a review of our strategic priorities. And it is to the enormous discredit of the Opposition coalition that for little more than rank political reason they prefer to stick to the shibboleths of the past than go along with Dibb's recommendations. Like the Bourbons, the Liberal-National Parties appear to have learned nothing and forgotten everything. I commend the Government's initiative in implementing the Dibb report. I will follow its implementation with great interest and determination. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(12.37) —Time does not permit me to respond to some of the comments that have already been made as there are only a few minutes left for this debate. A couple of hours before the tabling of the Dibb Report on Australia's Defence Capabilities on 3 June, the head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Dr Des Ball, was asked by a reporter on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation what he thought the weaknesses of the Dibb report might be. Dr Ball's response was as follows: I would say that some of the strategic justifications are probably not as well developed as one would like and there are obvious reasons for that. The whole exercise only took 12 months in which the greater part of the time has been spent on the capability side rather than the strategic rationales. I think that because of that there could well be some uncertainty or doubts arising which would lead to some discussion about really what the strategic rationale of this exercise is. I am one of those for whom doubts have arisen concerning the strategic rationale of this report. On page 37 of the report, Mr Dibb identifies the first two principal national security interests of Australia as being the avoidance of global conflict and the maintenance of a favourable strategic situation in South East Asia and the South Pacific generally-Australia's sphere of primary strategic interest where developments can affect our national security. A few years ago the very highly respected Dr Robert O'Neill, formerly head of the Strategic Studies Centre and now head of the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies, considered the same national security interests, and it is interesting to compare his view of an appropriate strategic concept and force structure with those of Mr Dibb. Concerning global conflict, Dr O'Neill emphasised the need for the Western allies to maintain forces for rapid deployment to contain limited outbreaks of conflict or to demonstrate reactive capacity which might deter hostile actions. He argued that Australia had a positive interest to be served by the development of such a capacity and further that it must wish to avoid the negative consequences of perceived unwillingness or incapacity to make some contribution to this wider effort. In regard to the implications of a concern for the security of our region on force structure, Dr O'Neill's views were as follows. I shall quote this at length because of the significance of his remarks and the stark contrast his conclusions make when considered with the Dibb report. He said: In the event of a major regional or extra-regional threat to ASEAN states, support by Australian naval and air power may help considerably in either deterring or defeating any hostile initiatives. While Australian land power is not likely to be as significant a factor in the operational balance, its deployment in modest form (say a task force) within the region could be important for training from both Australian and ASEAN points of view, for deterrence and for diplomatic purposes . . . It seems to be time to develop Australia's capacity to play a large role in regional affairs . . . Sight should not be lost of a possible need to contribute the modest ground force . . . Unpalatable though the implications of this conclusion may be for many Australians in the aftermath of the Vietnam war, it would be foolish to forswear forever the use of one of their most applicable military strengths, in situations where it could maintain deterrence or tip the balance operationally. Dr O'Neill went on: If I may pre-empt one line of criticism of this argument, that I am thereby opening the door to the development of major intervention forces which will consume huge quantities of resources and thereby detract from current capabilities to defend Australia against direct threat-let me reiterate that the scale of force contribution likely to be required from Australia for regional deployment is modest. The defence strengths of regional partners are appreciable against local threats. What they are looking for in time of crisis is supplementation, not suppression. Let me also point out that failure to help maintain a favourable regional environment could require the maintenance of much greater forces to defend Australia. In other words, there is an economic argument to be faced by the strict constructionist of the `defence of Australia' posture. It should be obvious that this report does not give sufficient importance to our responsibilities in the region or to the effectiveness of a strategic rationale based on effective collective or common security and peace. It has also become obvious that the report has been seen to reflect increasing unwillingness to contribute to a wider Western security effort. I refer, for example, to the comments of the United States Commander in the Pacific, Admiral James Lyons, who has described this report's prescriptions as `insular'. Many comments have referred to the report as being insular. To be fair, this seems to be because Mr Dibb believes that Australia can afford what is best described-we have to admit this in view of the Budget brought down the other night-as an `I am all right, Jack' defence force. That view is apparently shared by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) who seems to have accepted, in his statement on the report, that realistic Budget parameters should be the overdetermining factor in developing strategic and military policy. That, of course, was shown when the Budget was brought down a couple of nights ago. I reject that view. This Government should determine what our interests are as a nation and how they are best to be pursued and protected. It should determine its defence budget on the basis of the realities of our international and regional strategic environment. Money should then be allocated on that basis and not in the inverted fashion of setting a politically defined domestic budget and then determining which targets we will meet and which obligations we will jettison. But, of course, to proposed such a course of action to this Government after the savage blow that it dealt defence in the 1986-87 Budget handed down two nights ago is obviously wishful thinking. In the Budget defence has been placed in a position where it could face an actual negative growth rate over the next 12 months. Mr Beazley —That is nonsense. Mr WEBSTER —It is a possibility. The Budget has made a mockery of the Dibb report and has called for a minimum annual real term growth rate of 3 per cent. That is a fact. It will mean that our defence forces will not be able adequately to defend our area on direct military interest, let alone to project force into the area of primary strategic interest in our own interests or to assist our allies. This Government should remind itself and the nation that the defence of the country is, in the last instance, the most important of a Federal government's responsibilities and that at the moment programs which duplicate State responsibilities or are essential only in terms of favourable public opinion polls are being funded at the expense of adequate Defence Force development. The Minister claims that the Dibb report is an intellectually complex and rigorous analysis-a significant intellectual achievement-but complexity, clarity and consistency are not as important as the substance of the rationale and the final recommendations. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 12.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with sessional order 106a. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The honourable member will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(12.45) —I move: That this House approves the Government's commitment to develop policies and programs to improve opportunities for young Australians in education and training, employment, health and housing, and its decision to put in place income support arrangements which will make those opportunities available to disadvantaged youth in particular. In moving this motion today I wish to draw the attention of the House to the development of policies and programs in education and training and in income support in particular. Before I do that I want to look at the situation that existed before 1983. Prior to 1983 the retention rate in schools and in educational institutions generally was appallingly low, and that augured very badly for the future of this country. We were looking at having a large number of people growing into adulthood with neither the educational basis nor the training in skills that would allow us to have a competent and creative work force. We had instead government policies which ignored the interests of young people, which provided little or nothing for them, which indulged in the rhetoric of excellence without backing that up with money, and which year by year was taking money away from tertiary and post-secondary education. It was actually ending up in the private schools system-a pretty interesting point. Young people were becoming very depressed about their chances to obtain useful employment and therefore began to see little or no point in working at secondary school in order to achieve nothing very much when they left. It became not only disappointing for teachers to see promising young people leaving school at the earliest possible opportunity but also it became increasingly difficult to motivate students to tackle difficult parts of the curriculum. Resources in the schools, particularly in the government schools, were becoming depleted and there was very little imagination, creativity or excitement in the system. In 1983 this Government identified many of the problems in the education, training and income support areas which had effectively denied many young people the opportunity to have a fair chance in life. Retention rates in schools, participation in a meagre range of training and post-compulsory education programs, the lack of resources going to these areas and a confused, confusing and inadequate array of support measures militated against the chances of many of our young people to do anything but join the ranks of the unemployed. A number of factors worked against young people from low income families continuing at school and going on to post-secondary education. The most glaring of these was the difference between the income support available to students remaining at school and the unemployment benefit available to those 16- and 17-year-olds who left school but did not obtain work. There was a difference of $27 a week between those two rates: $23 a week for secondary students from low income families and $45 rising to $50 a week for similar young people on the unemployment benefit. This was a substantial reason to discontinue schooling. As life became tougher for low income families pressure could be and often was put on young people to leave school because at the very worst they would be contributing $50 a week to the family income. The result of that, of course, was that many students who on an income-tested basis would have qualified for tertiary education assistance, had they finished secondary school, chose to leave instead, thus denying themselves the necessary qualifications for obtaining work in the first place and improving their life chances in the second place. Recognising that this could lead only to a long term deficiency in the ability and skills of our work force and an increasing number of severely disadvantaged adults in the years to come, the Government established the rationalisation of income support as one of the major parts of its Priority One youth strategy. The three main education-related income support schemes have been brought together as Austudy, an age-related income support scheme for students engaged in secondary or post-secondary education. To be phased in over the years 1986 to 1988, the result will be that there will be no difference between education-related income support and the unemployment benefit. A similar scheme for young people 18 years and over is being considered at the moment. I go back to that difference of $27 a week for the children of low income families-$23 a week if they stayed at school and $50 a week if they left and did nothing. We have been bringing that up-this year to $35, next year to $40 and in 1988 to $50-so that there will be no financial disincentive for 16- and 17-year-olds either at secondary school or engaged in post-secondary education to continue with that education. For the first time we have a living away from home allowance for secondary students who fulfil the strict conditions for the young homeless allowance, or who are unable to live at home. We know, and it is becoming more public every day, that a number of young people find it impossible to live at home, for a number of reasons. It may be because they are physically abused, because they are psychologically maltreated, because they are asked to leave by one or the other of their parents, who may or may not be their biological parents, or because they are sexually abused. Before this Government came to power those young people had nothing. They had no right to social security benefits; they had no right to an education allowance; they had nothing. They now have income support which will enable them to stay at school and to live away from home. Of course there is a very strict set of conditions for the provision of this support. We do not wish, any more than any other government would wish, to encourage young people to leave home lightly and irresponsibly, but we do believe it is imperative that the Government take notice of young people who are unable to live at home. By 1988, when the desired commonality will have been achieved for nearly all rates, those rates will be indexed annually and linked to maintain relativities so that they will not be at the mercy of budgetary constraints; they will not be left to rot away, as some allowances have been. They will be indexed and they will maintain their value. Assured income support at a reasonable level for the children of low income families will assist those young people and their families to plan a future based on a sound educational background and salable skills. It is not with pleasure that people who have low incomes see their children leaving school, see them jobless, see them bored, see them wasting the talents that they have. For many of those families it is a painful experience. This kind of incomes support, which will mean that that is not necessary, will have the approval of the families affected as well as the young people themselves and will reduce the tensions that are an inevitable part of trying to break up an income into very small pieces. None of this would have been any good at all had we not at the same time taken initiatives to increase the number of post-secondary places available to the students who want them and to increase the range, variety and quality of courses available in both secondary and post-secondary schools. There is absolutely no point in having a standard curriculum which does not recognise both the growing nature of the work opportunities available and the interests and concerns of young people. The number of tertiary places, for example, will increase next year-they are budgeted for in this year's Budget-by between 2,700 and 3,300, bringing the increase in the number of places in tertiary institutions in the 1985-1987 triennium to a possible 29,600, or 9,600 more than we had actually forecast. That is an 11 per cent increase in the number of tertiary places available to young people. Retention rates at secondary schools, of course, have increased over the period of our Government. We had in 1980 a participation rate of 35.4 per cent for 15- to 19-year-olds; we have now a 41.2 per cent participation rate for 15- to 19-year-olds. We had in 1985 a 46.4 per cent apparent retention rate until the final year of school-a very significant increase. Those retention rates are the results of some very carefully tailored funding to allow young people who have perhaps lost their way a bit to take part in catch-up courses, in transition courses, and in all sorts of educational opportunities which will lead them back into the mainstream. As a result of that carefully tailored funding 145,000 more young people are continuing their education than when we came to office in 1983. The long term effect of that increase is almost incalculable but we should understand that firstly we will have a more skilled work force. We will also have more competent young people-competent not only in their work but also in their daily lives. Greater value will be placed on staying in education. We will have, of course, a great deal more demand for post-secondary courses and skills training. That will give us an opportunity that we have been denied for many years-an opportunity to take advantage of the talents and abilities of our young people in a way that has not been possible previously. Apprenticeships also have been paid very considerable attention because this area of skilled work has suffered some very severe setbacks. Special support has been given to employers because the cost of releasing apprentices to their trade courses and to their off-the-job training in schools has become an increasing burden which has often resulted in employers not seeing their way clear to take on apprentices. In 1985-86 76,000 apprentices were assisted through the employer rebates and in 1986-87 we are looking at 89,000 apprentices being assisted. When we realise that many apprenticeships have not been the subject of such assistance, we are looking at a fair addition to our skilled work force. I have spoken about the Government's program of reform of educational opportunities and allowances for young people but I would like to turn now to the challenges and needs of young job seekers and the Government's labour market assistance programs for young people. Young people have shared in the buoyant labour market conditions over the last three years. Parallel to the increase in retention rates at school and increased participation in tertiary education and full time post-secondary training, there has been a rise in teenage employment as well as a rise in the number of those seeking work. Total teenage employment grew strongly over the past year with a greater number of teenagers combining part time work with study or vocational training. Teenage full time employment rose by 8,300, or 1.9 per cent, over the last year. It is not enormous and it is certainly not the figure we would like to have, but it has reached that level and it is rising. The interesting thing is that so many teenagers now combine part time study and part time work. That is an encouraging trend because it means that young people are beginning to take advantage of the educational opportunities that exist and at the same time are seeking to support themselves through part time work. However, the unemployment rate for teenagers remains at 22 per cent. That is caused by the number of school leavers seeking their first job. It was, however, 25.1 per cent in 1983, so we are down a little. The number of teenagers finding work has increased, but so too has the number who want a job, who want to join the labour force. All in all, I believe that the policies we have implemented since 1983 have indicated our commitment to youth, our commitment to improving the desperate position that they were in and our commitment to improving the overall capacity of Australians to contribute to this country. I guess the Priority One program is an overall label for our great collection of youth employment, youth training and youth education policies. Mr Blunt —It is an advertising campaign. Ms MAYER —I can tell from that interjection that the honourable member really does not understand what the Priority One program is about. Mr Staples —They do not understand young people. Ms MAYER —They do not understand people; that is absolutely right. Mr Staples —They do not care about young people. Ms MAYER —That is obvious; they never have. We have had to implement all of those programs in three years in order to save our young people from the desperate situation that they were in. Priority One encompasses the income support rationalisation-- Mr Blunt —We are still waiting for that. Ms MAYER —The income support rationalisation is already in place. It encompasses also education initiatives, including the increase in places. My friend opposite might wish to remember that there are 145,000 more young people in full time education than there were at the beginning of 1983. That might be some indication of the advantage that is being taken of the policies and programs that we have implemented. We have implemented a program to improve the worth and attractiveness of completing secondary education. We have improved the range of courses available. We have implemented a range of courses to tide young people over if they have left school as discouraged students and wish to return. We have improved the basic education programs in both primary and secondary schools through resources agreements with the States, and the Australian traineeship system is beginning to bear its first fruit. So we have looked at all of those areas for young people-income support, a range of educational opportunities and a range of skills training programs. I know that the motion's seconder, the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), will be paying attention to some additional policies, especially in the area of housing and health initiatives. I believe that this motion befits the times. We have brought down a Budget which was difficult to bring down, but we live in difficult times. However, our commitment to youth, our commitment to enabling young people to achieve their aims, to fulfil their objectives and become contributing citizens of this country in every way is unarguable. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Is the motion seconded? Mr Staples —I second the motion with pleasure and reserve my right to speak at a later time. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(1.05) —This motion was first listed for debate in the Notice Paper in February 1985. Its terms are effusive and certainly the speech that we have just heard from the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) is very approving of the Government's supposed commitment to young Australians. We are now dealing with it in August 1986, eighteen months after it was first proposed. I hasten to say that that is not the fault of the mover, and that is not the point I wish to make; it is the fault of the parliamentary program. But the 18- month delay since the motion was first put down has provided us with yet another insight into the way in which this Government operates and into one of its fundamental weaknesses. It is a weakness that is becoming increasingly apparent to the Australian electorate and it is a weakness that will see it driven from office. Mr Deputy Speaker, how does this Government operate? Firstly, it is a government of the big public relations self-promotion exercise; a government of the big sell. It is a government of the public relations extravaganza. What is its weakness? The weakness is that there is a yawning gap between the Government's full-blown rhetoric and its performance. Nowhere is the gap between rhetoric and performance more apparent than in the area of youth policy, which is the subject of this motion. A year ago, almost to the day, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) made his great play for the youth vote. He made his television address to the nation announcing the Priority One youth package. We have had it all since then including the balloons and the whistles. We have had the hype about the traineeships and we have had the phone-in campaign. Remember that expensive con job-ring up Bob and tell him what you think! We have had the billboard and the cinema advertisements: `Priority One; we are the one'. We have had the rock concerts. We have even had Bob on Countdown with Molly. We have seen all the balloons and heard all the whistles relating to the Priority One program: `Hey man, we are hip, we know where you are coming from; we are attuned to the problems of young people and we are going to solve all those problems'. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars have been wasted on this sort of self-promotional rubbish. It is designed to convince and con young Australians, that the Australian Labor Party is the party for them. That is all the rhetoric. We should put that behind us and look at the performance of this Government in the area of youth policy. On every count of this motion the Government has failed young Australians and will continue to fail them while it remains in office. The honourable member's motion covered five specific policy areas which particularly impact on young people: First, education and training; secondly, employment; thirdly, health; fourthly, housing; and, fifthly, income support. The honourable member for Chisholm bravely tried to argue that in these five areas this Government has shown unique concern for young people and has delivered special benefits to them. I accept that the honourable member's heart is in the right place but her efforts have been in vain. The facts rather than the hype, the realities rather than the rhetoric, reveal a completely different picture. They show that young Australians are having the screws put on them by this Government and that its policies are worsening rather than improving the position of young people. For every minor initiative, for every dodgy promotional program launched in the name of the Government's love and concern for young Australians, a multitude of problems has intensified the social, psychological and economic pressures on young people. I would like quickly to run through the honourable member's five-point checklist. In running through it I shall give the House a taste of the other side of the story, the down side of the Government's impact on the lives of young Australians. The honourable member spoke long about the Budget and the initiatives that have been taken in it. If we look at the area of education and training, we see that this Budget cuts school funding. Almost every part of the Commonwealth schools budget has been cut. Recurrent funding to government schools is down by 1.6 per cent; capital funding for government schools is down by 7.2 per cent; capital funding for non-government schools is down; and the funding for a whole series of joint programs is down by 38.6 per cent. The multicultural education program has been scrapped; the English as a second language program has been slashed; and the ethnic schools program has been restricted. All of this directly impacts on the hundreds of thousands of young people in Australian schools today. Tertiary fees have been introduced. Senator Ryan and the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples), who will speak shortly, can fudge all they like-the plain fact is that they have reintroduced tertiary fees and students themselves will be financing the gap left in university and college of advanced education budgets as the Government begins to roll back its financial commitment to the higher education sector. The traineeship scheme-Pete Steedman's great Priority One flagship-is an absolute shambles. The fundamental problems of union resistance and the Government's lack of success in negotiating trainee wages remain, discouraging the private employer involvement crucial to the scheme's success. The benefits of the scheme remain very much potential rather than real. Remember what we were promised? We were promised 10,000 traineeships for last financial year. In August, a month after last financial year, only 2,025 traineeship places have been filled. The Government talks about 4,000 places having been created but only half of those created have been filled, and that falls well short of half the 10,000. What about the 75,000 traineeships that we are supposed to have by 1988? This Budget provides funding for only a further 15,000 places and, if this Budget is as successful in funding those schemes as the projections for last year, we can look askance at the traineeship program. Let me turn to unemployment, or employment as the honourable member for Chisholm would have us believe. Youth unemployment is higher now than it was when the Prime Minister spoke a year ago. In August 1985 the Prime Minister announced Priority One. The unemployment rate for 15- to 19-year-olds looking for full time work was 21.5 per cent. Last month's preliminary figure was 22.7 per cent-a full 1.2 per cent increase in youth unemployment. The average length of unemployment for 15- to 19-year-olds is now 29.1 weeks, and 46.2 weeks for 20- to 24-year-olds. The Government's youth employment policies are simply not working. Forget about the hype; the facts prove the case. I turn to health. I am waiting to hear what the honourable member for Jagajaga has to say about health, but young people, like all Australians, have been hit by a 25 per cent increase in compulsory health insurance costs as a result of the Government's Budget decision to increase the Medicare levy. If we turn to housing, young people make up one of the primary groups being hardest hit by the spiralling rents resulting from the tightening of conditions in the rental market since the Government announced its decision to end negative gearing. Rent is probably the biggest cost for young people striking out and setting up independently. It is well within the Government's power to do something about the end of negative gearing and the rent hikes which have followed and will continue to follow. So if we look at rental housing, young people have been disadvantaged, not advantaged, since this Government has been in office. Young home buyers have also been disadvantaged, not advantaged, since this Government came to office. Young people attempting to break out of the rental market and into their first home of their own are finding it incredibly difficult to cope with the high interest rates they are now facing as a result of this Government's economic policies. The fifth area that the honourable member raised concerned income support. We accept that the Austudy income support package for young people in late secondary and tertiary education does have some merit, but the Government still has not faced up to the fact that the different means tests applying to education benefits and the unemployment benefit will continue to disadvantage students, even when the gap between the levels of Austudy and the unemployment benefit are eliminated. That problem has to be faced up to as well. Let me go beyond the five points mentioned in the honourable member's motion. As I said earlier, youth unemployment is rising. It can be expected to rise even more and at a faster rate in the coming financial year as a result of the Government's economic mismanagement. The Government has admitted that unemployment will rise. It is not being candid, however, about the fact that young people especially will be particularly disadvantaged in the unemployment growth downturn. New labour force entrants, overwhelmingly young people, will suffer most as new hirings taper off and job opportunities consequently become scarcer. More young people will be thrown on the dole scrapheap, and all of the negative psychological and economic problems attendant on that will follow. The education system will hardly be a receptive haven for the growing number of young people. Thousands of them are already being locked out of our tertiary education system, unable to get the education and training they want, which they need to improve themselves and their prospects in later life. To wrap it all up, on top of all this young Australians are being hit hard by dramatic rises in the cost of living. Inflation is unacceptably high, leading to higher prices month by month. On top of general price inflation the Government, with this Budget, is throwing its own additional cost hikes into the system. I have mentioned the health insurance cost hike, thanks to the increased Medicare levy and tertiary fees. The increase in petrol excise of 3c a litre will severely impact on highly mobile young people-driving to universities, driving to work and conducting their leisure activities on weekends. It would be hard enough as it is, without this extra increase. Look at just one minor area of consumption relating to young people. The 10 per cent excise on flavoured milk, for heaven's sake, on Big M, and on fruit juice and cider, will further subject young people to additional cost hikes. That is a result of the direct policies of this Government. We have spiralling rents due to the end of negative gearing, and higher overseas travel costs thanks to the drop of the Australian dollar. When I was a young person, and when the honourable member for Jagajaga was a young person, it was almost an institution to save up and go overseas to broaden one's horizons, to backpack around Europe or the United Kingdom, to get that experience and then come back and take up higher education studies. They are not within a bull's roar of what we were able to do because of the fall of the Australian dollar, thanks to the Government's economic policies. I turn to another area of consumer purchases. The bankcard rate since this Government came to power has gone from 18 per cent to 21 per cent. If people put their jeans and sweaters on bankcard, they can thank this Government for a proportion of the increased price that they are now paying. So quite frankly, Mr Deputy Speaker, we reject this motion. It is an embarrassment to the Government and I wonder why the honourable member who moved it did not take it off the Notice Paper 18 months ago. Young people are being left only one thing by this Government-a very high national debt, expected to be $1,000 billion next year. Young Australians will be pleased to note that their share is about $6,000 each. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(1.20) —It is with considerable pleasure that I support this motion of the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), a member who has dedicated a lot of work in her electorate to the development of opportunities for all young people. It is also worth noting that at the time notice of this motion was given, 25 February 1985, this Government had made substantial improvements in a short time to opportunities for young people. But there was more to follow throughout that year, and indeed further improvements have been made in this 1986-87 Budget as well. However it should be noted that this Government did not have to do much to create improvements because the Liberal and National parties ignored young people in the community and in general terms their policies led our young people into the fear of unemployment, poor education, sub-minimal incomes and a powerless status on the fringe of this society. It is important for all to note that the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) failed to tell us what Opposition members actually did in their periods in office over the last four or five decades; nor did he say what they had failed to do. He could not point to one single positive thing that they had done. Furthermore he failed again, because he does not have the answers, to point out what the Opposition would do now. That is what people have to recognise: The Opposition failed to do anything before and it does not have any ideas now. That failed government was made up of people such as the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), known at that time as the world's worst Treasurer and today known as the world's worst Opposition Leader, and the honourable member for Menzies (Mr N.A. Brown)-or Diamond Valley, as he was until I came along-was known across the land as the person who tried to close down the community youth support scheme. He was then the Minister for Employment and Youth Affairs. I should not be too hard on him because he was only one of a long string of failures in that Government who contributed to the highest level of unemployment, including youth unemployment, in Australia since the Depression. At a time of record levels of unemployment he tried to abolish CYSS but, thankfully, the Australian electorate and the Australian Labor Party stopped that. I ask: Which parties tried to turn public education into welfare education? It was the Liberal Party and the National Party, and they would do it again. Which parties downgraded the tertiary education system and tried to bring in tertiary tuition fees and have said they would do it again? That is right, it is the Liberal and National parties. Which government made tertiary education the privilege of the rich? Which government downgraded the tertiary education assistance scheme allowance from 22.6 of average weekly earnings in 1974 to 15.4 per cent of average weekly earnings in 1982? Yes, right again, it was the Liberal and National parties. Here is another question that should be easy for everyone here to answer. Which parties in government imported skilled migrants, while they watched our own apprenticeship system fall into oblivion and at the same time failed to train our own young people in Australia? I say `imported', not `migrated', because that is the way they treat people-just like production goods, just like machines. Right again-I hear the echoes of the shadow Ministers over there from the Liberal and National parties. Their only solution to youth unemployment, and all unemployment, was to cut wages, especially youth wages, and which parties' only solution is to do it again? The Liberal and National parties. Which parties in government ran pilot schemes for three years, year after year, for youth emergency accommodation while our kids lived under bridges, in concrete pipes or wherever they could find some shelter for the night? The Liberal and National parties. Why did they not bring in a supported accommodation assistance scheme, as this Government has done? That is a small glimpse of the dismal record of the former discredited government of the Liberal and National parties, that dismal Opposition that sits over there today and has the gall to criticise this Government for its role and its good work in dealing with young Australians. That is the record that young Australians and Australians generally have to compare with the record of this Government. Quite frankly I do not have the time-I have only 11 minutes left-to go through the record of this Government, but let me make a few simple points. On Sunday, 18 August 1985 in West Heidelberg, in my electorate of Jagajaga, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) nationally launched Priority One-Young Australia. He said that young people are Australia's most important resource. Priority One-Young Australia announced to all Australians at that time that our young people are a vital and dynamic section of our society and our economy. They are not only the future; they are also an intrinsic element of the present. All Australians should recognise this role and this status of young people today. They are important not just for the future but for the present as well. These are not empty sentiments, because Priority One has brought together the mish-mash of the old programs and rationalised them and revitalised them, then enmeshed them with a range of new programs to cover comprehensively the major elements of youth needs. I refer to education, income support, training and information and support services. Since the Hawke Government came to office, a mere 41 months ago, we have seen this commitment to young people put into dollars, bricks and mortar and recognition. This Government has encouraged more young people to stay at school in order to build their skills, employability and future. In 1982, under the present Opposition, only 36.3 per cent of our young people completed Year 12. Today, only 41 months later, the figure is 46.4 per cent, and 64,000 more teenagers are in post-compulsory education. They are staying there because this Government has given them better schools, more interesting and relevant studies and more financial security for themselves and their families. It is honouring its commitment to young Australians. This Labor Government has honoured its commitment to increase tertiary education places. By the end of 1987 the number of higher education places will have increased by 36,800 to 299,900-a phenomenal growth of 14 per cent. There are now an estimated 145,000 more young people in post-compulsory education than there were 41 months ago. That is a 17 per cent increase. What this means is that seventeen more young people in every 100 are now furthering their education than was the case 41 months ago. That is only the beginning. People should think what that will mean to Australia's future prospects for a stable society and a dynamic new order of economic and industrial development. Young Australians have been able to take these opportunities provided by their Labor Government because it has increased expenditure and improved accessibility of student support schemes. Only the wealthy could keep their kids at school under the former Government, often with the assistance of the perks of their employment. We are now putting a stop to those perks, as well. Now more ordinary Australian kids are getting a fair go. I turn now to training and employment. Youth unemployment is a major concern of the Government and of the community and a major target of the Priority One strategy. Priority One is indeed increasing young people's competitiveness by providing new skills, training and higher education levels and this is assisted, despite what the shadow Minister says, by the Australian traineeship system and the rationalisation of wage subsidy programs into a single program. We have also seen the targeting of assistance to those most disadvantaged and an increased apprenticeship intake. The honourable member for Tangney talked about having only 4,000 traineeships. That is 4,000 more than the previous Government ever put on the ground or even attempted to produce, and that is the bottom line that people have to consider. Of course all these developments would have been so much harder to obtain if the Government had not been able to develop economic growth and growth in employment which has stood out ahead of the world. Contrasting that with the record of those opposite is superfluous. They despise and denigrate the role of the community employment program. Thankfully their views are rejected by this Government and by young people and the electorate in general. The income support program of the previous government had gaps all over the place. It used acronyms and schemes like band-aids on a sinking boat. In effect, it often took band-aids from one hole to place them over new leaks. It was a disastrous and confusing mess. But this Government has restructured and increased the value of income support for young people. In 1986 the secondary assistance scheme payments have been raised, bridging the gap between TEAS and the unemployment benefit, although these benefits have also been increased. In 1988 the basic rates for 16- and 17-year-old secondary and tertiary students and the unemployed will be at the same level. Older young students will be getting parity with the unemployed. That is a major breakthrough, but the Opposition would have neither the brains nor the desire to implement such a scheme. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard tables that deal with the participation, retention and employment rates of young people. Leave granted. The tables read as follows- EMPLOYMENT AND UNEMPLOYMENT LEVELS AND LABOUR FORCE PARTICIPATION RATES Persons Aged 15 to 24, May 1984 to May 1986 1984 1985 1986 Total Employment ('000)... 1,557.8 1,592.1 1,641.4 Change over previous year (%)... +3.1 +2.2 +3.1 Unemployment ('000)... 303.0 276.5 269.3 Change over previous year (%)... -11.9 -8.7 -2.6 Participation Rates (%)... 71.3 71.4 72.3 Percentage point difference over previous year... -0.4 +0.1 +0.9 Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics PARTICIPATION RATES BY AGE, ALL SCHOOLS, SELECTED YEARS 1975 TO 1985 (Per cent) Age (years) 1975 persons 1980 persons 1983 persons 1985 males females persons 14 95.9 97.4 97.7 98.1 98.1 98.1 15 83.1 86.1 88.5 90.0 90.6 90.3 16 55.3 57.4 61.9 63.8 65.8 64.8 17 30.2 29.4 33.5 36.7 39.3 38.0 18 6.7 5.7 6.3 8.0 6.5 7.3 19 1.6 1.7 2.2 1.4 1.1 1.3 15-19 36.3 35.4 38.2 40.8 41.5 41.2 Source: Commonwealth Department of Education APPARENT RETENTION RATES TO THE FINAL YEAR OF SCHOOL, SELECTED YEARS 1975 TO 1985 (Per cent) 1975 1980 1982 1983 1984 1985 Males... 34.6 31.9 32.9 37.5 32.1 43.5 Females... 33.6 37.3 39.9 43.9 48.0 49.5 Persons... 34.1 34.5 36.3 40.6 45.0 46.4 Source: Commonwealth Department of Education STUDENT LOAD IN UNIVERSITIES AND ADVANCED EDUCATION (a) (as at 30 April each year, 1981-87) Univer- sities Advanced Education Total Change on previous year '000 '000 '000 % 1981... 128.8 123.5 252.3 +1.2 1982... 129.3 126.2 255.5 +1.3 1983... 131.6 131.5 263.1 +3.0 1984... 134.4 135.9 270.3 +2.7 1985... 136.8 141.2 278.0 +2.8 1986(b)... 140.4 148.5 288.9 +3.9 1987(c)... 146.5 153.4 299.9 +3.8 (a) Expressed as `equivalent full-time students', as defined by the Commonwealth Tertiary Education Commission. (b) Preliminary. (c) Projected. Mr STAPLES —I consider information and support services to be of the most immediate value. Young people have always had a culture of their own-their language, their music and many of their attitudes. Governments and older members of society in general have until now failed to recognise not only the culture of young people but also their needs and their potential contribution to our society. This Labor Government, not the Liberal and National parties, has introduced information and support services specifically targeted at young people for their use. It is true that already an extensive range of support services in the community is provided by government and many non-government sources. However, those services have been traditionally delivered in a disjointed and ad hoc fashion. That is because there has not been any effective Commonwealth co-ordination. This Australian Labor Government has constructively brought together many of those services. We are seeing that now-on the ground, in the streets, in shopping centres and in clubs; wherever we go where young people are. Under the Priority One banner we have seen the establishment by this Government of Commonwealth Employment Service youth access centres. These centres, which will be progressively expanded throughout the nation, are already providing information on labour markets, education, income support, accommodation and referral services. Youth access centre workers are trained to communicate with young people, their teachers and parents. This is vital in ensuring that the services provided by government are known of and used effectively. I pay tribute at this stage to the dedication of CYSS workers. Under this Government CYSS workers and people using CYSS have been guaranteed security. I pay special tribute to all those local management committees and project workers throughout Australia, particularly those in my own electorate who work tirelessly for the unemployed with those at the Project For Unemployed Self Help and the Youth and Others Unemployed Resources Centre within the Bundoora-Watsonia Employment Development Project. The tremendous contribution those people are making to the young people of Jagajaga should not be underestimated. It does not stop there. We have youth services and development programs, youth worker training schemes, the national campaign against drug abuse, access to public housing for young people, the supported accommodation assistance program for homeless young people, the Government's commitment to the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless and support for young people with disabilities. On and on it goes. I have not the time to go through it all. A range of Government departments have revamped their information services so that these services appeal to and communicate better with young people. I pay special tribute to the Department of Social Security, the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, the Prime Minister's own department, the Department of Education and the Attorney-General's Department. Their involvement and efforts are a direct result of their recognition of what the International Year of Youth was all about. While on the subject of the International Youth Year, let me say this to the House and the older members of society in general: Do not underestimate the strength and ability of young people as individuals or as a section of societies. Unfortunately, International Youth Year was seen as a year solely for young people. But it was not. It was a year for all of us, young and old, to begin to understand that young people in Australia, young people throughout the world, have a role and a status in society today that must be recognised by all. It is up to all of us in the older society who do have the power to share that power with young people, as it is their right. That applies to the Federal Government, to all of us here, to State government, to local government, to the local football and netball club committees, to the school, to the work-place, and, indeed, to the family. I say to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and to others listening: `Do not ignore young people; give them their rights; give them your ears'. I must say in closing that this Government and in particular our Prime Minister has done more than any other government, than any other Prime Minister. Having just returned from the Commonwealth Youth Affairs Council meeting in Guyana I can say on an international scale that our Prime Minister has done more to listen to and involve young people in his society than just about any other Prime Minister in the world. As we all know, our young people, in common with their peers throughout the world have an abhorrence of nuclear weapons and a desire for disarmament and peace. That is the greatest hope of this world in the history of humanity. I ask the Prime Minister on behalf of Australian youth to re-examine the Budget and take note of the concern of young people to see the cessation of the arms race and, in particular, their concern for French nuclear testing in the South Pacific, and have regard to their overwhelming objection to uranium sales to France, Mr SLIPPER(Fisher)(1.34) —Just a few short days ago we saw the spectre of the Prime Minister of this nation softening it up for what was to be a hard Budget. He mentioned that we were in a wartime crisis situation, that the country was in real difficulty and that it needed tough policies for tough times. For once I agree with the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that this nation faces a political, economic and social crisis of truly mammoth proportions. We have seen a walk-out by three Labor members from the House. We see a bitter revolt by Australian Labor Party factional members opposed to the Government's continued refusal to take any notice of party policy and the plea by the member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) a moment ago is a public indication of the divisions in the ALP over various issues. Our dollar is virtually worthless with the latest crash taking it down to just a shade over 60 US cents. I am afraid that soon Monopoly money will be worth more than our ailing currency under Labor. Any financial newspaper in the nation will show that share prices are plummeting and the market is nervous. Interest rates are set to go to an all-time high, bankrupting even more businesses and causing people to lose their homes and to be thrown out on to the street. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —I would remind the honourable member that he is rather extending his views away from the subject of the debate. Mr SLIPPER —Thank you for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will continue to point out that Labor's dole queues will lengthen even further and Australia's young people, the people whom we are concerned about, will in fact be injured and will be disadvantaged further by this Government's continued policies. In the Treasurer's Budget Speech, Mr Keating himself foreshadowed a growth in unemployment and bearing the brunt of government policy will be Australia's future, Australia's youth. The Treasurer may well say that we are about to become a banana republic but a visitor to our country recently said that Australia is the only Third World country where you can still drink the water. That may well be so, but it does not assist our young people, many of whom under Labor have absolutely no prospect of ever finding productive employment. The honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer) may have been well-intentioned when she gave notice of her motion to the House on 22 February 1985 and it is interesting to note that that was the last day that this Government permitted private members to give notices of motions to be debated before the people of Australia. Vital matters were involved in many cases but the Government has prevented members from continuing publicly to give notices of motion and has prevented the broadcasting of them. In the light of current circumstances the motion of the honourable member for Chisholm becomes little better than a sick joke. She asks this House to approve the Government's commitment to developing policies and programs to improve certain opportunities for young Australians. No doubt the honourable member is wishing she did not give notice of that motion and she is regretting very much that it was necessary for her to stand up in the House and speak on her motion today. We can all recall the fanfare of publicity just over 12 months ago on 18 August 1985 when Prime Minister Hawke announced, and I quote: `The welfare and encouragement of young Australians is my first priority as Prime Minister'. Certainly it is a laudable and commendable aim. Everyone on both sides of the House would agree, but once again, Mr Deputy Speaker, this outgoing Labor Government has been long on rhetoric and short on action. A central feature of Priority One was the 10,000 traineeships which were to be created in 1986 building up to a total of 75,000 traineeships by Australia's bicentennial year, 1988. Unfortunately, and our regret on this side of the House is genuine, for Australia's school leavers the Government's program has to date been an abject failure. I understand that fewer than 4,000 traineeships have so far been provided in 1986. What is going to happen in the four months or so between now and the end of the year? Is the Government seriously going to tell us and those young people who may be listening to this broadcast that it is going to find another 6,000 traineeships in the next four months? I suspect, and indeed the people of Australia would appreciate, that the Government cannot meet its objective and that Priority One has been an expensive and abject failure. Some people, however, reaped a bonanza from Mr Forty-Eight-he used to be Mr Seventy-Eight-when he ensured that the Australian Labor Party's Victorian advertising agency and media outlets obtained the sum of $500,000 through a glossy advertising campaign. Priority One, sadly, unfortunately, tragically for the youth of Australia, has been a flop. The printing of expensive publications and the production of expensive television advertisements have not achieved their aims. Priority One has failed and the youth of Australia, once again, have been cynically used by this Government as a scapegoat. Let us not talk in generalities. I think we should look at the youth unemployment figures in Australia. August 1985 was the month last year when Priority One was introduced, and at that time 21.7 per cent-or 121,600 young people aged between 15 and 19-were unemployed. July 1986 saw the situation worsen to 22.7 per cent or, numerically, 128,300. That means that in the time of this so-called Priority One program the unemployment percentage for young people has risen by one per cent. The Government stands exposed. The situation has wor- sened. It proves what we in the Opposition say, namely, that Priority One has simply not been a success. Mr Blunt —It is a failure. Mr Shack —It is a failure. Mr SLIPPER —A failure, as the shadow Ministers mention. Let us look at what we did when we were the Government. We hear over and over again from the Labor Party that things have got better since it came to office. The average period of youth unemployment in March 1983-Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be aware that that was the fateful month when Labor crawled into office-was 33 weeks. The situation has blown out, has worsened, I suppose a bit like Treasurer Keating's Budget deficits, to 51.9 weeks in March 1986. It means an unemployment situation where the average young person was unemployed for 33 weeks before Labor came to office and now for 51.9 weeks after three years of Labor mismanagement and misrule. Mr Smith —It is disgraceful. Mr SLIPPER —It is disgraceful, as my colleague the honourable member for Bass, Mr Smith, accurately points out to the House. The people of Australia will condemn this Government for what has not been done, for the way in which young people have, in effect, been ignored. Another tragedy is that the Treasurer's Budget guesstimates-he called them estimates but they are only guesstimates-for unemployment and employment over the next 12 months expose the soft underbelly of the Government. Let us go back and look particularly at my electorate of Fisher and the situation there over the past 12 months. We have a number of regional offices of the Commonwealth Employment Service and they do a marvellous job. We have Mr Reg Wheeler, who is the manager of the Caboolture Job Centre, and Mr Roy Hose, who is the manager of the Strathpine Job Centre. These two managers and their staff do a wonderful job getting young people into jobs. There are other regional offices which also cover certain parts of my electorate. These people, Mr Deputy Speaker, do a wonderful job and what this Government should be doing is bringing forward policies which are going to assist young people into employment. In June 1985 in the age group 15-19 in the Caboolture area 395 young people were unemployed. In June 1986 this had increased to 584, an increase of 189 or 32.6 per cent. The age group 20-24 had 281 unemployed in June 1985 and 439 in June 1986, an increase of 158 or 35.99 per cent. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is now 1.45 p.m. In accordance with standing order 109 as amended for this session, the debate on the motion is interrupted. Motion (by Mr Duffy) agreed to: That the time for the discussion of Notice No. 1, General Business, be extended till 2 p.m. Mr McVeigh —He deserves an extension; it is a great speech. Mr SLIPPER —I thank my colleague and I also thank the Minister for moving the motion. What is this Government saying to the young people of Caboolture, whose unemployment rate in the 15-19 age group has increased to 32.6 per cent and in the 20-24 age group to 35.99 per cent? This Government stands exposed for what it is. This is not a government interested in young people; it is a government interested in its own public perception; it is a government which is prepared to spend taxpayers' money to create an impression that it is doing something, when in fact it is not. I have mainly concentrated on employment, and in the remaining few minutes available to me I would like to touch on some other areas. In education, up to 33,000 young Australians qualified to enter tertiary institutions have not been allocated places and yet, when Premier Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen at the Queensland National Party Conference this year announced the establishment of the Bond University of Applied Technology, the Minister for Education, Senator Ryan, and numerous other government figures criticised this new opportunity for young people. It simply is not good enough for the Government to rely on and to expound ideology when education opportunities of young people are lacking. We in the Opposition support the principle that young, able-bodied people should work for the dole. In fact, in a recent survey 92 per cent supported this principle, but the left wing of the Australian Labor Party will not permit this to occur and, consequently, this policy, which is supported by vast numbers of Australians, will not be implemented. The motion of the honourable member for Chisholm also mentions what the Government has done for young people's health. Let us remember what the Prime Minister's promise was on Medicare prior to the 1984 election. He mentioned, in an effort to get back into government, that the Government would not increase in its next term of office the Medicare levy from the existing level of one per cent. What did the Treasurer announce in the Budget this year? He has increased the Medicare levy from 1 December 1986 from a level of one per cent to a level of 1.25 per cent, and young people-those who are fortunate enough to have a job-will, like those in the rest of the community, be paying this additional impost. It is important to remember that the Labor Party, by bringing in Medicare, has utterly and completely destroyed Queensland's free hospitals. People used to be able to go to Queensland's free hospitals for medical or hospital treatment and not pay anything but, under this Labor Government, they will in fact pay 1.25 per cent after 1 December. In housing, young people have suffered as a result of Labor's continuing high interest rate policy. Young people need to go to building societies, and recently building societies have been lending very much less than they were previously. Australia's future is its youth. We are going through the most difficult economic period in our history. We need statesmanship, we need leadership, we need positive policies to help young people. We do not need posturing, we do not need strutting across the world stage; what we must have is a definite, firm decisive commitment to assist young people. The people of Australia demand it. This Government will have to implement it, otherwise it will undoubtedly be defeated at the next election. Mr GEAR(Canning)(1.49) —I listened to the speeches of the two honourable members opposite in this debate and, apart from a passing reference by the honourable member for Fisher (Mr Slipper), there was not one constructive suggestion from the Opposition on how it would tackle the youth unemployment problem. I will go back shortly to the suggestion of the honourable member for Fisher. The basic problem we have to understand not only in the youth area but within the Australian economy is the narrow range of our economy that we inherited from about 30 years of conservative governments. The fact is that Australian industry ceased to exist under them and if you trace the history you will find that the industry that we used to have was highly protected, highly subsidised, and in the words of the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones), who put it quite accurately: `If you ever wanted to see a working museum you only had to look at Australian industry'. Added to that, the overvalued dollar ensured that eventually it was going to collapse, and collapse it did in the early 1980s. I have figures here, which I will get to shortly, to support that. Let us go back to the honourable member for Fisher's one suggestion, about making the unemployed work for the dole. Assuming the work is there-that is a fair enough assumption if you are going to proceed with this particular idea-and taking as a very generous allowance one full time supervisor for every 100 unemployed people, 6,000 full time supervisors would be necessary. Those 6,000 full time supervisors would be paid, say, $20,000 a year, without add-on costs. That is another $120m to be found in the Budget. Honourable members opposite always talk about fiscal restraint. That cost is just for the supervisors. I am just throwing up a few of the practical problems to be faced if the honourable member ever wants to get that loony idea off the ground. So without the cost of materials, the tools that have to be used to undertake the work, the workers compensation and all those add-on costs, you soon arrive at the fact that it is going to cost a lot of money to get work of dubious value. Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to defend the Government's position on its youth policy and just point out some of the things that we have done since we have been in power. I know as a member of the Caucus education committee that one of the first things we did when we got into power was to conduct two reviews of the youth policy within Australia. One was conducted by a team from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the other one was an internal study headed by Mr Peter Kirby, who is the Director of Technical and Further Education in Victoria. The Government received both of those reports and looked for areas of commonality. One thing to come out quite clearly was a gaping hole in the skills level of some of our young people. Trades training was looked after by apprenticeships; technician training, by and large, was looked after by the larger corporations; and the TAFE sector and the professions were well catered for in many respects by the universities and colleges of advanced education. The areas that were not looked after, that were not receiving training, were those areas of potential growth-some in the semi-skills, some in the service industries-where youth suffered a severe disadvantage in relation to people with experience. One of the real imbalances in looking at the different rates of unemployment amongst our young people compared to the average work force is the fact that they do not have the skills to compete on an equitable basis. That compares quite starkly with West Germany and other countries in the OECD who do have a comprehensive policy, one that we have adopted now. The traineeships is an attempt to plug that hole. I have heard honourable members opposite speak ill of the traineeships and castigate this Government for not reaching the targets that we wanted to reach. Admittedly we did not get to the 10,000 figure. We still have high hopes of reaching the 75,000 figure next year. But the fact is that this Government did have a go. It had to overcome all the in-built reservations that not only the trade union movement and employers had about the scheme, but also those of many other groups as well. I believe that the Government should be congratulated on tackling this particular area in the way that it has. One of the most important initiatives and one that I checked on this morning is to do with youth services. I rang up the youth access centre in Gosnells and talked to the people there about the role that it is playing in the electorate of Canning. They told me that one of the most important aspects of their work is the outreach program, where they have workers who go into schools, doing what they call street work; that is, they go to areas where kids hang out, apart from schools or shopping centres. They try to make contact with the youth of Australia and point out to them the different aspects and the different government programs that are put in place to support the sorts of initiatives that this Government has undertaken. They have found that by doing this they have been very much more successful in reaching those young people who up until that time had been neglected. One of the most important things that the young people ask the youth access centre in Gosnells about is jobs. They ask about careers and also about accommodation and food. Things like family crises are also mentioned when these young people come in to the youth access centres, which was and important initiative of the government. They find that the more informal atmosphere and the feedback, the follow-up from the youth access centres, are filling a need that was there for a long time and this Government is to be congratulated for identifying it. We heard a lot from members of the Opposition about unemployment. They dwelt on recent figures covering a very short span of time. I would just like to expand that time to have a look at the unemployment rate under the former Government and bring it up to date. In non-seasonally adjusted terms, teenage unemployment in August 1975 when the Whitlam Government was still in power stood at 12.9 per cent. In March of 1982 it had risen to 17.3 per cent and in the final year the Liberal-Country Party Government it went from 17.3 per cent to 24.3 per cent. That reinforces, Madam Speaker, the fact that industry had collapsed in Australia and many of those opportunities that were there before no longer existed. As of March 1986 that figure had fallen from the 24.3 per cent that we inherited to 21.4 per cent. On the other hand, full time employment from August 1975 to 1982 actually fell by 47,800; that is, a drop of 9.2 per cent. In the year to March 1983-that is in the final year of the coalition Government-it fell by a massive 91,600, a fall of 17.3 per cent. By March of 1986 employment in that teenage category had risen by 10,600 or 2.4 per cent. More telling also, Madam Speaker, is the number of persons proceeding to higher education between 1978 and 1984, a period including the final years of the Fraser Government. In 1978 the number proceeding to higher education stood at 45.8 per cent. By 1982 it had fallen to 41.9 per cent. In the first year of this Government it had risen to 43.1 per cent and in 1984, the last year for which figures are available, it had risen to 43 per cent. I anticipate that that figure will rise as the education policies of this Government start to work their way through the educational system. The motion also refers to what the Government has done for housing for young people. The main avenue for the provision of public housing over which the Government has influence is the 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement. The 1984 Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement specified for the first time that housing assistance would be available to all sections of the community, irrespective of age, sex, marital status, race, religion, disability or life situation with priority on the basis of need. That is the only area that the Government has direct control over. I turn to look at the amounts of money spent by the Federal Government on public housing. In the last year of the Fraser Government it stood at $552m. Under this Budget it will rise to $1,278m, a massive increase in public housing which will advantage the young people of Australia. No government in the history of Australia has undertaken such a vast range of policy initiatives for the youth of Australia as has the Hawke Government. It has overhauled the areas of income support, opened new areas of vocational education and has begun the job of restructuring Australian industry which will not only be of economic benefit to Australia but will also offer new opportunities for the talents of our young people. It stands in stark contrast to the failure of successive conservative governments. Madam SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 104, as amended for this session, the time allotted for precedence to General Business has expired. The honourable member for Canning will have leave to continue his speech when the debate is resumed. The resumption of the debate will be an order of the day under General Business for the next sitting. Mr SPENDER —My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Is there any precedent for providing by an Act of this Parliament that information before a commission of inquiry established by this Parliament, whose work has been conducted in private-including information which the Government itself is not privy to-should be denied forever examination by the public, by the Parliament, or by law enforcement agencies? Further, what possible public interest justification exists for, first, locking up forever material in the possession of the Commission, not examined by the Government or anyone else outside the Commission, such as fresh evidence which may have been discovered by the Commission of criminal activities of third persons and which has not already been passed by it to law enforcement authorities and, second, preventing material before the Commission being used in court proceedings other than proceedings against the person who provided the material? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Let us make it very clear that the honourable gentleman again raises matters which were the subject of debate yesterday, when it was clearly said that the real safeguard that we are anxious to protect concerns allegations that might have been made-not investigations about those allegations but just allegations. Mr Sinclair —What about criminal prosecutions against others? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Honourable members on my left will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The matter raised in the honourable member's question was debated yesterday. In reply yesterday I said that he did not really understand the existing legislation, which enables- Mr Spender —Dead right. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for North Sydney has asked a question and he will await the answer. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I repeat that the whole thrust of the honourable gentleman's argument yesterday was the same as his question today. In reply yesterday it was made clear to the honourable gentleman that the appropriate provisions of the existing Commission-first, the sections relating to being able to return documents to those who have given them; and, secondly, if there is any evidence of any crime, the Commission itself would, under section 34, be able to report that matter-- Mr Spender —What about the bulk of the material? Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for North Sydney. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The honourable gentleman knows that it is a matter of record to you, Madam Speaker, and the Presiding Officer in the Senate, that no evidence has been taken. Is that clear? The point is that no evidence has been taken. There were documents and they can be returned to anyone who gave them to the Commission, and that is provided for in the existing legislation. If in the course of looking at the documents the Commission feels that there was a matter that might affect a third party, or the question of a crime, it would be able to refer those documents under section 34 of the existing legislation. What is left? The real issue is that someone might have made an allegation in a document, and that document is the subject of a question of protection. A document in which a person may have made an allegation with no evidence given might well affect Mr Justice Murphy in terms of what it might have said about him. However, bear in mind that there has been no evidence. I think that is very clear. I listened to the debate in the Senate, and even there everybody has been able to say: `Look, we do not really want to have the outrageous situation that if the medical evidence is such that his Honour has a very short-- Mr Sinclair —Never mind that. We are worried about others. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad that the right honourable gentleman said that because that is the only concern about the issue in the legislation. Honourable members interjecting- Mr Sinclair —On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Can I ask you to ask the honourable gentleman on the Labor benches who called me a criminal to withdraw that remark. I regard it as contemptible. Mr Holding —I withdraw. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am making the point that the medical evidence shows clearly that there is a very serious illness and that the life expectancy of Mr Justice Murphy may well be short. On that basis, no fair-minded person would want the Press or someone to be commenting on the fact that someone made an allegation in a document with no opportunity for His Honour to rebut it. If there is a suggestion that there is evidence of crime or criminal conduct, at that point the Commission itself would automatically deal with the matter under section 34. I think that the honourable member for Bruce is on record as saying that he gave certain material to the Commission. He can get it back. Mr Howard —But can anybody publish it? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will cease talking across the table. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am sure that the honourable gentleman would be able to take the risk of publishing it. That is the point. It has nothing to do with the allegation. The honour- able gentleman made the point yesterday that there was some question of national security being involved back in 1973. Let me also make it very clear that no person, including the honourable gentleman, who is able to walk around and talk, is prevented from so doing in any other inquiry, or in any other evidence that he wants to give. Where do we get this nonsense that because this section talks about an allegation in a document, people are prevented from giving evidence? I have never heard the like of it. It is outrageous to be suggesting that people are prevented from doing so. Bear in mind that no evidence has been given and that is a matter of record. There has been an accumulation of documents which can be returned to those who have given them. If there were any suggestion of wrongdoing in the documents, I am sure that the Commission would have taken action under section 34. I hope that for the first time the honourable member for North Sydney will at least read the legislation-it is there-and understand that the Commission would be able to do its duty, and perhaps would have done it in accordance with either section 18 or section 34. The suggestion that witnesses have been silenced when in fact there have been no witnesses is utterly ridiculous. If the honourable member for Bruce has some evidence, he can offer it wherever there is an opportunity to do so. The same applies to what he was anxious to do yesterday, to bring in the fact that some gentleman named Anderson had given evidence to a select committee in New South Wales. Anderson is not prevented from giving evidence anywhere else. In fact, I believe that one would be very busy finding Mr Anderson now. He is known to be a convicted criminal and, therefore, he has no credibility. I return to the point. What does it do for a dying man and his family and children to have this sort of malicious innuendo available for publication? It is all very well for the Melbourne Age and the National Times to be saying that it is in the public interest. Even the Commission itself says: `Who wants to hound a dying man, whether in parliament or by the commission? Is it the privilege of the National Times and the Melbourne Age to hound a dying man? Of course it is not. That is the real issue behind this legislation. That is the protection. No suggestion of wrongdoing has been covered up. No document that can be returned would be refused to be returned. Mr Sinclair —Why did they want an extension of time? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The National Crime Authority or anywhere else will have any document that they want. There is simply a need to prevent people such as we might have opposite, who are anxious to use the unctuous claim: `We do not want to hurt Mr Justice Murphy, but . . .'. When we get to the `but' we see suggestions that-- Mr Sinclair —They wanted more time. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the Leader of the National Party. Mr Sinclair —Don't worry about it. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —The right honourable gentleman says: `Don't worry about it'. It is a very serious matter for Mr Justice Murphy and his family. Mr Sinclair —Of course it is, and that is the point. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I am glad that that is appreciated. That is the point. That is what it is all about. It is about preventing a dying man being maligned, a man who is unable to answer any accusations. The right honourable gentleman does not want to face that. Mr Carlton —You are covering up. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Covering up-nothing. How can one possibly cover up when the others who have given the evidence anywhere else are still able to give it? How can one cover up when they can have the documents that they have given returned to them? How can one cover up when the Commission itself, having examined documents concerning an offence against some other person, is entitled and able to give those documents to the appropriate law enforcement agency? Where is the cover up? Mr Sinclair —You are the cover up. Madam SPEAKER —I name the Leader of the National Party. Motion (by Mr Young) put: That the right honourable member for New England be suspended from the service of the House. The House divided. (Madam Speaker-Hon. Joan Child) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 79 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 61 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 18 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jakobsen, C. A.Beazley, K. C. Jenkins, H. A.Beddall, D, P. Jones, BarryBilney, G. N. Keating, P. J.Blanchard, C. A. Kelly, R. J.Blewett, N. Kent, L.Bowen, Lionel Keogh, L. J.Brown, John Kerin, J. C.Brown, Robert Klugman, R. E.Brumby, J. M. Lamb, A. H.Campbell, G. Langmore, J. V.Charles, D. E Lee, M.Charlesworth, R. I. Lindsay, E. J.Chynoweth. R. L. McHugh, J.Cleeland, P. R. McLeay, LeoCohen, B. Maher, M. J.Cross, M. D. Martin, S. P.Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mayer, H.Darling, E. E. Mildren, J. B.Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P.Dubois, S. G. Morris, AllanDuffy, M. J. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. O'Keefe, N. P.Edwards, Ronald O'Neil, L. R. T.Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S.Fitzgibbon, E. J. Punch, G. F.Gayler, J. Saunderson, J.Gear, G. Scholes, G. G. D.Gorman, R. N. J. Scott, J. L.Grace, E. L. Simmons, D. W.Griffiths, A. G. Snow, J. H.Hand, G. L. Staples, P. R.Hawke, R. J. L. Theophanous, A. C.Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E.Holding, A. C. Uren, T.Hollis, C. West, S. J.Howe, B. L. Willis, R.Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Wright, K. W.Hurford, C. J. Young, M. J.Jacobi, R. Aldred, K. J. Hunt, R. J. D.Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Jull, D. F.Beale, J. H. Katter, R. C.Blunt, C. W. Lloyd, B.Braithwaite, R. A. McGauran, P. J.Brown, N. A. MacKellar, M. J. R.Burr, M. A. McVeigh, D. T.Cadman, A. G. Macphee, I. M.Cameron, Donald Miles, C. G.Cameron, Ewen Millar, P. C.Cameron, Ian Moore, J. C.Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B.Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S.Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R.Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K.Conquest, B. J. Robinson, IanCowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C.Downer, A. J. G. Ruddock, P. M.Drummond, P. H. Shack, P. D.Edwards, Harry Sharp, J.Everingham, P. A. E. Shipton, R. F.Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC.Fisher, Peter Slipper, P. N.Goodluck, B. J. Smith, W.Hall, Steele Spender, J. M.Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J.Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W.Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P.Hodges, J. C. White, P. N. D.Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C.Howard, J. W. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The right honourable member is suspended from the service of the House for 24 hours. The right honourable member for New England thereupon withdrew from the chamber. Mr LEE —Can the Prime Minister advise the House of this Government's record in meeting its Budget outlays targets? How does this record compare with that of previous governments' Budgets, particularly those prepared by the Leader of the Opposition, Honest John? Mr HAWKE —I thank the honourable member for his question and I am pleased to be able to report on the comparison of our three years with the last three years of our predecessors. In our Budget outlays forecasts the error has been 0.5 per cent, compared with an error of 2.1 per cent for the previous three years under the previous Government. So with a track record like that it is very difficult to take seriously at all the suggestions made by the Leader of the Opposition at his recent gathering in Adelaide that if he had three successive years of zero real growth he could finish up at the end of a hypothetical Howard government with a balanced Budget. It is even more difficult to take the Leader of the Opposition seriously when he runs around the country trying to cobble a coalition of forces by on the one hand promising massive reductions in taxes, taking away tax imposts of this Government and at the same time having a pork barrel of promises. The simple question is: Where would he get the money; how would he do it? Madam Speaker, you know I have a record of always sharing the goodies with this House, and there has come into my possession a memorandum from the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition, at 24 October 1984, written to the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Peacock. This document came to our attention as a result of having been given to us by a Peacock supporter, of whom there are very many. Do not look worried, Andrew. I say here that it was not given to me by you. It was given to me by one of your supporters. You may look worried, but you have no need to worry. Johnny is more worried, and he should be. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there are more to come from where this one came. It will be the leak and trickle-down effect. I share with the House and the Australian public what the then Deputy Leader of the Opposition said in the election campaign of 1984. He was trying to tell his leader to be honest and saying, by implication, that Mr Peacock was not being honest. The Deputy Leader, Mr Howard, said this to Mr Peacock: As you are aware, I have been concerned for some time at the cost of many of our commitments. In particular you will recall my reservations about the consequences of many of our policy commitments as they were being made over recent months. I remain very concerned that in the election campaign in which we are alleging that the deficit is too high, that spending has run away underneath Labor, and in which there is a general perception of reasonable competent economic management under the Hawke Government-- hear, hear- we will be extremely vulnerable if Labor can successfully put the tag of `where's the money coming from' on our election offerings. Our own research shows clearly that voters need to be convinced on this score. Attacking Mr Peacock, he went on to say that he had examined costings done by Mr Peacock's worker in a number of areas. I shall not use his name, but simply call him X. He said: I am worried that they understate the true position. He is telling his Leader that he was not telling the truth. He went on to give examples of how he and that ever-reliable Michael Baume-we know his reputation for and history of absolute accuracy in matters financial and economic-- Mr Howard —We had a little contretemps a few months ago in this place about allegations relating to people's integrity. Therefore, I ask you, Madam Speaker, in the spirit of that admonition, to require the Prime Minister to withdraw that allegation against my friend and colleague Senator Michael Baume. Madam SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will withdraw the personal allegation. Mr HAWKE —I withdraw, Madam Speaker. Opposition members-Withdraw. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister withdrew. If Opposition members had not been making so much noise, they would have heard him do so. Mr HAWKE —I had withdrawn. The rest of this document will go to the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. I am not making any withdrawal in regard to the question of the integrity-- Mr N.A. Brown —You are a swine-a despicable swine. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will withdraw. Mr N.A. Brown —Yes, I withdraw and I am sorry. Mr HAWKE —I am not making any withdrawal as to the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition, because this document goes to it. The then Deputy Leader of the Opposition said that he was worried that the costings understated the true position. He said that Mr Baume and himself had looked at the matter and did not agree with what the Leader of the Opposition had been doing. He goes on to say: `You have been putting out a dishonest figure. I, the honest Deputy Leader of the Opposition am telling you that, on the basis of my and Mr Baume's workings, the real figure is in excess of $1 billion in 1985-86 and closer to $1.5 billion in 1986-87'. He went on: If it is assumed that our deficit would be at least $1 billion lower than Labor's, we have about $2-2.5 billion to `account for'. He said, `You have been misleading the people. I am telling you what the honest figure is and we have between $2 billion and $2.5 billion to account for.' He went on to say: I do not believe the costings issue can be avoided. The media is already pressing for our detailed costings. Then he went on to say what should be done to be honest and accurate-not to do what the Leader of the Opposition was doing-and in conclusion he said: Such an approach- his approach- is not only credible. It is also economically honest. That was an attack by the Leader of the Opposition in his former capacity. He said that what Mr Peacock was doing was not honest and that he should be honest in his statements. Since the Leader of the Opposition has assumed that position, he has abandoned all pretence at honesty. He has not been prepared to do what he demanded of the then Leader of the Opposition. So that people can understand clearly the double standards, hypocrisy and dishonesty of the Leader of the Opposition, I table the document. Madam SPEAKER —Order! A number of members of the House have referred to the statement that I made in regard to personal remarks in the House. I draw their attention to the rest of the statement and ask them to take note of it. I went on to say-it has not been highlighted by any member who has called a point of order-that all honourable members have an individual responsibility to the House to lift their standards of behaviour and observe the standards which are expected within the House. I further said that many of you have expressed respect for the institution of Parliament, for the Standing Orders and for the position of Speaker. I again suggest that you put those expressions of support into practice. Mr Shipton —On a point of order: In the spirit and the words of your statement to the House on 20 February, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment at the end of the answer that the Leader of the Opposition was dishonest. Madam SPEAKER —I do not believe that the Prime Minister said that the Leader of the Opposition was dishonest. The honourable member is quite out of order. Mr HOWARD —Before I ask a question of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Madam Speaker, may I, with your indulgence, table the memorandum from which the Prime Minister quoted at length? He trailed his coat rather badly on it. We knew some days ago that he was going to raise it. It was in the National Times. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Is the Leader of the Opposition asking a question? Mr HOWARD —Yes. Does the Minister for Foreign Affairs support the Budget announcement to lift the ban on uranium sales to France? Can the Minister assure the House that the criterion used by the Prime Minister to justify that decision namely that the ban was not being effective-will be applied in relation to the Government's policy of applying economic sanctions against South Africa? Or is the Government's moral outrage on the uranium issue more disposable than its moral outrage against apartheid? Madam SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the Minister for Foreign Affairs, I point out that the Leader of the Opposition needs leave to table his document. Is leave granted? Leave is granted. Mr HAYDEN —I leave the Prime Minister to give his own explanations of arguments he may have put and to decide whether he wishes to put them. However I have no problems. My views about prohibitions on uranium are well-tested. I expressed myself quite clearly and publicly- Mr Howard —Do you support the Budget decision? Mr HAYDEN —Let me run through it. If I do not answer a point which the honourable member raised with me he should remind me when I wind up and I shall be happy to respond. My views about prohibitions on uranium exports are well-known. I expressed my views publicly at the 1982 Federal Conference of the Labor Party and generated some controversy that caused changes to that policy. As for my personal view about whether the prohibitions on uranium exports to France were working, I believe that they were not working. That is a clear and unassailable statement. The Leader of the Opposition asked me to make some comparison- Mr Ian Cameron —Will sanctions work? That is what we are interested in. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Maranoa will listen to the answer from the Minister for Foreign Affairs and not interject. Mr HAYDEN —The honourable member asked me to draw some parallel between sanctions against South Africa and the- Mr Ian Cameron —The wheat trade. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I warn the honourable member for Maranoa. I will not put up with his ceaseless interruptions. He has been given a lot of latitude over a long time. Mr Slipper —Have the flowers wilted? Madam SPEAKER —Yes, they have. It is time for another bunch. Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition asked me to draw some sort of parallel between the embargo against the export of uranium to France which was related to a particular difference we have had with it over nuclear testing and sanctions-I use different terminology between the embargo and the sanctions-which increasingly are being applied by this country and by other countries against South Africa. They are being applied against South Africa because it alone of all the countries in the world has institutionalised racism and practises the most odious and unacceptable forms of racial discrimination. No other country in the world has any parallel with what is happening in South Africa, so any proposition that there should be a comparison, that there is some sort of an analogy, immediately falls by the wayside. The sanctions in the case of South Africa are working. The sporting sanctions which were applied by a conservative government and earlier by the Whitlam Labor Government and which have been continued by this Government do work and they do cause pain. The evidence to me from my Department and sources it has available to it is that the South Africans feel considerably distressed and disadvantaged because they are excluded from major competitive international sporting events in areas where they wish to participate and in areas where they excel. They do excel in rugby union, being quite formidable players, and in cricket. This has hurt them and has caused them, to some extent, to reassess their position. To the extent that comprehensive economic sanctions can be applied on a global basis, they will work. I am quite satisfied about that. There is a fundamental difference between us and the Opposition in this area, but I stress that this does not by any means include all members of the Opposition. Many people in the Opposition agree with our view. We will not retreat from our commitment to try to encourage comprehensive economic sanctions being applied against South Africa by the rest of the global order. We believe that the oppression of that vast black majority, the cruelty which we see night by night on television screens, symbolised by the whipping of black people by white policemen with sjamboks, is a totally unacceptable symbol of what is supposed to be a Western democracy. As far as I am concerned, there will be no retreat from those policies and there is no parallel. Mr Howard —Do you support the Budget decision? Mr HAYDEN —The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I supported the Budget decision. Of course I do; every member of Cabinet supports the decisions of the Cabinet. I will be working for all aspects of the Budget to uphold its integrity and its appropriateness for the conditions that this country faces at present. Mr FITZGIBBON —Is the Minister for Social Security aware of recent Opposition statements which advocate abolishing unemployment benefits for the long term unemployed and young first job seekers? Can the Minister enlighten the House as to the implications of such policies? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for his question. To put the question into context one needs to go back no further than yesterday and look at an interview that took place between the shadow Treasurer, the honourable member for Mackellar, and Haydn Sargent. In the interview the shadow Treasurer was asked, naturally enough, what his reaction was to the Budget. It was assumed by the interviewer that it would be negative and he was not disappointed. He was asked to indicate very early in the interview his attitude to the fringe benefits tax, which has effect within this Budget but of course is not a new measure. Of course, in all honesty he had to admit that the fringe benefits tax would be scrapped by the Opposition at a cost, I think, of $300m, and $600m in a full year. He was then asked how he would approach the question of achieving the level of deficit that had been achieved by the Government. He indicated that he would achieve that purely on the expenditure side. As I understand it, if he were to achieve a deficit of the order of $3 1/2 billion that would mean that over and above the cuts that have been announced-I think I know something about those cuts-he would need to find another $1.5 billion. The shadow Treasurer was then asked: `If you are going to have to find another $1 1/2 billion over and above $2 1/2 billion in cuts, where are you going to find it'? That seems to me to be a very good question. Interestingly enough, where does the shadow Treasurer go for his first attempt at that hard question? Of course, he goes to the young unemployed. He says: `We ought to knock off the 16- and 17-year-olds. The 16- and 17-year-olds who are on the unemployment benefit ought to be removed from it'. He was then asked, I think not unfairly: `What is that going to save'? He answered: `Oh, I can't give it to you exactly . . . I have done those sums, I haven't got a brilliant memory for figures, I am on the run down in Melbourne on a list of post-Budget meetings and that's the only reason I can't give you the figures-but I have actually done those sums . . .' It is pretty clear that this is one of a number of examples of the Opposition's creating figures. I guess we will get an exercise in this tonight. Members of the Opposition pluck figures out of the air and attach those figures to particular groups in the community where they have a prejudice or where there may be a prejudice in the community. In this particular case we have the example of the young unemployed. The Opposition has no idea of what the savings would be, but they are targeted. The second group, is the supporting parents. It is suggested that this is an area where a great deal could be saved. I think everyone in this House knows that, as a whole, this is one of the poorest groups in the Australian community, but it is the second group targeted out. When we ask the Opposition how it would make a saving in that area, the shadow Treasurer says: `It is really a matter of simple management techniques. We are going to save hundreds of millions of dollars to get that extra $1.5 billion by simple management techniques'. I think this is an example of the level of integrity and the lack of thought that comes from members of the Opposition. They are simply on about stigmatising groups, not about doing an analysis, so we get no comment at all about the measures being taken. Mr N.A. Brown —What rubbish! Mr HOWE —If the honourable member thinks that is unfair about the honourable member for Mackellar, let us look at the honourable member for Menzies. The honourable member for Menzies is not simply on about the young unemployed or even supporting parents; he says that all long term unemployment beneficiaries ought to be wiped off the books. That is what he said in Launceston. Mr N.A. Brown —You do not know what you are talking about. Mr HOWE —He said: `Let us wipe off all the long term beneficiaries. That ought to be a pretty good saving; that ought to be a good way of making the figures add up'. That is what the honourable member is suggesting. Let me give an example. Let us ask: `Who are the long term unemployed'? When the honourable member for Menzies, or indeed the honourable member for Mackellar, make these kinds of statements, they are essentially statements about prejudice. They are not about people and they are not made with any clear analysis of who is likely to be affected. A total of 29,497 people aged between 45 and 65 years are unemployed, many of whom will not work again. It is these older unemployed people, who face the most difficult circumstances in the labour market, that the honourable member opposite singles out to achieve impossible savings. The Opposition's response to this Budget is an impossible dream. It is a dream about cracking down on people in a way which bears no particular relationship to reality, but would simply target some of the groups that have suffered most severely within the community. It is not based on any economic logic. It is very clear indeed that the kinds of figures that have been talked about in terms of outcomes are quite unachievable. They have simply been plucked out of the air because the people on the Opposition side represent a particular section of the community. It is not surprising that the honourable member for Mackellar began that particular interview by admitting that he wants to remove a tax that effectively taxes business lunches, private use of motor vehicles and so on-effectively taxes those benefits that go to the people whom he represents, as a form of tax avoidance-while he singles out in a quite indiscriminate way people who are unemployed. Mr CARLTON —My question is to the Treasurer. I remind the Treasurer that last year in Budget Statement No. 2 he published tables of Australia's external debt and its associated servicing payments, including Treasury estimates to the end of the 1984-85 financial year which showed a debt servicing ratio for interest and capital of 33.6 per cent, that is, that almost 34c in every dollar of export income was required to service our debt. Why have such tables not been included in this year's Budget Papers? Is the Government ashamed to publish them? What is the Treasury's estimate of the debt servicing ratio for the 1985-86 financial year? Also, what does he expect the ratio to be in 1986-87? Mr KEATING —Budget Paper No. 1 is, of course, a very extensive document. I cannot off the top of my head reconcile what is in it this year compared with last year except that each year we have been providing more information-much more information than the previous Government ever provided-by way of outlays, changes to the macroeconomy and commentary on the various components of economic growth, receipts and outlays. I just make the point-I made it in the course of media presentations on Budget night-that the Australian Budget papers are the Rolls Royce of budget papers. I do not know whether members of the House are familiar with budget papers in Britain, the United States of America, Canada or anywhere else, but there is nothing to equal the quality, the comprehension or indeed the forecasts and the expatiation of the forecasts which underpin that work. I do not think they ought to be taken for granted by honourable members as though this is how everyone gets them. It is not how everyone gets them. Mr Carlton —Are you going to cut them off then? Mr KEATING —No. I believe that they ought to be provided. I believe that more information ought to be provided, which is why this Government has been totally open in providing economic information. The whole process of opening up economic policy-making through the Economic Planning Advisory Council mechanism, through the Advisory Committee on Prices and Incomes and through the Budget Papers is consistent with our approach. The point that the honourable gentleman raises is the size of Australia's external debt; of course, that has been rising. But the main point to make about it is that we have to have a policy to deal with it. The only policy to deal with it is coming from the Government side. We have heard not one policy prescription from the Opposition to deal with our terms of trade or the change in our trade-not one. Opposition members do not believe that the exchange rate will play any role. They say that there is no J-effect. They call it the L-curve. They do not believe that the exchange rate has a role. They do not think that budgetary policy has a role. I am yet to hear what role they believe any policy prescription that they have will play to meet the terms of trade, the external imbalance problems. After 18 months of this debate, we have yet to hear one positive constructive contribution about a major change; so much for the Opposition's bleatings! I just make this point: Who got us onto the treadmill of debt? Opposition members-You did! Mr KEATING —Who had 6 per cent? Who holds the record for the current account deficit? It is J. W. Howard, the champion of current account deficits with 6.1 per cent in 1981-82. Opposition members can look at the Budget Papers if they do not believe it. Even the Budget current account deficit in prospect at 5 3/4 per cent is well under that 6.1 per cent. The accumulation of debt started then. The current account imbalance was on the way then, only to subside in the recession of 1982-83. But what did the Leader of the Opposition do about it? Did he and all of his colleagues who supposedly represent the farmers try to get the exchange rate to a sensible value? No, they murdered the farmers. The Country Party murdered the farmers on international markets. Opposition members were running around to farm meetings crying crocodile tears while they were ripping to pieces the farmers' export earnings. They were tearing the factories to shreds with their overvalued exchange rate. I notice that in Mr Kemp's latest book he has some lovely quotes from Malcolm Fraser saying that, yes, the previous Government did overvalue the exchange rate as an expressed anti-inflation weapon. In other words, he is saying `We had no wages policy; we had no incomes policy; so what we did was to keep pressure on local prices by bringing in cheap imports'. Thank you very much Mr Fraser and Mr Howard. What they did was to wipe out our manufacturing base. They wrecked our export markets. They destroyed farm incomes for years. They let the massive accumulation of foreign debt build up and now they are saying to a Labor government: `Here, you fix it. We wrecked the manufacturing sector'. We have said: `Okay. We have the guts to float the exchange rate. We will let it come down. We will pull the inflationary surge out of wages.' Yet Opposition members ask me puny questions about the size of the external debt. Mr Carlton —Puny questions? Mr KEATING —They are puny questions because the previous Government did nothing about the external debt. Those humbugs on the other side did nothing about it. It is not enough for the honourable member for Carlton to ask a question; he was a Minister in that Government. What did he say then to the honourable member for Bennelong and the then right honourable member for Wannon? Did he say then: `Look, the industries of this country are being cut to pieces; our external imbalance is something that Australia cannot afford. We must rebalance the economy. Wage increases of 16 per cent are intolerable. We must have an incomes policy. We cannot do this with the exchange rate'? No, he did not do that. He dropped the ball of his public responsibilities. So he should not ask us questions about the build-up of external debt. He is the cause of the problem. Mr WRIGHT —I also direct my question to the Treasurer. I refer to the promises of the Liberal-National Party Opposition which on the one hand is promising large increases in government spending in certain areas yet on the other hand is advocating a massive reduction in the Commonwealth's revenue base. I ask: How would these policies affect the goal of achieving higher and lasting economic growth in Australia? Mr KEATING —In short, they would be disastrous. They would derail four years of painstaking effort to make the economy competitive again. They would derail four years of trying to get Australia right. I repeat from the memorandum which the Prime Minister released, and which I have just seen, the views of the honourable member for Bennelong. He states: I do not believe the costings issues can be avoided. He also states: Such an approach is not only credible. It is also economically honest. He refers there to publishing estimates of changes in policy. Let us go through the changes in policy forecast by the Leader of the Opposition and their impact upon the real economy of this country. These are the changes in receipts: Abolition of the fringe benefits tax, which he has recently recommitted himself to-$325m; abolition of the capital gains tax-$5m; abolition of the tax on lump sum superannuation-$80m; reinstitution of entertainment expenses-$310m; reinstitution of negative gearing-$50m; full flow-on of world oil price reductions-$400m; abolition of sales tax on oils and lubricants-$66m; abolition of tax on new oil-$165m; the provision of child care rebates-$108m. Mr Howard —Who made this up? Mr KEATING —They are made from your statements, my friend. Mr Howard —Ha, ha, ha! Mr KEATING —That silly little giggle will get the Leader of the Opposition into trouble if he keeps it up. Other Opposition changes would be the restoration of income equalisation deposits, averaging $23m and abolition of the wine tax-$107m. In all that makes $1.6 billion of receipts. Other measures forecast by the Opposition include the repeal of the assets test-$150m; abolition of export inspection charges-$46m; and a wage freeze-$400m. That amounts to a further $600m on top of the $1.6 billion. On top of that, he has also committed the Opposition to income splitting-family taxation-which would cost $2.7 billion. He and the honourable member for Mackellar say that they will have a flatter tax system. They will have a top rate of 40c, not 49c, for companies and individuals, which would cost a further $1.6 billion. So there would be a cost of $1.6 billion for the 40 per cent rate, $2.7 billion for income splitting, $600m for the repeal of the assets test and $1.6 billion for the tax changes, totalling $7.5 billion. But he then says: `In three years we will completely remove the Budget deficit'. That means he would have to find another $3.5 billion on top of the $7.5 billion, which totals $11 billion. He wanders around the country making these statements. He says: `I affirm again that we will abolish the fringe benefits tax'. Such statements are issued every week. The list can be ticked off every week. But there is an $11 billion gap. So let us hear again statements such as, `I do not believe the costing issues can be avoided', and `such an approach is not only creditable, given the costings; it is also economically honest'. Let us hear from Honest John tonight about the $11 billion. Mr DOWNER —My question is also directed to the Treasurer. Is it a fact that officers of the Treasury and/or the Treasurer's own office briefed overseas financial institutions some time before the presentation of the Budget? What form did that briefing take? Mr KEATING —That is not true. Mr HUMPHREYS —Has the attention of the Special Minister of State been drawn to the Queensland Government's pamphlet entitled `Once it was a fight to vote!'? Does he intend to issue a similar publication to assist Commonwealth electors? Mr YOUNG —As someone who has taken a long term interest in the facilities made available to Australian voters, I was somewhat attracted to the pamphlet entitled `Once it was a fight to vote!', which has been issued in Queensland by the National Party Government. It is very colourful. It cost $350,000, so the Queensland Government obviously has a lot of money. It tells us a lot. It states that people in Queensland have a lot of freedom and a lot of integrity in their electoral system. The other attractive part of the pamphlet is the following statement: In Queensland, there has always been a strong sense of the freedom of the individual. It also states: The Americans fought their War of Independence in 1776, the French stormed the Bastille in 1789. This determination to secure our early freedom was echoed in Australia during the Eureka Stockade in 1854 and the Suffragette movements of the 1890s. Such blood-letting in Queensland! I wonder what would be the attitude of the Queensland Government if someone were to get violent about getting one vote one value in that State. The pamphlet contains many other attractive parts. For instance, I was attracted to the help it gives to each individual electorate. I know that many back benchers have not seen it and I am anxious for them to come to my office and tell me whether they think it would be a good idea for it to be published for use in the next Federal election. Each copy of the pamphlet contains a photo of my old friend Neville Harper. I do not intend to put my photo in five million copies of a pamphlet to be sent around Australia. Government members-Oh! Mr YOUNG —I will think about it, if the honourable members feel like that. The pamphlet gives a lot of information. It states: There are already mobile polling booths which are taken to hospital wards and such like, and if you're unable to leave home, let us know and we'll send someone who's called an Electoral Visitor . . . And listen to this-Pat Kennelly would have loved this: You can even vote from your car . . . Do honourable members remember the old way of voting when one kept changing one's badge? I must say that it is a very attractive pamphlet. We will give very serious consideration to assisting all voters throughout Australia before the next election on the basis of what we have achieved. Mr Hunt —Who is riding the horse? Mr YOUNG —I am not too sure what is the association between the light horseman and the right to vote in Australia. Obviously, the one thing that the Queensland Government has overlooked, of course, is to tell the people about the electoral system itself. A closer examination of what is happening in Queensland shows that there are four zones. A voter in zone 2 lives in an electorate of almost 20,000 people but the numbers of voters in zone 3 and zone 4 drop as low as 8,000 or 10,000. So there is not much democracy in the electoral system in Queensland. I would have thought-I have been waiting a few days, because the pamphlet has now been issued for a while-that the special committee set up by the Leader of the Opposition should look at this matter. The Coalition Waste Watch Committee should look at the States. No statement has been issued by the Committee, so I take it that its members approve of it. I think the membership of the Waste Watch Committee ought to be changed because at the weekend I heard about a Press statement issued by the honourable member for Mayo which claimed that it was not right for money to be spent on the Prime Minister's Lodge for the purpose of receiving heads of governments. Perhaps he thinks we should get Paul Hogan to put on a barbecue in the backyard for anybody who visits Australia. Let me say this about the honourable member for Mayo-I do not say it unfairly, because he comes from a very distinguished establishment home in South Australia: The Lodge is about a quarter of the size of the Downer household. I was sent to their property in 1965 when I was working for the Australian Labor Party. For 100 years there had been a fight between the mate of the honourable member for Boothby, the late Sir Thomas Playford-another great South Australian-and the Downers. Sir Thomas won it because he put a big highway right through the Downers' property. The Downers decided they could not keep the property if there was a big freeway going through their meadows where their deer used to graze. I went to the property and I was told that the Education Department was going to buy the Downer establishment. I got out of the car and said: `Well, it is not a bad looking place but it is not as big as I thought it would be'. I was told: `That is not the place'. I said: `What is it?'. They said: `That's the dolls house'. The property contained a two-storeyed dolls house. I do not know whether the honourable member for Mayo used to play in it. Anyhow, the Education Department bought it and got the Downers out of trouble. They have since bought another property, and I am told that the Lodge is not as big as the gamekeeper's house on that property. All I can say is that, if the Opposition is to have a Waste Watch Committee, it should get the honourable member for Franklin or someone else from Tasmania to be a member of it. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report and financial statements of the Reserve Bank of Australia for the year 1985-86, together with the Auditor-General's report thereon. This action is required of me pursuant to the Reserve Bank Act. Madam SPEAKER —I present the report of the Auditor-General dated 20 August 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office, Unpresented Group Certificates. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to. (1) That this House in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908 authorises the publication of the report of the Auditor-General dated 20 August 1986 upon an efficiency audit of the Australian Taxation Office, Unpresented Group Certificates. (2) That the report be printed. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Administrative Review Council Report on a review of migration decisions. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present volumes 1 and 2 of the Australia-China Trade and Investment Law Conference papers incorporating the twelfth International Trade Law Conference held in Beijing and Shanghai in October 1985. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the National Committee on Discrimination in Employment and Occupation for 1984-85. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Postal Commission's report on services and business review and outlook August 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr DUFFY(Holt-Minister for Communications) —For the information of honourable members, I present the Australian Telecommunications Commission's report on services and business outlook for 1986-87. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister) —by leave-I wish to report on the meeting in London from 3 to 5 August of heads of government of seven Commonwealth countries on the issue of South Africa. I table the communique of the meeting. The meeting brought together the Heads of Government of Australia, the Bahamas, Britain, Canada, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe. It was a crucial meeting from three points of view. First, it came against the background of a rapidly deteriorating situation in South Africa. That country has been experiencing the most widespread and destructive unrest in its post-war history. In the past two years more than 2,200 people have lost their lives, many in clashes with the security forces. Thousands have been injured. Since the Government declared a new state of emergency in June at least 8,551 people have been detained on a long term basis, according to the Government's own figures. These include leaders of political parties, trade unions, student groups, human rights organisations, churches and many others opposed to apartheid. Our meeting in London was therefore required to formulate a firm response to the deepening tragedy. Second, the meeting came at a time of heightened tensions within the Commonwealth, tensions potentially capable of fracturing this longstanding organisation. The boycott of the Commonwealth Games and threats to leave the Commonwealth were symptoms of deep concern and frustration. The London meeting therefore had an important role in preserving the credibility and integrity of the Commonwealth. Southern African issues have been a dominant theme in the Commonwealth over the years and we should not forget that South Africa was a founding member of the Commonwealth and that its departure was decided by the white minority Government. Third, the meeting was timely in terms of consideration of South Africa under way in other major countries. In June the leaders of the European Community agreed to consider measures against South Africa in three months time if South Africa failed to take certain political steps. In London we were therefore conscious of the important decisions the European Community would be taking in September. We were also conscious of the development in the United States Congress of new measures against South Africa. The London meeting provided the opportunity to give an important international lead. This was no ad hoc gathering, hastily convened as some knee-jerk response to the appalling situation in South Africa. It was a step in a process already delineated with great care by all Commonwealth heads of government. The Commonwealth Accord on Southern Africa agreed at Nassau in 1985 embodied a clear strategy. This involved the Australian initiative to establish a Group of Eminent Persons, EPG, to try to achieve negotiation and peaceful change. It involved the definition of clear benchmarks against which to judge the South African Government's willingness or otherwise to initiate change. It involved a graduated approach to measures against South Africa comprising a first tranche of measures to be taken immediately, consideration of a second tranche six months after Nassau if adequate progress had not been made, and possible further measures should the first and second tranches fail to produce results in a reasonable period. It involved the pursuit of this program jointly. What we had here, then, was not a strategy which gave the South African Government no chance to change. It was not a strategy of lashing out at South Africa in a fit of pique. It was a strategy which very deliberately gave South Africa time to show that it was prepared to move towards a non-racial and representative government; which would take advantage of the opportunity offered by the EPG to facilitate negotiations with black South African leaders; and which made the adoption of sanctions totally contingent on the decisions of the South African Government itself. The Nassau Accord established the mandate for the meeting in London. The first part of our mandate was to review the situation in South Africa and provide an opinion whether adequate progress had been made towards the objectives stated in the Accord. We conducted this review in London at length and in detail. We had the benefit not only of the report of the EPG but of first hand accounts by the two co-chairmen of the group-Mr Malcolm Fraser of Australia and General Obasanjo of Nigeria-and by the British Foreign Secretary, Sir Geoffrey Howe, who had undertaken a mission to South Africa on behalf of the European Community. The report of the EPG was crucial to our review. I wish to repeat here that the group performed a very difficult task with great determination and integrity. The role played by Mr Fraser reflects great credit upon him. All honourable members have access to the report and I suggest that no objective reader could find it other than a powerful and compelling account of the daily agony of apartheid for the majority of South Africans. The EPG put forward a creative negotiating concept but this was rejected by the South African Government. The response revealed an unwillingness on the part of the Government to make fundamental changes and to negotiate the creation of a genuinely democratic system. The Government remained wedded to the concept of political rights being granted on a group rather than an individual basis, which implies that race classification will remain in place, and to the retention of the so-called independent homelands. The Government has flatly ruled out a political system based on one person, one vote in a unitary state. The EPG was left no alternative but to conclude; The Government of South Africa at the end made it impossible for us to proceed any further This was its unanimous view. It was striking at the London meeting that the impressions conveyed by Sir Geoffrey Howe coincided in essential respects with those of the two co-chairmen of the EPG. Moreover, in terms of the benchmarks specified in the Commonwealth Accord, the facts spoke for themselves. Not one of the benchmarks had been reached by the South African Government. Specific and meaningful action has not been taken to dismantle apartheid. A new State of Emergency has been introduced. Nelson Mandela and other detainees are still in gaol. Political freedom does not exist and the bans on the African National Congress and other political parties have not been lifted. No process of dialogue for non-racial and representative government is underway. Worse than this, spiralling violence and repression in South Africa, and military attacks by South Africa on Harare, Lusaka and Gaborone in May, demonstrated to us in London that the situation in South Africa had gone backwards. As the communique attests this was the unanimous judgment of the seven Heads of Government. The second part of our mandate under the Nassau Accord was to consider further measures against South Africa. Here there was a division of opinion between Britain and the other six participants. Perfectly properly, we did not seek to camouflage or disguise this in the communique. Australia, the Bahamas, Canada, India, Zambia and Zimbabwe adopted a range of further measures, including those defined in the second tranche of the Nassau Accord. Britain was unwilling to take all these steps and the six regarded this, in the language of the communique, with both concern and regret. That having been said, the three undertakings the British Prime Minister gave were, of course, welcome as far as they went and will help the prospects of action by the European Community as a whole. As I said to my colleagues in London, I wanted us if possible to be united, but above all I wanted us to be credible and effective. Better that those of us ready to act should do so than that we should settle for some transparently ineffectual compromise. We can thank the willingness of the six to adopt strong measures for the fact that the Commonwealth and its international leadership role on southern African issues have been preserved. I shall now briefly address the measures which Australia has accepted and which are listed in the communique. These measures will be brought into effect as soon as possible: (a) A ban on air links with South Africa. For Australia this principally involves terminating South African Airways services. The Government is now giving further consideration to the means of implementing this measure taking into account the provisions of the Australia-South Africa Air Services Agreement. (b) A ban on new investment or reinvestment of profits earned in South Africa. The reference to reinvestment concerns reinvestment of repatriated profits, given the problems of applying extraterritorially a ban on reinvestment of profits which remain in South Africa. The Government has decided that in the first instance this measure will be effected through a call on Australian investors to refrain from such investment. (c) A ban on the import of agricultural products from South Africa. The Government has decided that provision will be made for prospective implementation of this measure 180 days after the necessary customs negotiations have been promulgated. This will obviate problems for importers who have existing commitments. The Government will shortly be considering certain definitional matters related to this measure. (d) The termination of double taxation agreements with South Africa. Australia has no such agreement with South Africa, so no action is required on this matter. (e) The termination of all Government assistance to investment in, and trade with, South Africa. The Government has already taken substantial action in this area. It has now decided to terminate all remaining Commonwealth Government assistance through the export market development grants scheme, the Export Finance Insurance Group and the Overseas Projects Unit of Austrade to Australian firms dealing with South Africa. This will be done consistent with legislative requirements and the honouring of insurance contracts entered into prior to the date of implementation. (f) A ban on all Government procurement in South Africa. Australia has already introduced this measure save for the procurement necessary to maintain our diplomatic missions. (g) A ban on Government contracts with majority-owned South African companies. This measure has also already been introduced. (h) A ban on the promotion of tourism to South Africa. The Government will terminate the temporary residence authority of South Africa based officials of the South African Tourist Commission in Sydney. The Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism will be bring forward proposals concerning other means of implementing this ban. These eight measures comprise the second tranche identified in the Nassau Accord. The following three additional measures decided upon in London take into account the movement which has occurred on sanctions in both the United States and the European Community since Nassau. (i) A ban on all new bank loans to South Africa, whether to the public or private sectors. The Government has already called on banks to refrain from such loans. (j) A ban on the import of uranium, coal, iron and steel from South Africa. Again this will be introduced prospectively 180 days after introduction of regulations. The Government will shortly be considering certain definitional matters related to this measure. (k) The withdrawal of all consular facilities in South Africa except for our own nationals and nationals of those countries to whom we render consular services. This relates principally to visa issuing in South Africa. The Government is considering how broadly the withdrawal of visa issuing facilities should be applied and this matter will be the subject of a separate announcement. I wish to announce also that the Government has decided to reduce South African representation in Australia through withdrawal of temporary residence authority for South African Trade Officers at the South African Trade Commissioner's office in Melbourne and for the Commercial Vice-Consul in Sydney. Australia withdrew its Trade Commissioner from South Africa in 1985. In addition I draw attention to the provision that has been made in the Budget for a new $5m assistance program for southern Africa over a five-year period. This will, in particular, provide humanitarian assistance for black South Africans, Namibians and black South African refugees in the areas of education and training. It is my purpose today to report on the London meeting rather than engage in broad debate on the issue of sanctions. But I do wish to reiterate several points which are absolutely central. First, it is a characteristic of the debate about sanctions that those opposed to them prefer to set up straw men rather than address the real rationale for such measures. One such straw man is that negotiation and dialogue are to be preferred to sanctions. In fact it is a fundamental fallacy to see negotiation and dialogue on the one hand and sanctions on the other as somehow contradictory. The purpose of sanctions is precisely to bring home to the South African Government that its present posture, a repressive defence of the status quo, entails costs and that a change of course would bring benefits. The London communique is explicit that if Pretoria responds positively we all stand ready to review the situation and to rescind the measures which have been adopted. Those who oppose sanctions do so frequently on the purported grounds that they will hurt the black community. I reject this as patronising and offensive to those representative black leaders such as Bishop Tutu, leaders of the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front, leaders of the front-line states, and black trade union leaders such as those I met in London, who have all made it clear that the black community of South Africa is already suffering immeasurably under apartheid and believes the price of sanctions is one it is prepared to pay. Another straw man is that sanctions are ineffective because they will not destroy the South African economy or bring down the South African Government. Neither of these things is the real rationale for sanctions and people who argue this way are either too obtuse or lacking the intellectual honesty to address the much more complex calculations involved. The object, as my Foreign Minister (Mr Hayden), has eloquently said, is not to bring South Africa to its knees but to bring it to its senses. The object is not to bring down a government but to change the political dynamics of South Africa in a more progressive direction. The key point is that history shows that, to the extent South Africa has changed, it has done so in response to a changing internal dynamic which has drawn support and encouragement from external pressure. History also shows that in the absence of such pressures South Africa will prevaricate and delay indefinitely. Since inaction means delay and delay means a downwards spiral into violence those opposed to action bear a grave responsibility. Third, concrete measures are the only way to fulfil our moral obligation as liberal democracies serious about the values of individual liberty and democratic rights. Apartheid is universally deplored but repugnance alone is not sufficient for its elimination. Vocal opposition without tangible measures is hollow. Fourth, and very importantly, the self-interest of the West requires action. Make no mistake, change will come about one day in South Africa and it is a question of vital importance how it comes. The political, economic and strategic interests of the West will be dealt a tremendous blow if the process is a violent one which throws up a radical successor regime which regards the West as hostile. The purpose of sanctions is to bring home to the South African Government and its domestic constituency the need for peaceful change, and to send a signal to those moderate black leaders striving for change by non-violent means that they are not alone. In fact, the cost of adopting measures now-whether to Australia, Britain, Canada, the United States of America, the European Community or Japan-will be nothing compared to the cost if South Africa plunges into conflict. It is for this reason, and also because a great moral issue is involved, that Western countries cannot afford to take decisions about sanctions on the basis of some narrow short term calculation in dollars and cents. I did not do so in associating Australia with the measures agreed at London. Nor do I shirk from, or apologise for, the fact that the measures could be at some cost to Australia. This depends upon many imponderables, including the extent to which the measures are adopted by other countries, including particularly, South Africa's major economic partners. No definitive tally can be given. Certainly, there is a potential cost given that our policy deliberately constrains us from developing lucrative commercial relations with the largest economy on the African continent. Any costs would be harder to bear should others stand by and perhaps benefit from the principled stand now being taken by an ever-growing section of the world's community. The point, as stated in the communique, is that such measures have become a moral and political imperative which can no longer be deferred. The London decisions do not constitute only a recommendation to the Commonwealth as a whole. They usher in a period of intensive consultations within the international community with emphasis on those countries that presently sustain a significant level of economic relations with South Africa. I have sent messages to the heads of government of the European Community countries conveying the Government's views and urging that action be taken. I have written in the same terms to President Reagan and to Prime Minister Nakasone. The visit to Australia next week of the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the United States Senate, Richard Lugar, will provide a further valuable opportunity to follow up the London decisions. The Western World is beginning to move on this vital international issue. On 15 August the United States Senate voted 84 to 14 in favour of strong measures, further evidence that there is solid bipartisan support for action in the United States. As noted earlier, the European Community will consider measures in September and movement by Britain at the London meeting should facilitate agreement. The indications are that Japan would be prepared to be part of a position concerted with other major Western powers. The Government, in taking the decisions it has, has therefore aligned Australia with the emerging international consensus. But we have done more. We have played a major part in helping to shape that consensus. This is a role of which Australians can be proud. I present the following paper: South Africa-Commonwealth Heads of Government review meeting, London, 3-5 August 1986-Ministerial statement, 21 August 1986. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the papers. Motion (by Mr Young) agreed to: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from speaking for a period not exceeding 23 minutes. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(2.26) —I welcome the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on the issue of sanctions against South Africa and particularly on the London meeting on that very troubled country. I state at the outset that there is a great deal of what was contained in the Prime Minister's statement with which the Opposition would wish to associate itself. The Opposition certainly shares all the concern held and all the regret expressed by the Prime Minister about the deteriorating internal situation in South Africa. The Opposition parties, both formerly in government and now in opposition, have been in the forefront of democratic parties around the world in condemning the repressive nature of the present Government of South Africa and the lack of liberal democracy within that country. To the extent that there are differences between us on this issue, they are differences relating not to goals and objectives but to how we achieve those goals and objectives. I say on behalf of the Opposition that we will continue to condemn strongly a regime which enshrines in its legal system inequalities based on the colour of a man's or woman's skin. We find repugnant, as does the Government, the policy of racism which has denied and continued to deny political, social and economic freedoms to the majority of people who live in South Africa. We want to see the dismantling of apartheid not only because it is inherently wrong but also because we recognise that the emergence of a truly democratic South Africa as a full member in the community of nations would enhance regional and global peace. Never have we entertained the illusion that such an objective is easy to achieve, but we recognise the responsibility which rests on those of us whose basic human rights are preserved-and there are precious few-in a democracy to seek such rights for others. I continue to believe, as do all members of the Opposition that the Commonwealth, being one of the most successful multiracial organisations in the history of the world, is uniquely placed to bring about the appropriate level of pressure for change and reform inside South Africa. I would say on behalf of the Opposition that we on this side of the House have always entertained a very positive view towards the Commonwealth. We have not changed our view as we have moved from one side of the House to the other. When we hear the Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) invoking the moral authority of the Commonwealth it would serve all honourable members well to remember what the present Foreign Minister had to say about the Commonwealth in September 1981 when he was Leader of the Opposition. He said: I regard it as an extravagant indulgence of little relevance to international affairs or Australia's role in the world. They were the words of the present Foreign Minister, the man who would now, with his Prime Minister, invoke the moral authority of the Commonwealth to condemn those who may disagree with him and the Prime Minister about how we should deal with South Africa. I would have thought that in the weeks that led up to the meeting in London, the Minister for Foreign Affairs would have served the interests of the Commonwealth better if, instead of his mock wringing of hands, he had showed a little leadership by pointing out to all Commonwealth countries that the pressures that were then being placed on the Commonwealth would reduce the world-wide diplomatic pressure that was then being applied to the apartheid system in South Africa. The crux of the debate is not whether one side or the other is against apartheid. I would hope that all honourable members accept that the anti-racist credentials of those on the Opposition side of the House are as impeccable as those on the other side. I would hope also that the question of racism and of our bona fide opposition to a political regime that is erected on racism is not seriously in dispute in the House. The record of those on this side of the House when in government in liberating and extending the humanitarian reach of our migration policy, the attitude that we displayed towards taking refugees from Indo-China, and the fact that a former Liberal Prime Minister pioneered the abandonment of the White Australia policy in 1967, will surely stamp for all time the reputation of the Liberal and National parties as being parties that are opposed to racism. Let us not here in this debate- Dr Theophanous —What about Brown's statement on South Africa? Mr HOWARD —If the honourable gentleman wants to take that line, let me remind him of some of the intolerant remarks made not only by the former Prime Minister but by the present Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), when he was the leader of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, about Vietnamese refugees. Let us have an intelligent debate. Dr Theophanous —Yes, let us have that sen- sible debate. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Calwell will cease interjecting. Mr HOWARD —I accept the bona fides of the Prime Minister when he says that he is utterly repelled by and opposed to the apartheid regime in South Africa. I ask him as a precondition of the debate to accept the bona fides of the Opposition when it says likewise. On that basis we can then have an intelligent debate about the issue and not one that is stamped by expressions of moral rectitude and moral outrage. There is not a monopoly of morality or of moral outrage on this issue on either side of the House. There is a genuine argument about the usefulness of economic sanctions. There is a proper and legitimate argument that can be held by those of liberal and democratic instincts to the effect that economic sanctions do not work. There are many people within South Africa whose liberal credentials are unimpeachable. People such as Helen Suzman have said repeatedly that economic sanctions would be a disaster for the country she loves as much as any other South African. They regard economic sanctions as a disaster in the cause of getting rid of apartheid. Let us start the debate by accepting that people of goodwill can oppose apartheid and economic sanctions. That is currently a view that is widely held among many Australians. It certainly is and has been the view of the Opposition on the imposition of punitive economic sanctions that are designed inevitably, whatever may be the stated goal, to cripple the South African economy unless there is a change to the satisfaction of those imposing the sanctions. We have been, we remain, and I dare say that we shall always remain, opposed to the imposition of sanctions of that sort. The claim that is made with such moral certainty that the majority of the black people in South Africa want economic sanctions is not one which can be empirically verified. Dr Theophanous —Rubbish-absolute rubbish. Mr HOWARD —It is not a claim that we can say-- Dr Theophanous —Rubbish! Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Mr HOWARD —I do not mind if the honourable gentleman interjects. I know that he has had to cop it sweet on uranium. I do not mind if he intervenes on this occasion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It is not up to the Leader of the Opposition to decide whether he wants interventions. I ask the honourable member for Calwell to cease interjecting or I will deal with him. Mr HOWARD —The arguments that are advanced on the imposition of economic sanctions are not straw-man arguments. There is a long history over this century of economic sanctions proving to be futile. They were futile in the 1930s. Many people believe that they were futile when they were imposed on what was formerly Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. There are many who believe that they will be futile in relation to South Africa. There was one argument which the Prime Minister did not address in his speech-I do not believe that it is a straw-man argument-which I consider to be relevant to whether we ought to support economic sanctions. We must understand that once the world invokes moral authority to start down the path of sanctions, we shall have started a journey that we must be willing to finish. I ask those who support the imposition of economic sanctions to tell the world and the House what they intend to do if the sanctions embraced by the Prime Minister's statement do not work. Today I invited the Foreign Minister to say whether the criterion of effectiveness would be applied, as it has apparently been applied, to uranium sales to France. The honourable gentleman declined to give an answer. So I ask the question again: What happens if the sanctions that are listed in the statement do not work? Do we go further? What happens if the further sanctions do not work? Do we commit ourselves at the end of the day to a course of action that involves the imposition of punitive economic sanctions of a comprehensive sort right across the board? One of the fundamental reasons why I and many others have opposed the march towards sanctions that has been joined by the Government is a concern that, as inevitably will be the case, the sanctions will not bring about a change. The question has to be asked: `What do we do after that?'. Have we considered seriously the impact on the countries that are supporting sanctions if the front-line African states, economies are damaged by South African retaliation? Have we considered whether we shall be asked to foot the bill? The Prime Minister says that he does not know what the cost to Australia will be. His statement envisaged a cost in terms of lost trade, but does his statement and his Government's understanding of this issue envisage the possibility that the front-line states will look to Australia for financial compensation for the South African Government's retaliation against them? That is an issue that I do not think has been addressed. Even more important than that, there is the fundamental question of the impact of the sanctions on the very regime whose mind they are designed to change. I put it to the Prime Minister and the House as a serious proposition that the imposition of the sanctions is at least as likely to strengthen the hand of the present South African Government as it is to weaken it. So many who talk about South Africa never acknowledge the very unpalatable fact, but nonetheless the reality, that the army and the internal security forces of South Africa are without question the most powerful in the African continent. The proposition that the white regime can be removed by the imposition of economic sanctions or that the imposition of sanctions will bring about a major change in the attitude of that regime, is a very questionable one. I put it to the Prime Minister and to those who so zealously support sanctions, based on moral outrage and moral grounds, that it is as possible as not that the imposition of sanctions will strengthen President Botha's stand. It is at least as possible that the laager mentality of those who know South Africa a little better than some who give moral lectures on the subject will in fact be strengthened in that country. I cannot for the life of me understand why that argument is never addressed. But let us assume that the sanctions start to bite and the morale of the white population is changed. Is it not at least as possible that the extremist elements within the white population will in fact become more entrenched in their views? Is it not possible that that element of the South African population commanding the support of the security and defence forces could turn them to a more violent suppression of the unrest of the black population? Does the Government really believe that the internal stress and strain that a deteriorating and collapsing South African economy would impose upon the poor people in that country would give them a better South Africa than they now have? Does the Government really believe that potentially crippling the South African economy will improve the lot? The Prime Minister says that it is patronising of me to use that argument. I say to the Prime Minister that it is patronising of him to assume that he knows what is best for the millions of black people in South Africa. I say to the Prime Minister and to others who urge the imposition of economic sanctions: What moral right has a group of countries to decide that they will go down the path of destroying the economy of another country? Of course the situation inside South Africa is deplorable. But I put it to the Prime Minister that it can be made even more deplorable if the wrong action is taken by the outside world. I put it to the Prime Minister that the position inside many countries is deplorable. Suppression of liberty, whether it is based on race, political belief or religious or sectarian belief, still is suppression of liberty. But we hear the idea that there is one special category of suppression of liberty. I have read the argument somewhere that if one is put in gaol and one's human rights are denied, one is supposed to feel better if that denial of human rights does not occur on racial grounds but on some other ground. All I can say to that argument is that suppression of liberty occurs all around the world. Yet for some reason a large part of the world has decided that we have selectively to apply severe measures against South Africa. I say to the House and to the Prime Minister that I believe that the imposition of punitive economic sanctions is an unwise course of action and one that is not supported by the Opposition. We believe that, with this announcement and with these decisions, the Government has started down a path which will lead inevitably to a situation that could create a worse South Africa than we presently have. I do not believe that economically isolating South Africa will bring about a change of heart in that country. I believe that it has been altogether too easy for those members of the Commonwealth, including Australia, which lined up on this issue, by implication, against the United Kingdom, to demand of the United Kingdom something which we may not necessarily have appreciated being demanded of us. It is very easy to say to a country that has enormous economic links with South Africa that it should be in the vanguard of crippling the South African economy. The reality is that if air links between Britain and South Africa were terminated the financial consequences for British Airways and for the privatisation and other plans of British Airways would be quite enormous. I say to the House that if we were lectured to, moralised at and required to do what the British Government was required to do by many other members of the Commonwealth we would have reacted in precisely the same way. If our economic links with a totalitarian government were as extensive as the economic links of the United Kingdom with South Africa, I dare say that a Labor government as well as a Liberal-National Party government would take the same stand that the British Government took in relation to South Africa. I think this is an example of hypocrisy. On the very day that this Parliament sits the Australian Labor Party is torn apart on an issue related to uranium. What is the Prime Minister's rationale for terminating the decision of his Party about uranium sales to France? Opposition members-Money. Mr HOWARD —It is money; it is as simple as that. What the Treasurer (Mr Keating) said the other night was that at the end of the day the Government has decided to take the money, and his explanation was that the Government did not think that the ban would be effective. The Government says: `Forget the morality; forget the symbolic gesture; forget about the moral outrage'. At the end of the day it decided to take the money and run. All I can say is that I have no trouble at all in supporting the Prime Minister's decision, announced on Tuesday night, on uranium, because I thought that his original position was absolutely crazy and indefensible. But I do have trouble with the selective morality of this Government. We have just been treated to a 23-minute speech, a large part of which defended the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa, and all of it was very finely balanced on questions of morality. The whole thrust of the speech was that if one did not support economic sanctions one did not have the required level of moral outrage. I think that demonstrates the situation, particularly coming today when the Labor Party has, it seems, made the inevitable decision to ditch its great moral opposition to uranium sales to France because of the few million dollars involved. That is the essence of it. The Government has decided to junk it. The policy on uranium sales to France was reaffirmed four weeks ago with a burst of evangelism, but now, because the Government needs the money, it has decided to junk that policy. Yet the Leader of the Labor Party still has the gall to presume, by implication, to lecture me about the depth of my moral outrage about apartheid in South Africa. I can only say to the Prime Minister that that sort of double standard does not wash with me, it will not wash with the House and it will not wash with the Australian people. The Australian people are smart enough to understand that the foreign policy priorities of this country go beyond a disproportionate level of concern about the affairs of southern Africa, and one of the on-going criticisms of this Government's foreign policy is of the way in which it has devoted a disproportionate amount of its time to its concern with the affairs of southern Africa. If the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister had spent as much time worrying about our relationships with Indonesia and with the countries of the Association of South East Asian Nations region as they have worrying about our relationship with southern Africa, the foreign policy concerns and priorities of this country and this Government would have been better served. I say again on behalf of the Opposition that our opposition to what is occurring in South Africa, our desire for peaceful change and our recognition that that can really be brought about only by a better understanding between the more liberal elements of the white population and the more rational elements of the black population are second to none amongst the political parties in this country. We do not believe that as a demonstration of our moral rejection of apartheid it is necessary for us to align ourselves with the attitude of the Government on the sanctions issues, and I say on behalf of the Opposition that we certainly do not. Mrs DARLING(Lilley)(3.50) —I am particularly pleased to be able to speak in support of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Government regarding the report on meetings in London discussing the imposition of sanctions and other measures against the white racist South African Government. I was rather offended and disappointed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) who, after saying that the Prime Minister had no moral right to speak on behalf of those 23 million black people who are being oppressed by a government elected by 4.5 million whites, proceeded to put forward arguments which are repeated time and time again by those who are misinformed and who do not hear, or wish to hear, what the black people in South Africa are saying. He offered the same sops for inaction as are being offered time and again by those who do not wish to move themselves to speak or act in support of those beleaguered people. Before I make any further comments, I wish to quote directly from a young, black South African man, Mziwonke Jack, aged about 30 years, living in the township of Nyanga on the outskirts of Cape Town. Mziwonke has watched hundreds of his friends being killed by black vigilantes in the pay of the white South African Government and by white plainclothes South African security police. On 23 July, I said to that young man that other people were saying that sanctions should not be imposed because they would hurt the black people in the area. I asked him: What do you think about that argument? Mziwonke answered: I dismiss that as nonsense, because we are dying today in the presence of their investment. They're investing in the country and I believe that's not helping. But I will tell you about my own feelings. I believe that as long as there are people who are investing in this country, they will in fact be strengthening apartheid: because this Government will flourish. They will have money to buy whatever they want to do. They will have money to buy other people from other countries. So my feeling is that as long as people are investing here, these Boers are not going to change. Instead, they will buy arms and continue killing us. I would not be quoting the views of just one South African. Mziwonke has been assisting hundreds of people whose homes were burnt down at the end of May and the beginning of June during the violence in South Africa. That view was also put forward by Reverend Sidney Luckett, an Anglican priest and director of the Board of Social Responsibilities in Cape Town. I assure the House that he is an entirely apolitical man who was educated in England. He said that although sanctions may not be the answer against a Government which will not change its oppressive measures, they must still be introduced. Most importantly, he said that black Africans in South Africa want this. That view was also held by Buelah Rollnick, a consultant of the Black Sash organisation, a highly respected organisation in South Africa which started as a grouping of white women and spread to people of all races and both sexes in South Africa, and which has been conducting mopping-up operations for decades as black people who have been disinherited come in to speak to them. The important point to make is that there is not just racial discrimination in South Africa. There is physical and mental oppression into which black people have been tied from the time they were born, when they were categorised into one of four colour groups. Those colour groups are based on privilege. They are given a number on a card at birth. The majority-23 million blacks-are the ones who have to carry a pass containing that information from the age of 16 onwards. I have spoken to people in South Africa whose families have been divided by law. The difference between oppression in South Africa and in any other nation that one cares to mention, as the Prime Minister pointed out, is that in South Africa the oppression is by law. The Westminster system that is used in countries such as Australia to obtain justice for people is used in South Africa to oppress. The people of Australia, and that includes the Leader of the Opposition, cannot really be aware of the extent of the oppression in South Africa and are obviously unaware of the requirements of the black people, who say that they need sanctions and other such moves by the Western nations. They are not listening to the words of the black bishops who came to Australia a couple of weeks ago. They spoke to many people in Canberra and expressed the opinion that if the West did not stir itself up, make some definite and strong gestures and take strong action now, we should be embroiled in global conflict. At that stage, of course, the West will be over there in South Africa. Although President Reagan is a little reluctant now to give black South Africans the support that they require from the West, he knows that they will turn quickly for that support to the Communist bloc. This is a serious projection of what is likely to happen in South Africa if we do not move, as Mr Fraser has also said. Should that occur, we shall be embroiled. We shall have to look after our backyard and President Reagan will be over in South Africa protecting the anti-communist interests. Why not act now? In 1983, table conversation in Australian dining rooms and potted wisdom over the back fences focused on whether Australia should play sport with South Africa. Those who opposed sporting bans said that sport and politics should not be mixed or that we should keep our noses out of South African politics. The middle ground decided that Australia should look after its own backyard and pointed to the plight of the Australian Aboriginal. The South African Embassy in Canberra insisted, as dogmatically then as it does now, that its Government was trying to dismantle the apartheid system. In 1986, South Africa confronts us again-now almost daily-through the media. Unlike in 1983, the reported violence and comments of the Eminent Persons Group have given an added insight into the tribulations of the beleaguered blacks in that war-torn country. Australians no longer see the crucial question as being, should sport and politics be mixed, but will economic sanctions help to solve the problem? Yet even given the enlightened reporting and, consequently, broadened understanding of the South African position, large sections of our society, by their comments, often directed to members of parliament, display a reluctance to accept that the explosive situation which exists there has anything to do with Australia. It is up to all people and people on both sides of this Parliament to support the Government and the Eminent Persons Group in their actions, which are designed to enlighten people about what is really happening. In 1983 as in 1986, argument based on the inhumanity of the apartheid system was invariably countered with the statement: `You can hardly judge the system when you have not been there to see how it works'. I was honoured to be part of a delegation which went to South Africa in 1983, and I have kept up contacts with people over there. I am therefore very proud of the part Australia played in shaping up the Eminent Persons Group. I am particularly interested in the comments made by that Group. I would like to quote a couple of those comments from the report, which all honourable members should read if they have not already done so, entitled `Mission to South Africa'. In chapter one the group commented: None of us was prepared for the full reality of apartheid. As a contrivance of social engineering, it is awesome in its cruelty. It is achieved and sustained only through force, creating human misery and deprivation and blighting the lives of millions. The degree to which apartheid has divided and compartmentalized South African society is nothing short of astounding. We understood why many visitors to South Africa could leave the country enchanted by its natural beauty and impressed by its economic achievement, yet oblivious of the scale of the human tragedy behind the facade of progress. The living standards of South Africa's white cities and towns must rank with the highest anywhere; those of the black townships which surround them defy description in terms of `living standards'. Apartheid creates and separates them; black and white live as strangers in the same land. There have been comments made today that there are other nations in which people are suffering, other nations in which they are oppressed. I think we should have grown beyond the stage at which in any given situation we should say `Don't act in this particular way, because there are others whom we are not moving to assist' at the same time not moving to rectify the inequities which are being felt and experienced by those people. I will finish on the comments of the Reverend Sidney Luckett regarding the effectiveness of the Eminent Persons Group when in South Africa. On 28 July he said: . . . I think that . . . when the Eminent Persons Group came out here, I think there was an ideal opportunity presented to the Government to actually begin to undertake some significant reforms: and the opportunity to . . . a very rare opportunity to start getting meetings with government and African National Congress. It seems that the EPG had made significant progress with the ANC and the Government just in a sense discarded that EPG process. The very fact that they- that is, the Government- raided neighbouring states and Botswana, Zimbabwe and Zambia while the EPG was still around was just incredible. It said to me that at least there's a significant section of government that is not interested in the peace negotiations process. . . . I found it very depressing, because a lot of us really had hoped that the EPG would bring about something. We were quite impressed by what they had managed to achieve. . . . initially people, say executive members of the UDF inside the country, were a little sceptical of yet another peace initiative: but then found that these people had actually done a lot of hard work and were meeting a wide cross section of the population and they weren't just rushing in and out . . . I think they'd made significant progress, in opening up at least opposition parties-extra-parliamentary opposition parties-to the possibility of negotiations with the government. While Reverend Luckett feels that those hopes have been dashed by the continued militant actions of the South African Government, he still persists in his statement that there is a need for the West not just to stand by and allow what is virtual genocide to take place. This is a reality and if people react in an adverse way to that truth and see it as sensational, it really only indicates that they need to look word for word at the EPG report, a report of reasonable people from different Commonwealth nations, people who had as their aim paving the way for negotiations to stop the oppression of black people in South Africa. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(4.05) —I am very pleased to be joining with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to address the House on this matter today. Those who have been listening would have heard once again the sanctimonious nonsense that comes from members of the Government on this issue. I am on the younger side of 50. I have served a long time in this Parliament. When I first stood for Parliament those sitting opposite had in their platform the belief in the maintenance of the white Australia policy. They did not change it; we brought about the change when in government. I have sat here year after year and witnessed this antiseptic air of moral superiority coming from a bunch of dodos, who have never had a plan of action for the ending of racism in this world but who, when they eventually have one thrust upon them through the responsibility of government, assume that their alleged plan is the only one then existent. It was members on this side of the House when in government who forged the nation state of Zimbabwe. It was the work of the then Prime Minister and, dare I mention it, the Foreign Minister at the time, at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in London in 1977- Mrs Darling —In London in 1977? Mr PEACOCK —In London in 1977, you dill-that is how much the honourable member knows about it-who set down the plan which was followed at the Lusaka meeting and implemented in 1979. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for Kooyong in that remark appeared to be addressing an honourable member in particular. I ask him to withdraw the personal reflection. Mr PEACOCK —I will withdraw it, but it shows the lack of comprehension on this issue. There is not a comprehension by instinct or by intellect. If ever there was a foreign policy matter on which the motivations all lead to the one conclusion it is this one. It is at once moral, political, strategic and economic to be opposing apartheid. I am not going to listen to this selective morality that says that, because we prefer a line of action involving eight matters and the Government wants to implement only four, the Government is both right and morally superior. It is not, and I will argue every day of the week that our consistency on this matter will outweigh the Government's at any time. I have to say that because I am sick of the hectoring, the lecturing and the innuendoes contained in the remarks of the honourable member for Lilley (Mrs Darling) about matters addressed by the Leader of the Opposition. We do not embrace all the methods the Government is suggesting. It does not mean that we do not share the same aspirations. We want to end apartheid and to replace it with a system based on justice. We have made it clear time and again that we are calling for an end to the state of emergency, an end to detention without trial, the unconditional release of political leaders, the abolition of all forms of discriminatory legislation, a common commitment to a common form of citizenship for all South Africans, an end to forced removals and equality of educational opportunity. I spell those principles out as a schedule that we put to the South African Government, but I do not think I have ever heard honourable members opposite put that sort of plan of action. Week after week members of the Government tell us that they hate apart- heid and that they are the only ones who are effective because they like measures 1 to 8 in the CHOGM Bahamas communique. I want to know whether they are in favour of equality of opportunity-I have never heard them say it-a common form of citizenship, an end to forced removals, the unconditional release of political leaders or an end to detention without trial. I have not heard them say these things. They come in with this antiseptic air of moral superiority and the humbug and nonsense which reveals a lack of comprehension of both what is transpiring there and what ought to be done. They ought to be nailed. The fact that they come in here with hand-wringing rhetoric does not place them on the side of the angels nor, more particularly, on the side of those who can really see a goal to be worked for and an end in sight. I reiterate that it was those on our side of politics, after all those years, who were the major participants in bringing about the state of Zimbabwe. It resulted from our effective work in the Commonwealth. I put that down now because of the selectivity that creeps into this debate, both here and in the media, and the assumption that, because we do not embrace comprehensive economic sanctions, we are at one with apartheid. Well, we are not. The debate here today and in the Western world generally is not about defending apartheid. I hope we all agree that apartheid is indefensible and is a crime against humanity. Nations have every right-indeed, a duty-to communicate their sense of values, particularly when the issue at hand is racism. We are all too aware of the abuses practised in South Africa. We know too well its many forms of institutionalised racism. It shames all mankind to know that skin colour is the sole determinant of political and legal rights in that country. The South African Government violates the fundamental principles of liberalism; and it does so while claiming to adhere to Western values. Our condemnation of apartheid in South Africa is unequivocal and it is long standing. It is rightly a subject that on occasions excites high emotion and widespread censure. But it does so for the one fundamental reason that it discriminates against non-whites on the ground of race. The central issue in South African affairs is how to achieve radical forms with the minimum of violence and disruption within the Souh African community. The reforms required are essentially twofold: First, the abolition of apartheid, with equal treatment before the law of all South Africans; and, secondly, power sharing among all members of the South African community. We believe that it is of critical importance that there be a genuine and continuing dialogue, initiated by the South African Government, between it and black leaders genuinely representative of the black community and together with representatives of other groups in the South African community, so that confidence and understanding can be promoted and so that the means of achieving the objectives that the coalition believes to be essential can be examined. Honourable members have referred to the report of the Eminent Persons Group which was co-chaired by Malcolm Fraser. As a descriptive document, leaving to one side for a moment its prescriptive element, it is a dramatic account of the institutionalised discrimination in South African life. It is very powerful in its account of apartheid and the effect of it on South African society. It is profoundly disturbing in its implications for the future of a government intractable in its opposition to genuine reform and blind to a vision of equal humanity. The prospects for South Africa obviously are not good. I regret that the South African Government ignored the opportunity provided by the Eminent Persons Group to accelerate reform and peaceful change. Any fair reading of the report of the Eminent Persons Group shows that its `concept for negotiations' presented to the South African Government was not overly ambitious. It was geared to creating a peaceful atmosphere in South Africa to allow genuine talks to begin. I said that the debate is not about defending apartheid. It is about how most effectively now to influence the South African Government to change its racist policies. I have said here-the Leader of the Opposition and others have said it too-that we do not believe that walking the route of comprehensive punitive economic sanctions is the answer. The debate is about only the method of achieving that change. As Foreing Minister I have sat in Cabinet and weighed up whether we should impose sanctions on countries. If one was wanting to impose economic sanctions, the element that one had in mind was that one wanted to damage or punish by economic means the country being targeted. In this case at this moment the South African economy is in a parlous state. Many of the reforms that have been made have been within the private sector. There have been agreements between employers and unions, the union movement having played a very significant role. If this Government is to damage further and to cripple that economy, it will unquestionably impose the most unreasonable hardships on the majority of the population which is black and unquestionably, in the case of so many of them, that will cause them to lose their jobs. I find it an absurdity, and a rather cruel absurdity, that the Government would choose that sort of route to bring about change. Having said that, we do not say: `Do not continue to bring pressure to bear on the South African regime'. Of course, we believe that that should be done. But we do say that to impose comprehensive punitive economic sanctions, leading to a breakdown in the economy, which could lead to further social unrest and lead to civil war, is hardly the route of peaceful negotiations. Furthermore, it is fair to say that, albeit that I recognise the role of sanctions-I have previously looked at and sought to impose them elsewhere and I do not deny that-I do not believe that the correct route is via punitive sanctions. The record of such sanctions is not good. The Institute of International Economics has cited 103 episodes of such sanctions since the First World War and has concluded that sanctions are seldom successful, except against small countries, and of course only when the goals are modest. I accept the argument that such comprehensive punitive economic sanctions would serve only to reinforce the conservative elements that are opposed to reform in South Africa. As South Africa becomes more and more self-sufficient and its dependence on any one country goes, the international lever goes. The Leader of the Opposition is quite right to say: `Will you please tell me: If you impose these comprehensive economic sanctions and they do not work, what will you do next?'. There is a lack of looking down the line, taking the longer view. In terms of diplomacy and foreign policy, if one takes one step one should always know what that will lead to and what the next step will be. It seems to me that the better approach is to wind the pressure up. The British Government and the United States Government have implemented some measures, and I think they will go further. As this year unfolds the United States Administration will be forced to follow the lead of the Congress and to implement more measures. I think the United Kingdom Government will go a little further, in conjunction with the European Community. We can see that being played out. For that reason it seems to me that the correct approach is to gradually wind these matters up. I have no problem in saying that I think the European Community is approaching the matter, in many ways, more effectively than is the Commonwealth in agreeing to these matters. I end, as I began, by saying that honourable members on this side of the House feel indignant when they are painted into a corner; when, because they do not embrace comprehensive punitive economic sanctions, it is alleged that they are in favour of apartheid. I trust that the sort of schedule that I have set out, as what we expect the South African regime to implement, will indicate that that is not so and that we believe that a constant winding up of pressure will achieve more than dumping on the South African Government the range of matters suggested in London at the meeting upon which the Prime Minister has reported. Mr Hollis —Do you speak for the National Party? Mr PEACOCK —I speak for the coalition. Coalition policy is embraced by what I said. Neither the National Party of Australia nor the Liberal Party of Australia will endorse comprehensive economic sanctions. But we all endorse the range of matters as a schedule of action that I set out in the earlier part of my remarks. As I have said, I will conclude on the note on which I started: This is an issue on which the economic imperatives, the political strategic motivations, all lead one to condemn apartheid. But, having condemned it, please bring forward a course of action that will work. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(4.20) —Let me say at the outset that I am particularly proud to be able to take part in this debate and to be supportive of the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). Since this Government has been in office it has been at the forefront on this issue. I would like the previous speaker, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), to listen to what I am about to say-he may appreciate it. I have never moralised that I have been purer on any issue than anybody else. I let people judge other people on their performances. I listened with interest to what the honourable member said and I acknowledge that purity is not the property of members on this side of the chamber. Many people in other parties, both in this place and in the Senate, feel very strongly and have an excellent record on this issue. I make that point because the honourable member made play of the fact that he thought that some honourable members in this place were claiming sole right to the issue. I reject that, if that is what he was implying, because I acknowledge the roles played by other people. I will address that point later in my comments. I have a substantial number of notes on the issue that is before the House. As is the case with other issues that are of a moral nature, it is probably sometimes better not to use a lot of one's notes and to say how one feels in less polished terms. This issue has come before the public of Australia in a fairly dramatic way in recent times. It has come to our attention while this Government has been in office. It appears on television screens every night during news programs. Perhaps when the honourable member for Kooyong was Foreign Minister he was labouring against public opinion. Perhaps the public then was not as conscious of the situation in South Africa. I think that that comment ought to be made. In the newspapers every day and on television every night we see people being clubbed to death, being burnt, being whipped, being arrested and crying out for help. I will put to the honourable member for Kooyong what I think and hope the Government is trying to do. If one wants to be successful in any struggle, one must mobilise the masses-in this case, other nations-to take action. It is a question of what sort of action one considers to be best. We must ask ourselves whether continual diplomatic discussions with people is the best way to resolve this matter. Has it been successful to this point? In my view, with all humility, I suggest that it has not been as successful as, I am sure, the previous speaker and other members on the other side who have spoken on this issue in recent times would have liked. What are we left with? I think we are left with having to respond to the pleas and cries of people who are most affected by the issue. I think the time has come when we must listen to Bishop Tutu, Mandela and all of those other people who are crying out to the world to take action, and who are saying that the diplomatic response is not working. I have spoken in this context in regard to Aboriginal affairs. I do not want to divert the debate, but I think this is an interesting comparison. Sometimes people who are not Aborigines are inclined to pretend that they know what is best for Aborigines. I think there is a parallel in terms of South Africa. If there were no cries by black South Africans for the sorts of actions that are proposed in the decisions outlined in the communique, I would accept that perhaps the honourable member for Kooyong's argument in favour of the diplomatic approach has more strength. I have discussed this matter with the honourable member privately. But the people who we say could be most effective-people such as Margaret Thatcher, speaking on behalf of her country, and the American Government, through its President-have said that sanctions will hurt black South Africans. It is interesting to note that numerous South African black leaders have said that they understand that. But the point is that if sanctions or harsher actions than those that have been applied in the past-I am in no way condemning the performance of people-are not adopted, the present situation will continue. Repression is becoming worse every day. More people are being arrested. The black South Africans have said: `You people have to help us'. Any former member of any government will say that the only way people can be helped is when the hip pocket nerve is affected. It seems to me that countries respond in a similar way. I have come to the position, after a lot of thought and a lot of discussion with representatives of black people of the southern region of Africa, that what we are engaged in here is just and proper. I do not say that the previous speaker or any other member in this place is not as pure on the issue as I, because that is irrelevant. I am proud to support the Government's stance on this issue. Just as honourable members opposite have said that they do not have sole rights in relation to this issue, I ask them to consider the fact that perhaps we have moved beyond 1983. I acknowledge the diplomatic role played by previous Liberal governments. I acknowledge the role that the previous Government played in regard to Zimbabwe. I acknowledge the role of Malcolm Fraser. For many years I was a constituent of the electorate of Wannon and I suffered from the back of Malcolm Fraser's tongue at many public meetings. I had an altercation with him in 1975, which he seemed to remember at the time of the next election when he refused to shake my hand. So I acknowledge that we have been political opponents over a long period. But I am the first to say that I think he has played a magnificent role in this issue. Some of my friends and supporters might think that is a strange thing to say. But I have followed his movements in recent times on this issue. I do not think that prior to 1975 I would have associated a person like Malcolm Fraser with this issue. Probably for a few years after 1975 I maintained my rage and did not take much notice of what he said. But now I read with interest what he is doing in relation to this issue. Here is a man who has gone to the region, looked and, as the previous speaker said, has been part of a group that has written a truly magnificent report. It is truly an interesting report because of the detail of the extent to which the group visited areas, the questions they asked and the information they provided. This truly interesting report will serve the world as a reference document for many years. The sanctions which we are discussing take us beyond the issues that the former Foreign Minister said he was involved in. They take us into a new era. Members of all parties feel strongly about this matter. Although I intended to do so, I will not now go into the issue of who feels more or less strongly about this matter. I do not want to score a cheap political point. I will be generous. In speaking in a debate such as this I think that one cannot afford to engage in some of the normal point scoring in which we often engage. A young community youth support scheme group, who had been engaged in a workshop course during the day, visited my office. My electorate is not very large geographically, but honourable members from the Melbourne area will know that, as small as it is, in peak hour traffic it takes some time to get from one side of it to the other. About eight or nine kids burst through my office door at about five minutes to five one afternoon. They had been dealing with the subject of race relations and had discussed the matter during the day. They had decided to come to talk to their local member. They had to ask what could they do and how could they help the black people of South Africa who were suffering under this system. I thought it was a wonderful example of enthusiasm. When these people sat down and talked about this issue, they felt they had to do something about the situation and wanted to be part of changing the dirty, rotten, unfair system that operates in the southern region of Africa where a child comes into the world and spends the rest of its time on this earth being denied any chance of equality. We in this country often talk about equality of opportunity and we feel strongly about these matters. Indeed, we see people in our electorates who do not have the sort of equality that we would like to see in terms of opportunity. It is beyond our imagination, as white people in this society, even to begin to understand the problems that non-whites in South Africa are experi encing in a general sense. I again plead with the Opposition to understand that the Prime Minister's statement should be regarded as a valuable contribution to the debate. This country can be proud of its past performance, as I said earlier, in regard for example to the Rhodesian struggle. People at the time said that the situation there was hopeless and that change would never occur. Honourable members on this side of the House were supportive of honourable members opposite in that struggle from time to time. I make the plea that one should question whether diplomatic approaches will work. I plead with the Opposition to consider whether or not it needs to move on this matter. In a recent Evatt memorial lecture one of the spokespersons opposite, who was on the Opposition front bench but who has now joined me on the back benches, made an excellent speech on this topic. I refer to the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) who expressed surprise when he received that invitation. In his contribution he was raising the question that his Party-perhaps he was referring to the coalition, I am not sure-was approaching the time when the sanction approach had to be seriously considered. I think he was saying that. Certainly the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee) has been saying that. I do not want to enter into an argument based on the approach `You are there in a seat you have not been in for a while', because obviously there are differences in the Liberal Party on this topic. However, discussion and debate are taking place in that Party. I hope we shall see the birth of a process to take that discussion a step further. The honourable member for Kooyong referred to looking down the tunnel. I suggest that, if one looks down that tunnel, one sees that sanctions may be the next approach that honourable members opposite should consider. I agree that sanctions on their own applied by Australia and other Commonwealth countries will not necessarily achieve the dramatic changes that we all want to see, but they are a step on the long road towards bringing about justice, fairness and equality within South Africa. We have to join with those people. I have some notes that I discussed with the honourable member for Murray (Mr Lloyd) that I wanted to incorporate relating to the question of trade, which is an important issue. We have to be fair dinkum and look at companies from South Africa moving in here with subsidiaries, setting up and operating here. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard some tables relating to the value of South African trade; the details of Australia-South African trade, 1982-85; Australian companies and their South African subsidiaries or associates, as listed between March and June 1985; and a final table dealing with South African companies in Australia and Australian representatives of South African companies in 1985. Leave granted The tables read as follows- Table 1 VALUE OF AUSTRALIAN-SOUTH AFRICAN TRADE, 1970-1985 (in $Am, F.O.B. Prices; for year ending 30 June) Year Australian Exports Australian Imports Balance +/- 1970-71 ... 86 20 + 66 1971-72 ... 79 21 + 58 1972-73 ... 95 21 + 74 1973-74 ... 91 37 + 54 1974-75 ... 98 44 + 54 1975-76 ... 91 37 + 54 1976-77 ... 69 58 + 13 1977-78 ... 66 58 + 8 1978-79 ... 67 85 - 18 1979-80 ... 93 106 - 13 1980-81 ... 132 110 + 22 1981-82 ... 145 91 + 54 1982-83 ... 144 85 + 59 1983-84 ... 282 132 +150 1984-85 ... 205 137 + 68 Sources: A.B.S. Foreign Trade of Australia, Annual Statistics. M. Little, Australian Economic ties with South Africa (1976) p. 13. J. Fitzgerald, Trade & Investment Between Australia and South Africa (1984), p. FA5. Table 2 DETAILS OF AUSTRALIA-SOUTH AFRICA TRADE, 1982-85 Commodity 1982-83 1983-84 1984-85 Australian imports from South Africa 1982-83 to 1984-85 Fish (fresh or frozen)... 11,114 14,233 17,731 Fish (dried or smoked)... 5,115 5,014 5,592 Fish (crustaceans etc.)... 2,346 3,977 3,001 Inorganic chemical elements... 2,634 3,986 5,832 Other inorganic chemicals... 1,434 2,080 3,038 Fertilisers... 3,373 17,932 1 Paper... 1,257 7,222 16,123 Textile yarn... 3,841 9,367 8,284 Pig iron etc... 3,331 9,134 14,386 Other metal items... 1,416 3,473 3,023 Particular industrial machinery... 988 2,375 3,282 Items, no separate details... 898 2,555 4,597 Total imports... 84,944 132,365 137,292 Australian exports to South Africa 1982-83 to 1984-85 Crustaceans... 7,523 9,137 3,941 Wheat... - 8,421 53,005 Animal oils and fats... 6,482 13,564 13,922 Textiles... 1,448 1,908 1,840 Other metal items... 2,523 2,782 2,581 Internal combustion piston engines... 7,199 6,634 3,964 Civil engineering parts ... 1,298 1,956 2,439 Non-electrical parts... 1,812 1,780 1,699 Telecommunications... 656 1,588 1,094 Motor vehicles... 7,310 94 51 Motor vehicle parts... 9,510 6,709 4,036 Miscellaneous manufactured articles... 2,647 3,070 2,517 Items, no separate details... 59,450 60,111 78,442 Other... 10,737 16,852 13,444 Total exports... 144,533 281,734 204,988 Source: from Australian Financial Review, 29 August 1985. Table 3 AUSTRALIAN COMPANIES AND THEIR SOUTH AFRICAN SUBSIDIARIES OR ASSOCIATES, AS LISTED BETWEEN MARCH AND JUNE 1985. Australian Parent Company Australian Subsidiary or Associate South African Subsidiary or Associate AJC International Holdings Pty. Ltd. (NSW) TDI International Holdings Pty. Ltd. TDI Transportation Displays International (South Africa) Ltd. (A) Australian National Industries Ltd. (NSW) Comeng Holdings Ltd. Union Carriage and Wagon Co. (Pty) Ltd. (A) Borg-Warner Investments Pty. Ltd. (NSW) Borg-Warner (Australia) Ltd. Borg-Warner S.A. (Pty) Ltd. The Broken Hill Proprietary Ltd. (Vic.) Utah International Inc. (USA) Eloff Hold Mining Co. (Pty.) Ltd. Eloff Mining Co. (Pty) Ltd. Southern Sphere Holdings Ltd. [A Utah Subsidiary] Petta Properties (Pty) Ltd. Southern Sphere Mining and Development Co. (Pty) Ltd. Hartmor Flourite (Pty) Ltd. Tantalite Valley Minerals (Pty) Ltd. Caris Corporation Ltd. (WA) Levassor Pty. Ltd. Kosovo Pty. Ltd Clyde Industries Ltd. (NSW) Dodds Consolidated Industries Ltd. Sylon Industries (Pty) Ltd. Fox Manufacturing Co. (South Africa) Pty. Ltd (d) Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd. (Vic.) Colmut Durban Properties (Pty) Ltd. Colmut Pretoria Properties (Pty) Ltd. The Colonial Mutual Co. Ltd. (A) Elders IXL Ltd. (SA) Henry Jones (IXL-SA) Ltd Glenfields Processors Pty. Ltd. Goldhar Pty. Ltd. Lilo Estates (Pty) Ltd. Western Province Preserving Co. (Pty) Ltd. Evergreen Soil Conservation (NSW) Pty. Ltd. (NSW) Evergreen Soil Conservation (SA) Ltd. (A) Fielder Gillespie Davis Ltd. (NSW) Davis Gelatine Industries (Pty) Ltd. W.A. Flick & Co. (Holdings) Pty. Ltd. (NSW) W.A. Flick & Co. Pty. Ltd. Flick Pest Control (SA) (Pty) Ltd. Jimberlana Minerals, NL (Vic.) West Witwatersrand Gold Holdings Ltd. Victoria Exploration, NL (WA) Leichhardt Exploration Ltd. Leichhardt Explorations (SA) (Pty) Ltd. G.H. Michell & Sons Pty. Ltd. (SA) Michell Wool (Cape) Pty. Ltd Monier Ltd. (NSW) Rocla Industries Ltd Concrete Pipes (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. Superocla Ltd. (A) Nicholas Kiwi Ltd. (Vic.) Nicholas Laboratories (Pty) Ltd. Fabrus Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd. Nicholabs (Pty) Ltd. Bima Cosmetics (Pty) Ltd. OPSM Industries Ltd. (NSW) Protector Safety Products (Pty) Ltd. (d) Pioneer Concrete Services Ltd. (NSW) Power Crushers (Transvaal) (Pty) Ltd. Tangera (Pty) Ltd. Transit Mixed Concrete South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Repco Corporation Ltd. (Vic.) Repco of South Africa Holdings (Pty) Ltd. (A) South African Controls Industries (Pty) Ltd. John Shearer (Holdings) Ltd. (SA) John Shearer (Overseas) Ltd. John Shearer Investments (South Africa) (Pty) Ltd. John Shearer Holdings (SA) Ltd. John Shearer (South Africa) Pty. Ltd. Siddons Industries Ltd. (Vic.) Ramset Fastners (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. Ramset Fastners (Africa) (Pty) Ltd. Thomas Nationwide Transport Ltd. (NSW) TNT Skypak International SA (Pty) Ltd. Tubemakers of Australia Ltd. (NSW) Bundy Tubing Co. of South Africa Pty. Ltd. Westralian Farmers Co-op Ltd. (WA) WFS Holdings Pty. Ltd. Wormald International Ltd. (NSW) Mather and Platt (SA) Pty. Ltd. Republic Automatic Sprinkler Co. (Pty) Ltd. Wormald International (SA) (Pty) Ltd. (A) = indicates Associate Company (d) = Document Company Sources: Who Owns Whom in Australasia and the Far East, 1985 J. Fitzgerald, Trade and Investment between Australia and South Africa Jobson's Mining Year Book, 1985-86 Financial Times, Mining Year Book, 1985 Australian Financial Review, 30 July 1985 The Age, 1 August 1985 The National Times, 16-22 August 1985 Table 4 SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANIES IN AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIAN REPRESENTATIVES OF SOUTH AFRICAN COMPANIES, 1985. South African Company* Australian Subsidiary/Associate (A) Australian Representative Abercom Investments Ltd. Davidson of Australia Pty. Ltd. African Wire Ropes Ltd. Blue Strand Industries (Pty.) Ltd. Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa Ltd* Aust'n Anglo-American Ltd. Aust'n Anglo-American Gold Pty. Ltd. -Aust'n Anglo-American Investments Pty. Ltd -Aust'n Anglo-American Operations Pty. Ltd. -Aust'n Anglo-American Prospecting Pty. Ltd (A) -Aust'n Anglo-American Searches Pty. Ltd. (A) -Aust'n Anglo-American Ventures Pty. Ltd. -Comstaff Pty. Ltd. -Mulga Mines Pty. Ltd. Wallaby Nominees Pty. Ltd. ASEA Reunert (Pty) Ltd ASEA Pty. Ltd (A) Benoni Forge Products (Pty) Ltd. F. J. Sweetman & Co. Pty. Carrier Bags (SA) (Pty) Ltd. Paper Converting (Speciality) Bags. Pty. Ltd Coates Brothers (South Africa) Ltd. Coates Brothers Australia Pty. Ltd. (A) Be Beers Consolidated mines Ltd* Australian Anglo-American Ltd. Stockdale Prospecting Ltd. Delta Manganese Ltd. Alcan Australia Ltd. Fucha Electrical Industries (Pty) Ltd. Email Ltd. Gedore Tools SA (Pty) Ltd. J. W. Ross and Sons. Australia Pty. Ltd. General Mining Union Corporation Ltd. Gencor (Australia) Pty. Ltd. Cudgen R. Z. Ltd. (A) Consolidated Rutile A. Hartrodt (South Africa) Pty. Ltd. A. Hartrodt (Australia) Pty. Ltd. (A) LTA Ltd.* LTA Loval Ltd. Marine Oil Refiners of Africa Ltd. Harcros Chemicals Pty. Ltd. Marico (Pty) Ltd. F. J. Sweetman & Co. Pty. Ltd. Mimic Crafts Pty. Ltd Mimic Crafts Ltd. Mineral and Resources Ltd* Australan Anglo-American Ltd. Morganite South Africa (Pty) Ltd. Noristan Ltd. Harcros Chemicals Pty. Ltd. Package Machine Designs Ltd Advance Machinery Pty. Ltd. Plate Glass Ltd. O'Brien Glass Industries Ltd. Propan Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd. Protea Pharmaceuticals Pty. Ltd. Polarizers International Ltd. Polarizers (Canberra) Pty. Ltd. (A) Rholig & Co. Ltd. (South Africa) Rohlig Australia Pty. Ltd. Safocean Pty. Ltd. Nedlloyd Swire Pty. Ltd. Senmin (Pty) Ltd. (Sasolburg) Harcros Chemicals Pty. Ltd. South African Airways South African Marine Corporation Ltd. (SAFMARINE) Nedlloyd Swire Pty. Ltd. South African Tourist Corporation Skye Ltd. Leroy Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Thos. Barlow and Sons Ltd. Heineman Electric (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. Wikinson Manufacturing (Pty) Ltd. F. J. Sweetman & Co. Pty. Ltd. * South African Companies are either parent companies or subsidiaries of foreign registered companies which operate in South Africa. * indicates companies associated closely with the Anglo-American Corporation of South Africa Ltd. Sources: Who Owns Whom in Australasia and the Far East 1985 Alan Deans, Australian Mining. Minerals and Oil (Sydney: 1983)Jobsen's Mining Year Book, 1985-6. (Melbourne: 1985) CARE Newsletter, August 1985 The Age, 18 May 1985 The National Times, 2-8 May 1986. Mr HAND —I thank the House. I conclude by imploring the Opposition to get behind the Government on this all-important issue. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr LLOYD(Murray)(4.36) —I am speaking in place of the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair), who was most unfairly barred-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member must not reflect on the Chair. Mr LLOYD —He is unable to make this statement in the House this afternoon. If he were able to do so, he would be associating the views of the National Party of Australia as strongly supporting the coalition Opposition on this matter, so ably put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I know that equally he would have emphasised the abhorrence of all members of the National Party, as of all members of the coalition parties, to apartheid and to any question of racialist superiority by one group over another, and equally to the urgent need to reform a most unfair and unequal society, which is presently the case in South Africa. However, that is not the issue, it is not the question or the real debate, as everyone agrees. The real questions or issues are, first: What is the real intention of the Australian Government and other governments with regard to the imposition of sanctions which are now being proposed? Is it to show moral superiority to the electorates of the respective countries, or is it to adopt policies or to believe that such policies involving sanctions are the most likely to accelerate peaceful change? The second question or issue is: What is an acceptable criterion of change and reform to determine when sanctions, if imposed, are no longer necessary, irrespective of any influence that these sanctions may or may not have had on change; or, to put the matter another way, what acceptable criterion of change and reform makes South Africa a respectable member by the standards of Western society? The third question or issue is this: Is a double standard being applied in relation to acceptable change in South Africa by this country or by this Government and other governments compared to other countries and the standards of morality throughout the world? The fourth question or issue is: Will the sanctions now proposed help or hinder peaceful change in South Africa? The first point relates to sanctions as a convenient way of expressing moral superiority or a thought-through policy to achieve change. I was one of those who personally supported sanctions for many years. It is only in the last few years that it has been recognised that change was under way in South Africa and that the decisions being made by the Government of that country have certainly been more difficult decisions than any decision made by any government in this country. One has only to look at this Budget, the economy and the question of uranium sales to France to make that point very clear. Along with the honourable member for Mallee (Mr Peter Fisher), I visited South Africa late last year, because of my mixed feelings about my attitude to South Africa, as a member of this Parliament. We were both criticised for going to South Africa. The return air fares which we used were part of our parliamentary entitlement, but we made no secret then and we make no secret now that in South Africa our basic expenses and programs were provided by the South African Department of Foreign Affairs. If anybody wants to be critical of that I would remind them of two things. One is that at least we did go to South Africa and look for ourselves; and, secondly, that three months earlier I was, in a completely similar way, a guest of the People's Republic of China. Therefore, it cannot be said that I have one particular view of politics. I am very pleased and proud to say that, as a result of the visit to the People's Republic of China, six young Australians will be leaving Australia next week as the first in what I hope will be a number of rural youth or young farmer exchanges between Australia and the People's Republic. I think that is quite an achievement. To return to the point about being in South Africa: In that country-contrary to some comments that have been made in the Press-we did not meet only government supporters. For example we met Helen Susman, that most impressive lady of the Progressive Federal Party. We also met Dr Meer of the United Democratic Front, Ann Colvin of Black Sash, Dr Motlana of the Soweto Action Group, representatives of AZAPO and INKATHA and business people opposed to the government, et cetera. I wish to commend both the Australian Embassy for the assistance the staff gave us in making some of these meeting possible and our hosts for their tolerance. They knew what we were doing and encouraged rather than blocked us in that purpose. In those any discussions that we had several things became clearer in my mind. The first, which is in part the policy of the coalition, is that it is necessary to release Nelson Mandela if we are to have constructive dialogue in South Africa. The second is that the image created by the South African police in using the jambok as a riot or crowd control measure is possibly the worst image that could ever be created by any country. However, the overwhelming evidence that we obtained and the belief that I arrived at was that sanctions will achieve the opposite to what they are intended to achieve. Let us look at the question of moral superiority. I believe that this Government will not even live up to that test of being able to stand back and say how morally superior we are because the front-line states in South Africa will bear the real burden of economic sanctions. It will not be South Africa itself. In his statement, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said that $5m would be contributed over five years. That is a pitiful contribution if the Government intends to back up what it claims to be its real position of achievement by anything more that what could be called lip service to the question of achieving change in South Africa. I want to move on to the next question: What are the acceptable criteria of change? Two of the most interesting conversations that the honourable member for Mallee and I had were first of all with Dr Danny Craven, the President of the South African Rugby Union Board, who is a lifelong opponent of apartheid and who has suffered for it to a certain extent, and secondly, Helen Suzman. Those who kept saying that the West keeps changing its criteria of acceptable reform. First of all it was desegregation in sport. The West said that if South Africa desegregated sport it would be acceptable. Desegregation was achieved in a number of sports but by then the criteria of acceptability had changed. The West then said that South Africa must end apartheid if it were to be acceptable. Apartheid is ending in South Africa, but once, again the West has changed its criteria. The West and the Australian Government are now saying that unless South Africa has one vote-one value it is not an acceptable nation. This brings up the next issue of double standards, selective morality and the benchmarks in the Prime Minister's speech. If we are to adopt as a benchmark of acceptable behaviour by governments as mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech the principle of one vote-one value, complete political freedom and no political detainees in gaol, South Africa is not unique. I would think that the majority of the countries of this world would be very much in that category. I come to the main point-that is, will the sanctions, as proposed, hinder or help change in South Africa? We all desire that change. Once again I wish to quote some of those people who are not supporters of the present South African Government. I wish to quote in particular Alan Paton, the author of Cry the Beloved Country. He is the person from whom many Australians and many people in the West gained their first knowledge of South Africa's most unequal society through reading that book. An article in the Weekend Australian of 14-15 December 1985 said: Unexpectedly, Paton is doggedly defensive about South Africa, especially in the face of what he sees as an international overview that is much too simplistic. He is lukewarm, too, to the notion of international sanctions of any kind, especially economic sanctions. `I am opposed to them,' he says. `There are too many Africans living below the breadline; there would be enormous hunger and need if any more of them were to become unemployed.' If one looks even at the recent poll published in the London Times, one sees that the majority of Africans of all races are opposed to sanctions. The overwhelming feeling that I obtained in South Africa is that change is underway, that change is inevitable and obviously that change is the right thing. What are the reasons for that change and will this proposed policy help? The major reason for that change-and one must now look back over a period of five years which saw the end of the period of `grand apartheid' in South Africa and the hesitant but nevertheless definite change that has taken place since then-is that the demands of a modern industrial society and the policy of apartheid cannot possibly coexist. The economics of a modern society, I believe, is the major factor for change, whether it is change in the industrial laws, the residential laws or in the upgrading of education for all races. One can go through the whole lot, but one sees that it is the demands and requirements of a modern prosperous industrial society that have brought about change. The more prosperous that society, the more pressure there is for change internally-and that is where change will take place, it will not take place as a result of external pressure-and the more ability there is for change because of that prosperity. I believe that is a better argument than the alternative way of putting the argument, and that is that sanctions will hurt the lower economic strata people-the black Africans, the Indians and coloureds. It is the ability as well as the force for change in a modern industrial society that is prosperous which makes so many of those changes inevitable and will make them continue. That is why if sanctions in any way harm that economic progress, they will be counterproductive to change. If one goes beyond the economic argument to the political argument one only has to look at the history of South Africa to realise that it is very clear that pressure from the West did not work before and will not work now. One only has to go back to the early 1960s and the period of `grand apartheid' to see what happened then. South Africa developed its own armaments industry and synthetic fuel industry so that more than ever it will be able to withstand the economic sanctions that are now being imposed. From my point of view it is particularly sad that even in the nine months since the honourable member for Mallee and I were in South Africa, the pace of reform has slowed. This is because the political climate has hardened as pressure has increased from the West. One does not even have to invoke the argument of the lagger mentality, the Afrikaans psyche, if you like. If the rest of the world was telling us as Australians that we had to change everything, I believe that the people and the Government of Australia would react in exactly the same way as the Government of South Africa is reacting at present. This pressure from the West reduces the political ability of the present South African Government to be flexible and to incorporate change and reform because it increases the pressure from the extreme right. The extreme right might only be a minority in voting terms. We must accept the point that the government that is in power in South Africa now will set the reform agenda. If we have a genuine policy to encourage reform in South Africa it must be based on the fact of who is the government of that country, how it reacts and what can be done to encourage, insist and force that government to accelerate its pace of change. I believe that the policy of the coalition, which was so very well put by both the Leader of the Opposition and by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, is a far more constructive and realistic policy which takes the South African situation into account. It is far more likely to encourage and to have constructive pressure for reform in that country-which we all desire-than the stand back, moral superiority attitude of sanctions which the coalition and I believe will be counterproductive. Debate (on motion by Dr Blewett) adjourned. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —I take it that the honourable member claims to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —Yesterday in the Parliament, as recorded on page 313 of Hansard, the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins), in referring to remarks attributed to Mr R. Lightfoot, a member of Parliament in Western Australia, regarding United States grain subsidies, said: The honourable member for O'Connor may well wish to dissociate himself from those remarks, recognising that the National Party in Western Australia is breathing heavily down the back of his neck in relation to his Federal seat. During the adjournment debate the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), as recorded on page 378 of Hansard, said: We have appealed to the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) to repudiate that approach to the American Administration by one of his geographical and philosophically close party colleagues. At this stage he has failed to do so. In response to a point of order by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale) in regard to those remarks the Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Grayndler (Mr Leo McLeay) said: The Chair is not in a position to know whether the honourable member for O'Connor did or did not do that, so I do not think that I am in a position to direct the honourable member for Charlton to withdraw . . . The point that he was making was that I had already dissociated myself from those remarks. These statements are wrong as the following facts will confirm. I refer to page 220 of the Daily Hansard. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the honourable member clear up a point? The point of actual interpretation, which has entitled him to make a statement in the House, relates to the charge that he had not dissociated himself from the remarks by the people to whom the other honourable member referred? Mr TUCKEY —Yes, and to the suggestion that I had special motives for dissociating myself, which I must also reject. On 19 August, when making a personal explanation, as recorded on page 220 of Hansard, I said: . . . the writer was in Africa . . . I proceeded to say: As I am aware that the recent production of papers in this House by the Prime Minister has become the subject of defamation action due to the unsubstantiated allegations, I will wait until I am able to confirm with Mr Lightfoot that he did in fact write this letter in the terms read to the Parliament. If the report of the letter is correct I would certainly dissociate myself from its contents. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member need go no further. He has demonstrated that he has in fact been misrepresented. The opportunity to make a personal explanation does not encompass expanded debate on the matter. Mr TUCKEY —I agree entirely, Sir, but the first point to which I have referred, is the reference by the Minister for Trade that I had only a politically motivated reason for that dissociation. I consider that a substantial reflection on myself and I wish to point out that that is not the case. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's redress in that situation was to seek, through the Chair, a withdrawal of the reflection. It does not constitute a misrepresentation because with all due respect, only the honourable member knows whether there is any substance to that charge. It was a reflection and it should have been dealt with at the time. Mr TUCKEY —The other point I wish to draw to the attention of the House is that the Deputy Speaker in the Chair at the time I made that personel explanation was the honourable member for Grayndler. The Chair was in a position to confirm that I had made that point. When I made that reference to Africa the honourable member for Grayndler said: I am sorry; you were saying that you were in Africa? I thought you said the writer of the letter was in Africa. During my entire personal explanation Deputy Speaker McLeay was in the Chair. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I hope that the honourable member is not, perhaps even gently, reflecting on the Chair. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am drawing to the Chair's attention-- Mr Leo McLeay —You are just being smart. Mr TUCKEY —No, I am pointing out that the Chair was well and truly aware of that matter because he participated in the discussion. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think the honourable member has well accommodated his ambitions. 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 assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we strenuously object to the proposal that many Post Office Agencies are to be closed. They provide a network of offices with postal and agency services to residential areas and small communities. They serve a community need and we would be seriously inconvenienced if forced to travel further to purchase postal items or collect parcels. It would be an unnecessary expense particularly for pensioners without their own transport. We maintain that the purpose of Post Offices should be to serve the public for the variety of services they offer. They are a community centre particularly in country areas and if necessary they should be subsidised to retain them. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House should take all possible steps to prevent the closure of Post Office Agencies and that the network should be extended, with the Agency service they offer expanded. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Adermann,Mr Beale,Mr Robert Brown,Mr Burr,Mr Donald Cameron,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Charlesworth,Mr Coleman,Mr Dobie,Mr Drummond,Dr Edwards,Mr Everingham,Mr Hollis,Mr H. Jenkins,Mr Barry Jones,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kent,Dr Klugman,Mr McArthur,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Macphee,Mr Milton,Mr Nehl,Mr Shack,Mr Sharp,Mr Tuckey,Mr Webster,Dr Watson and Mr White. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth. We most strongly oppose the process of Food Irradiation by radioactive Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. We oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process by State Governments. We express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. We call on the Government to immediately ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances and to immediately disallow the regulations that permit the irradiation of food here in Australia. by Mr Blanchard,Mr Hollis,Mr Kent,Mr Milton,Mr Saunderson and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr Cobb,Mr Sharp and 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: 1. We the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; 2. The impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. 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: (1) That we the undersigned are totally opposed to the introduction by the Hawke Labor Government of a $2.00 fee on prescription drugs for pensioners; (2) That the impact of such a fee will be particularly felt by the chronically ill elderly who will be faced with a $2.00 burden with the purchase of each Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme drug; Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Hawke Labor Government to ensure that prescription drugs continue to be provided to the pensioner population without the $2.00 fee on each prescription. 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 the undersigned shows: Graduated family allowances are of important assistance to families with more than one child. All family allowances, whether for one, two, three, or more children, have not kept pace with inflation. There are suggestions that all family allowances should be paid at the one flat rate. This would severely disadvantage families with more than one child. There are also suggestions that the dependent spouse rebate be reduced or removed. This would represent another blow to the family unit. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, should: ask the Federal Government to increase the value of existing family allowance payments, and reject any moves to change the payments to a flat rate or to tamper with the spouse rebate; And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale,Mr N.A. Brown,Mr Hawker,Mrs Kelly,Mr McArthur and Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That taxpayers with dependent children have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of recognition provided in the taxation system for the costs of maintaining a family, in particular. the failure to index family allowances which has resulted in an erosion of more than 50% in their real value since May 1976; the abolition of family allowances for dependents who have turned 18, even those still at school; the abolition of concessional tax rebates for education and other expenses. That this erosion in horizontal tax equity has placed an intolerable financial burden on many large families, particularly those on middle incomes who fail to qualify for means-tested benefits such as TEAS but whose living standards are now well below average due to heavy expenses on necessities such as education, housing, food and clothing. Our petitioners humbly pray that: family allowances be restored to the 1976 value (in real terms), and indexed according to the CPI; the dependent spouse rebate be retained; the Federal Government take urgent measures to restore equitable provisions in the taxation system through the introduction of family income splitting. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7% in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5% of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5% of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Campbell,Dr Charlesworth and Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned plead that the Parliament implement pro-family policies. In particular we appeal for: 1. the retention of the present graduated assessment system for payment of the Family Allowance; 2. indexation of the Family Allowance in order to keep pace with inflation; 3. an increase of 3.7 per cent in the Family Allowance benefit to return it to 11.5 per cent of the Average Award Wage (making it similar in value to the 11.5 per cent of the Basic Wage when Child Endowment was first introduced by the Chifley Government in 1941). 4. retention of the Dependent Spouse Rebate and the amount of the Dependent Spouse Rebate adjusted so that it is equal in value to the tax-free threshold allowed when calculating taxable income. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that you will give this matter earnest consideration and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That families have been gravely disadvantaged by a serious decline in the level of their net disposable income through: Failure to index family allowances-resulting in a 50 per cent loss in their real value since 1976; Abolition of family allowances for dependants who have turned 18-even those still at school; Failure to increase the spouse rebate since 1982; Discriminatory taxation system-which penalises single income families. Recognising the cost benefit to taxpayers when the intact family unit itself delivers essential care to the extended family your petitioners most humbly praythat the Government take immediate action to: Restore the lost value of family allowances and to index them to cover future prices rises; Introduce optional income-splitting for taxation purposes; Retain the spouse rebate. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Coleman. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore 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. To the Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. We are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian national flag. 2. We are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: The Union Jack-itself the creation of 3 Christian crosses-represents the nation's historical origin, and the source of its language and law. The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its place in space. The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. We know the flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. We recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. We are certain that any change to the flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian national flag remains sacrosanct from change''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: 1. They are completely satisified with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet, Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce a 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 Australia showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects the immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) the Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce divisions in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth 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: 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 Dr Harry Edwards. 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 the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that persistent rumour suggest that the Hawke Government intends to reduce Government expenditure by contracting or eliminating programs for war veterans and war widows. Your Petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Government honour its commitment and that of previous Governments to ex-servicemen and women by: Ensure no additional cut-backs will be made to the portfolio of Veterans' Affairs. Review the previous cut-backs in such areas as the travel allowances, dental scheme and repatriation pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Proceed with abolishing more stringent conditions applying to the granting of the TPI pension. by Mr Beale and Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: that the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill: 1. Offer nothing more than is already available under law, 2. deny some Human Rights and do not include others, 3. give dangerously wide powers to an unelected body, and 4. could cause far more damage than they could possibly cure. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Senate should completely reject the Bill of Rights and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Bill, and your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cobb and Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That, for our survival, an effective Worldpeace Initiative needs to be established to work towards mutual understanding, world disarmament, economic well-being for all and full employment. This Initiative will help to ensure a sustainable society conserving natural resources, and revitalising soils essential for growing a plentiful and healthy food supply and tree cover for the needs of present and future generations. By working for these objectives, Australia can set an example for the rest of the world. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that your Honourable House will: 1. Propose to the United Nations General Assembly that 1989 be declared International Year for Repairing the Earth. 2. Implement action programs leading up to 1989 which would include: (a) Actively supporting the International Year of Peace in 1986 by reallocating at least 10% of our military expenditure to fund environmental repair programs. (b) Implementing National Recycling Programs to reuse water, and to compost into hygienic humus all presently wasted organic garbage and sewage-sludge mixed with fine ground powder from mineral-rich gravels and rocks, to use as a natural fertiliser in revitalising impoverished soils; (c) Developing national employment programs giving priority to the planting and growing of healthy forests, food-producing trees and other crops and vegetation including environmentally sound use and reuse of water to assist the greening of Australia. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt and Mr Carlton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of concerned Australian citizens respectfully points out: That the deterioration of the total global environment is continuing at an increasing rate; that important environmental resources vital to human livelihood such as trees, soil and water are decreasing at an alarming rate; that there is a need for educating all people to assume a greater responsibility for the conservation, sustainable use and maintenance of vital resources; that dynamic and active initiatives are needed to conserve and renew the total environment; and that protecting, conserving and repairing the Earth can unite all people and nations in co-operative action for survival; Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will propose to the United Nations General Assembly at its 41st Session in September 1986 that 1988 be proclaimed the ``First International Earth Repair Year'', And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Cowan and Dr Harry Edwards. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives of the Australian Parliament Assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Australia respectfully showeth: We the undersigned residents of Australia totally reject any move to cut funding to Australia-wide English as a Second language programs in schools. We request that the Australian government restore funding to the 1985 level in the 1986-87 budget. by Mr Baldwin and Mr Hollis. To the Honourable, the Speaker and the 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Macphee. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled this humble petition of citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: The Richest 2000 people own as much as the poorest 2 1/4 million. It is a travesty in these circumstances that 2 million people are living in poverty in this country (Bob Hawke 11.7.81 Sydney Morning Herald) The present provision of Social Benefits is absolutely inadequate . . . locking recipients into poverty (including 800,000 children) of those on social welfare pensions or benefits. To enable all Australians to share in the wealth of their country we call on the Australian Government in the forthcoming Taxation Reform to . . . . 1. Raise the tax threshold to $10,000 2. Double the permissable income ($30 to $60) plus indexation. 3. All pensions and benefits to be raised to 30% of the male average weekly earnings and indexed to C.P.I. 4. Full standard pension to be paid on an individual basis to eliminate the discrimination against married couples currently losing $30 per week. Furthermore we strongly oppose the introduction of a broad based indirect tax. Thereby shifting the tax burden onto those dependent on social welfare and low income earners. Further increasing their poverty while allowing continuation of high income earners and tax avoiders to pay little or no tax. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Macphee. 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; 1. Pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; 2. Not increase or extend fuel taxes; and 3. 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 Hawker and Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government should; pass on the full benefit of lower international oil prices; not increase or extend fuel taxes; and maintain its tax cut commitments. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Hawke Socialist Government should not continue to rob the taxpayers of Australia by failing to pass on the fuel tax cuts due under the Import Parity Pricing System. 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 House. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforceable rights; That the Bill of Rights leaves out vital rights such as the right not to belong to a trade union, the right to own private property, the right to a private education; That the Bill of Rights gives dangerous new powers to a Federal Government Commission to investigate in private, without legal representation and with criminal penalties for refusing to co-operate; That the Bill of Rights deals with our rights; therefore we, the people, should say whether we want it by a referendum. Your petitioners humbly pray that you 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Mr Hawker. The Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Gilmore electorate respectfully showeth that: The proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill is of great concern to many Australians who believe that the Bill will adversely affect the majority of citizens. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to reject the Australian Bill of Rights Bill. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia shows that: In this International Year of Peace, 1986, the world needs a nuclear test moratorium by the United States, the Soviet Union, France and other nuclear-testing powers. That such a moratorium would create a favourable climate and basis for the negotiation of a Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. That such a Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would- be the first vital step to nuclear disarmament; impede the development of new nuclear weapons; decrease the reliance upon an unstable nuclear strategy; inhibit the spread of nuclear weapons. Your petitioners therefore ask that the Australian Government be urged to: 1. Use its influence with the United States Government to encourage it to join the moratorium on nuclear testing begun by the Soviet Union on 6 August 1985. 2. Use its influence in all forums to encourage other nuclear nations to join the Nuclear Test Moratorium. 3. Use its influence in all forums to encourage non-nuclear nations to demand the establishment of a Nuclear Test Moratorium and Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. by Mr Jenkins and Mr McArthur. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth that: We are opposed to the imposition of a Capital Gains Tax. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Honourable House repeal any Act and reject any Bill which imposes this disincentive to economic growth. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth the legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair. Your petitioners humbly pray that you do not proceed with the legislation. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Maranoa electorate respectfully showeth that: The current 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 Ian Cameron. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia call on the Commonwealth Government to: Recognise that the imposition of a charge on the prescription of Epileptic drugs- 1. is a discrimination against sufferers because of their condition 2. causes hardship to epileptics, particularly pensioners 3. is likely to cause increased hospitalisation of sufferers who cannot afford the charge and thus impose an increased cost on the hospital system 4 is contrary to the spirit of the U.N. declaration on the Rights of the Disabled and Mentally Retarded Person Your petitioners therefore pray that the Commonwealth Government do revoke charges on the prescription of Epileptic drugs as a matter of some urgency. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Conquest. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That Labor's capital gains tax, fringe benefits tax, tax on lump sum superannuation and assets test are an unwarranted burden on the people of Australia, have contributed to the national economic crisis and the anomalies in the legislation are causing confusion and anger amongst all sections of the Australian community. Your Petitioner's therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of Labor's Assets Test, Labor's Capital Gains Tax, Labor's Fringe Benefits tax and Labor's tax on lump sum superannuation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Dobie. To the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned electors of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government should cancel the Fringe Benefits Tax they intend to impose on businesses throughout Australia because: 1. The tax discriminates against charitable organisations, sports clubs, private schools and religious organisations: 2. The tax will mean employees around Australia will suffer reductions in their renumeration packages: 3. The Bill places another impossible burden of paperwork on small business: 4. The Bill is absurd in its application to Government employees, who now constitute 32% of the workforce. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Drummond. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble Petition of undersigned citizens of Australia, respectfully showeth: That we believe reference to God should be made in the Australian National Anthem, as Australia is considered to be a Christian nation, and therefore we believe inclusion of his name is appropriate and desirable. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the last line of each verse of the Australian National Anthem be altered to read, in joyful strains then let us sing, ``God Bless Australia Fair''. And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled, we the undersigned call upon all Members to pay due respect to returned Service personnel and cease the constant erosion of our entitlements by the Hawke Government. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government does not proceed with its intention to further means test Veterans' disability pensions in order to achieve their desired cuts in Government spending. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hodges. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: The lack of a medicare office in Lalor/Thomastown is seriously inconveniencing the residents of the shire of Whittlesea. Your Petitioners therefore request that a medicare office be established in Lalor/Thomastown as soon as possible. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of citizens of Australia shows that- Approximately 100,000 Australians live on the verge of homelessness, dependent on Government resources to survive, or sleep out of doors or in refuges. Over 700,000 households, or in excess of 2 million Australians are living below the poverty line after paying their rent or mortgage costs. In addition, there are thousands of households with special needs, such as the disabled, who are not well catered for in the private sector but who nevertheless require suitable housing. Waiting lists for public housing have almost doubled in the past five years to 146,000 by June 1985. The list is expected to grow to some 250,000 by 1990. We therefore ask that the Australian Government, as a highest priority undertake a campaign to bring the issue of poverty and, in particular, housing-related poverty, to the attention of the Australian public increase expenditure on public housing through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement, by at least 15% annually in real terms increase rent relief payments for those on low incomes in the private rental market use its influence with State and Territory governments to encourage them to increase their expenditures on public housing. by Mr Jenkins. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned shows: That the proposed introduction of compulsory identification (ID) cards should be reconsidered and rejected because the system: (a) is not a cost-effective method of reducing tax evasion and social security fraud and, to the contrary, in the form proposed will facilitate such evasion and fraud; (b) will constitute an unwarranted infringement of individual privacy by the aggregation of a wide variety of personal information of a private nature; (c) will cause a further large and costly growth in the bureaucracy and burden on the taxpayer; and (d) cannot be guaranteed against misuse for purposes other than for which their introduction is stated to be intended and in fact provide the opportunity for blackmail and other forms of misuse. And your petitioners humbly pray that the problems which identification cards are intended to reduce should be attacked by other, more effective and less obnoxious methods. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Kent. To the honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows- That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent. To the honourable the Leader and Members of the House of Representatives of Australia. The petition of the undersigned citizens respectfully shows that there has been clear demonstration of public dissatisfaction with mismanagement of the Otway forests in Victoria, and we pray that: The Constitution of Australia be reformed to recognise significant public expressions of concern, eg petitions by some action, eg referendums or Committees of inquiry. by Mr McArthur. To the honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament Assembled. The humble petition of certain electors of Australia 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 the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble Petition of certain electors of the Division of Cowper respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights Bills, 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 Amendment) 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 in the Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The fringe benefits tax will cause hardship to business throughout Australia, especially in the already severely- depressed rural sector and in the motor vehicle industry. The fringe benefits tax will be disincentive to employment and worse, will result in additional unemployment. The economy of this country would best be served by policies that lightened the tax burden, not increased it, that encouraged enterprise, not stifled it and stimulated growth, development and jobs, not prevented it. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will repeal this Legislation and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Rocher. To the Speaker and Honourable Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That whereas the Federal Government has imposed the Fringe Benefits Tax, such a tax will increase inflationary pressures, lead to a net loss in employment, will add significant cost and time burdens to business in this country and is in every sense an inequitable taxation measure. The following people in the State of Tasmania therefore urge the Federal Parliament to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Smith. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. This petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: that the humble petitioners respectfully believe that the representatives in Australia of the African National Congress of South Africa (ANC) and of the South West African People's Organisation of Namibia (SWAPO) should not have to suffer unending financial problems related to the cost of rent, food and clothing, and the maintenance of two small officers run on the most austere basis. Your petitioners therefore pray and urge Australian Government provision of: (1) Official recognition of the ANC and SWAPO as the legitimate representatives of the people of South Africa and Namibia; (2) Financial support to the offices and representatives of the ANC and SWAPO to promote the anti-Apartheid cause in Australia; (3) Additional financial support for the official representatives of the ANC and SWAPO 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 ANC and SWAPO education departments. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth that: We, the undersigned petitioners, call upon the Australian Parliament to set up strong national Aboriginal land-rights legislation. We call upon Parliament to establish this legislation in line with the live principles of ALP Party Policy and to use its powers to over-ride states which do not comply with the legislation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Scott. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Government's decision to force, at the expense of viewers, the transfer of WIN TV (and any future local broadcaster) from VHF to UHF transmission, while excluding Sydney metropolitan TV stations from this requirement, has placed in jeopardy the future of the Illawarra and South Coast region's only local commercial TV operator. Your petitioners request the House of Representatives to protect the interests of the hundreds of thousands of television viewers within the area from Wollongong to the Victorian border served by WIN TV, by preventing the government from taking this unwarranted and discriminatory action which disadvantages both viewers and advertisers on the South Coast to the benefit of the metropolitan networks. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Sharp. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The petition of certain citizens of Australia, electors of the Division of Calare shows- The proposed gold tax will severely affect the livelihood of numerous people involved in the exploration, mining and service division of the gold mining industry in this district. Your petitioners therefore pray that the proposed gold tax be introduced. 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. 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 assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: That many Australian wage and salary earners and self-employed persons do not enjoy secure retirement incomes provided by superannuation; and That the Government issued in December 1985 Guidelines for the implementation of the proposed productivity decision by the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission and draft Operational Standards for Superannuation schemes. Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Government: 1. Guarantees to every employee the right and freedom to select the superannuation scheme of his/her choice. 2. Protects the individual exercising that freedom of choice from any coercion, influence, or other pressure which may be applied by any employer, association or trade union. 3. Will recognise only those schemes which provide genuine superannuation and reject those schemes which do not provide for- preservation of benefits to retirement vesting of employer contributions on a reasonable sliding scale equal employer and employee Trusteeship control to ensure security of investments. 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 Australia, respectfully showeth: That the proposed Australian Bill of Rights Bill 1985, will endanger the Federal system in Australia, the State and Federal criminal justice systems, the State and Federal Police Force, the State and Federal education systems, the independence of the churches and religious associations, marriage and the family, children, the unborn, the handicapped, the aged and the infirm, employer and employee relationships and Australian society generally. Your petitioners therefore humble praying: That your Honourable House defer debate on the Bill for twelve months and circulate the Bill for twelve months for the widest possible debate, scrutiny and discussion. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Webster. 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 Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's Bill of Rights seeks to make changes in the constitutional balance in Australian 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 Hodges. 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 Right Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of New South Wales respectfully showeth: That they 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 Price. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in higher education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain residents of the State of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House the report of the Ministerial Committee to Review the Structure of Higher Education in Western Sydney which recommends the establishment in 1987 of a Western Sydney State University along lines detailed in that report. Your petitioners therefore request that the Commonwealth Government acts promptly to rectify the serious deficiencies in higher education in the Western Sydney Region by taking all actions necessary to enable the New South Wales Government to establish the University. by Mr Webster. To the Honourable the President and Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: There is an urgent need to up-grade and extend the facilities at the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Provide the necessary capital funding for the Northern Rivers CAE to ensure North Coast students have access to a tertiary institution capable of providing them with the skills they will need to meet the challenges of the future. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: The Hawke Labor Government's productivity-superannuation accord with the ACTU and its support of the superannuation claims of the trade union movement will create an imbalance in industrial power and distort the future development of the Australian economy. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Reject the superannuation claim of the trade union movement, and allow superannuation to develop without trade union domination. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully request that: The world's resources be redirected to the relief of human suffering, starvation, poverty and disease Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Stop spending taxpayers money on self promotion through high cost high profile but superficial policy on nuclear disarmament and make a genuine bi-partisan commitment to positive and practical policies designed to achieve progressive world-wide nuclear disarmament. And your petitioners as in duty will ever pray. by Mr Blunt. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The humble petition of citizens in the community of Tennant Creek and electorate of Barkly respectfully showeth that the decision made by the Commonwealth Government to withdraw the funding to upgrade the Tennant Creek airport and the proposal by the Federal Government to cease operations of the F28 airline service is a retrograde step which would adversely affect the economy of Tennant Creek. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Members of the House of Representatives make strong representation to the Commonwealth Government expressing the concern of the people of Tennant Creek who are being disadvantaged by the down grading of airline services to their town. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Everingham. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The Petition of certain citizens of Victoria respectfully showeth: that all legitimate business expenses incurred in earning or producing assessable income should be allowable deductions. that the proposed Capital Gains Tax is an unwarranted burden on the rural sector, which will severely affect its long-term viability. that the delay by the Government in introducing the legislation into Parliament is causing confusion and hindering farmers in the organisation of their affairs. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Government introduces the Capital Gains Tax legislation without delay and that the Australian Democrats join with the Opposition to defeat the proposed legislation. by Mr Hawker. 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 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 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. 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 humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The legislation to tax fringe benefits is iniquitous, inequitable and unfair; It will severely disadvantage both employees and employers; Employees will clearly lose many fringe benefits as a direct result of the additional heavy taxation burden being imposed upon employers; Employers will be forced to pay even higher levels of taxation to provide fringe benefits for employees. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to immediately abandon the Fringe Benefits Tax. 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 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: The humble petition of certain electors of the division of Forde 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) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The devastating effect of the health budget resulting in higher Government and personal health costs and longer public hospital queues. I call upon those members who approved 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 PORTER(Barker)(5.05) —Mr Deputy Speaker: I now give this undertaking, that for the term of our next Government the Medicare levy will not be increased. Mr Hodgman —Who said that? Mr PORTER —The current Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in his policy speech of November 1984. The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) noted the importance of that firm and unequivocal statement. He noted it in relation to the accord because in September 1985, he said: Medicare is an important element of the prices and incomes accord and the Government is committed to keeping the levy at one per cent. In February of this year the Prime Minister said: I confirm that the Government has no plans to change the Medicare arrangement. The Budget confirmed that the Prime Minister's promises are not worth the paper on which they are written. He has broken his levy promise and he has broken the accord. The Medicare levy has joined the long list of prime ministerial broken promises. The trilogy has been broken. The promise on capital gains tax has been broken, and so the list continues. The Prime Minister just cannot be trusted. He cannot be believed. His word is not his bond. We all know the body language. The Prime Minister starts to get twitchy. The hand goes to the ear and then to the ring, and we know that a whopper is on the way. However, the Prime Minister is not the only one who tells whoppers. On Tuesday night the Treasurer (Mr Keating) had the gall to refloat the myth that the Medicare program would be self-financing. He said: The Government therefore believes that the Medicare levy should be increased so that Medicare is self-financing. For 12 months now the Minister for Health has been running around the country faced with a massive Medicare budget blow-out. He has been saying that the levy was never meant to pay for Medicare, but now he is reasserting the lie that with a 25 per cent increase in the levy, Medicare will be self-financing. In this year's Budget the Commonwealth Medicare program will cost over $4,000m for hospital and medical services. The levy will raise $1,645m. In other words, expenditure will be $2,355m more than income. Some self-financing! No wonder the country is in strife and that people do not believe the Budget outcomes. The real reason why the Government has been forced to increase taxation to meet burgeoning health costs is that the Minister for Health has lost control of medical expenditure. Medicare is a financial vampire and the cost is killing the country. Last year, under Medicare bulk billing arrangements, there was a significant over-run in spending on medical services. The fundamental problem is that under bulk billing people are encouraged into excessive use of medical services, and opportunities are provided for some unethical and unscrupulous doctors to overservice. Last year, the Government predicted that the growth in utilisation of medical services would be around 5 per cent. What was it? It was 8 per cent. In other words, there was a $94m budget blow-out. In addition, as I predicted, the Government delayed payments to doctors in June of this year to rig the blow-out figures. Thereby it shifted some of last year's budget blow-out into this financial year. This attempt by the Minister for Health to cook the books is euphemistically described in the Budget Papers as `an abnormally high carry-over of unprocessed claims'. How much was it? It was $70m and that is not a bad carry-over. The Medicare budget blow-out on medical services alone was $111m last year. The total health care budget blow-out was $166m last year. The Government has consistently underestimated medical expenditure under Medicare, and this year's Budget is no exception. Despite warnings from myself, the medical profession and health authorities, the Government has refused to make any changes to bulk billing and other Medicare arrangements which have prompted this escalation in medical services. Last year, under Medicare, as I have said, the rate of growth in the utilisation of medical services increased from 5 to 8 per cent. In the face of this persistent Medicare-promoted growth in services, and without making changes to contain that growth, the Government has decided to predicate this year's budget on a reduction of that rate of growth to 7 per cent. So it has grown from the 5 per cent of the year before last to 8 per cent last year and, miraculously, it will be 7 per cent this year. In other words, in its all-out effort to present a low Budget deficit figure, has the Government again cooked the books? On what basis has the Government predicted this sudden reversal of growth in utilisation of health services, contrary to the established trend? The Budget Papers do not offer a word of explanation. The fact is that if increase in the growth of utilisation continues at the same rate as last year, expenditure on medical services and the Budget deficit have both been under estimated or understated by $120m. I repeat: The Government has given us no reason to believe that the rate of growth will slow, let alone be less than last year. Expenditure for medical services has increased by 27 per cent over the last two years, and the Government has done nothing in this Budget to contain that massive Medicare blowout. Instead of taking action to reduce government health expenditure by, for example, allowing people to return to private health insurance, the Government has sought to cut health expenditure by reducing assistance to those who use the private hospital sector. It has attacked those who actually save the Government money, those who use private instead of public facilities. The removal of the $140m private hospital subsidy will seriously impact on private hospitals. For example, the Victorian Bush Nursing Association informed me that the viability of some 25 of its bush nursing hospitals in Victoria are under threat. The closure of these Victorian country hospitals, where Medicare could not even provide a bedpan, would have a disastrous consequence for Victorian country people. The Government's actions will force private hospitals to increase fees. Pensioners and others who cannot get into a public hospital bed because of the long queues are more and more finding that they have to opt in desperation for a private hospital bed. Those people will now find that they face a significant extra bed-day cost of between $20 and $40. Those who are insured with the health funds will be called upon to meet these increased charges. The health funds obviously will be called upon to meet the increased charges and that will inevitably lead to an increase in contribution rates. One fund said this morning that it would have to increase rates by $1.50 a week. Mr N.A. Brown —And it goes into the CPI. Mr PORTER —As the Deputy Leader of the Opposition quite rightly says, that will also increase the consumer price index. In addition, the fund this morning estimated that the overall cost of the Budget for the privately insured family would be around $5.50 a week, or $286 a year. The removal of the private hospital subsidy is not the only way in which the Government has attacked the private health sector. By taking another $4m out of the Reinsurance Trust Fund, the Government will also be moving to force up private health fund premiums. Since the introduction of Medicare, this Government has taken $99m of a $100m Reinsurance Trust Fund; it has left in the fund only $1m. The increase in the gap from $10 to $20 for medical services in hospitals will cost the funds $29m. The increase in the Medicare levy will also mean that people are put under even greater pressure to give up their private health insurance. In pushing up both tax and health fund contribution rates, the government has really put the squeeze on the community. Inevitably the result will be that some of those people who currently have private insurance will be forced to give it up. We all know that the long term goal of the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is to run the private health sector out of business. Mr Donald Cameron —And put all doctors on the payroll as well. Mr PORTER —The honourable member is quite right, and there is no doubt that this Budget is another step down that track. The greater the number of people who are forced out of private insurance, and thereby become totally reliant on the public hospital system, the greater will be the growth in the already long queues for public hospital beds. There are already 100,000 Australians waiting, many in pain and distress, for public hospital beds around this country, and the Government's action has ensured that those 100,000 people will be joined by many more Australians. The Opposition has, of course, put forward positive alternatives which would allow people to opt out of Medicare and take up private health insurance. They would thereby be able to utilise the empty private hospital beds, which would reduce public hospital queues and Government expenditure. It is no good for the Minister to say that there are no empty private hospital beds. There are. The head of his Department said so on the record in a Senate Estimates committee hearing. We have a situation in which more than 100,000 people will be waiting for public hospital beds and we have empty private hospital beds, and this Government has forced people out of those private hospital beds by forcing up the cost of private insurance. The Government's health budget totally lacks credibility. The credibility of the Prime Minister has again been shattered by the breach of his Medicare levy promises, the government has cooked the health budget books and has again understated health expenditure, and, finally, the consequences of the changes that the Government has made to the costs of the delivery of private health services will aggravate the health crisis and public hospital queues will grow. The Government and this Minister for Health have committed Australians to a course of increased suffering and despair. No Budget since the introduction of Medicare in February 1984 has been so clearly designed to meet Labor's long term health goals. Those goals are, of course, to nationalise medicine, abolish private practice, close private hospitals and destroy private health insurance. In today's matter of public importance I make three fundamental points: The Medicare levy is not only a breach of a fundamental promise made by the Prime Minister, but a breach of the accord; the Budget Papers themselves reveal a possible $120m understatement of health expenditure and the deficit; and, finally, the increase in private health costs resulting from the Budget will aggravate the health crisis in this country and public hospital queues will grow. Dr BLEWETT(Bonython-Minister for Health)(5.19) —Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr Hodgman —Resign, you murderer. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) — Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw that remark. Mr Hodgman —I will, but two people from Denison have died. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Denison will withdraw the remark unreservedly. Mr Hodgman —I withdraw. Dr BLEWETT —Apart from the strong support of the honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) for the accord, which I welcome, again we had no original comment in what he said today about the health challenges facing this country. One might have thought, given the Government's responsible, constructive, even creative response to the difficulties faced in the whole health area, that we might at last have got some original, even constructive, comment from the honourable member for Barker. Mr Coleman —You cannot keep changing the truth. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Honour- able members on my left will cease interjecting. The honourable member for Barker was heard in silence; the Minister should be heard in silence. Dr BLEWETT —But of course we get the same old misconceptions, the quite misleading refusal to admit that $1.3 billion of the medical benefit costs have always been paid by governments to pensioners and the disadvantaged without any levy whatsoever. There was also a refusal to acknowledge that the removal of a tax rebate for health insurance has made major savings to the Government on the revenue side. Those misconceptions continue. They refuse to face such issues. They refuse to face the facts in health, including the problem of the supply of doctors and their influence on increasing health costs. They refuse to deal with the issue of excess hospital beds and their contribution to increasing costs. They say nothing at all about the problems of high technology in health. Indeed, the honourable member for Barker is notorious among health professionals for having been in the job of shadow Minister for almost two years and made not a single constructive suggestion about the health challenges facing this country. That statement needs one qualification. The honourable member for Barker has been obsessed with one issue-direct billing. I shall not deal at length with that today, but I will make two points about direct billing. It is mainly of benefit to the less well-off in society, and 70 per cent of all direct-billed services go to pensioners and the disadvantaged. The remaining 30 per cent are mainly in working-class areas, and the evidence suggests that it helps the poor and larger families. The direct billing provision is primarily of benefit to the poor, the less well-off and the disadvantaged. Secondly-this is the chief reason why the honourable member for Barker- Mr Porter —And you do absolutely nothing about it. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member for Barker will cease interjecting. Dr BLEWETT —I am happy to hear his noises, because the chief reason for his objection is that he knows that direct billing introduces the one effective competitive element to help to keep down doctors' fees. As a representative of some of the groups which do not want that control, this is his one suggestion as to how we should tackle our health challenges. What the Government has managed to achieve in this Budget, particularly in health, is the meeting of twin goals-a contribution to cost containment, which has been the object of the Budget, while maintaining and in some cases improving the equitable nature of health arrangements. In addition, although this was not acknowledged by the honourable member for Barker, we have been able to bring extra assistance to some groups in the community which, for many years, have had special health care problems that were unaddressed by previous Liberal governments. I shall come to those points later, but I should note that the matter of public importance itself argues that the health budget has resulted in higher Government and higher personal health costs. If we look at Budget Paper No. 1, we can see that health outlays as a proportion of the total Budget are the same this year as they were last year in a zero growth budget in terms of outlays. The increase in health expenditure is 7.7 per cent, which is roughly in line with inflation. When one takes into account the extra contribution of the increased medicare levy, one sees that it is nonsense to talk about this Budget increasing Government health costs. Indeed, I would hope for some support from the Opposition-if it is possible for them to contemplate the problems seriously rather than demagogically-for the efforts that we have made this year to reduce overall health costs. I hope that the Opposition will support the deferral of uniformity and fee increases until 1 November, which saves $85m this year. In the climate of restraint in the community, all sections, not just ordinary working men and women, must bear their share of restraint. I hope that the deferral of those fee increases until 1 November will attract support from both sides of the houses. Secondly, we have saved costs by the abolition of the private hospital day bed subsidy. I shall deal with that in detail in a moment. Thirdly, there has been an increase in the patient gap from $10 to $20. This figure has not been increased since 1978. It will not affect most services-for instance, consultations-only those high-cost services which are mostly covered by basic health insurance tables when the services relate to private patients. Of course, those charges are not made on public patients in public hospitals. We have passed through this Parliament major changes to the pathology arrangements, including a 25 per cent reduction in fees for 18 items, which saves $50m this year. Anyone who has read the reports of the Public Accounts Committee and followed the debates in the country will know that this is a major way of tackling the growth in costs in medical benefits. Again, we would hope that such actions would be supported by all people who think, and do not just talk, about the problems of health. We have saved $67m in the pharmaceutical area by restructuring the pharmaceutical benefits scheme but in a way that protects pensioners and provides support for the chronically ill. Cost attainment has been an essential part of the overall Government strategy. Restraint has been exercised in health as it has across the board. But in health, as in other areas, the restraint has been exercised with equity. Indeed, there have been some achievements in health that were completely ignored by the honourable member for Barker. Let me first deal with the equity features. The new pharmaceutical benefits scheme will provide sufferers of chronic illnesses and other high-volume users with increased protection against the high cost of pharmaceuticals. A safety net of 25 prescriptions will apply to general and concessional users which is a long-overdue reform. Of course, pensioners will still get pharmaceuticals free. We have introduced this scheme to protect the chronically ill by imposing a limit on what they must pay for their pharmaceuticals. It is true that there will be some increase for general users. All pharmaceuticals costing between $5 and $10 will be charged for at their retail price, and we estimate that the average price will be $7.30. But those with chronic conditions and those in need of heavy medication will be protected as they have never been protected in the past. The rest of us who, on the whole, use less medication, will accept our contribution to containing health costs and to better protection for the chronically ill. The new scheme was worked out not just by the Government but in close collaboration with the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, which has been highly supportive of the Government's actions. In addition, concerned as we are with the chronically ill, we shall be making an annual grant of $7.5m to the Australian Diabetes Foundation to provide diabetics with essential supplies, especially syringes. This program will commence in April 1987. In addition, there will be funding for free hepatitis B vaccine for babies of mothers in high risk groups to augment state programs in this area. That will cost $2.8m in a full year. We shall provide $700,000 for the national campaign against measles and an additional $1m for family planning, whose funding will increase to $7.8m in 1986-87. There will be a $26m contribution to a bicentennial public health initiative over the next three years. There will be a $7.7m-15 per cent-increase for medical research, whose budget will be increased to $59m. In the life of this Government, in four budgets, we have almost doubled the moneys paid for medical research. There will be a $10m program for AIDS, which is again a significant increase on last year. All Australian governments will pay $34.2m in total towards the national campaign against drug abuse, including funding for more than 120 cost-shared projects. We shall provide $7.7m for the transfer of nurse education, and 6500 students have so far transferred. In a very difficult climate-and no one pretends that it is not-we have taken appropriate new initiatives in major public health areas. The Government believes that the increase in the Medicare levy is the most equitable way of dealing with costs in health, because low income-earners and the disadvantaged pay no levy. Indeed, the cutoff points below which no levy is payable will be increased from 1 December. For a single person, it will now be $8030 a year. For a married couple, it will be $13,370 a year, with an additional allowance of $1,660 for each child. By using the levy arrangements, we have dealt with health costs in the most equitable way. Additional contributions to health care costs are most fairly shared throughout the community by a levy increase. This is in line with the fundamental principle that lies behind Medicare that all Australians should contribute to the cost of health insurance according to their means of paying. I want finally to deal with the private hospital issue. I suppose more nonsense has been talked on this issue than any other in the Press and by the honourable member for Barker. The abolition of the Commonwealth private hospital subsidy is not of itself expected to have a major impact on private health insurance premiums, despite what has been said. I will explain the reasons for this. Likewise, there will be no loss of revenue for private hospitals treating insured patients. What will happen is that the benefits payable on the basic insurance table will be increased on 1 October by $20, $30 or $40, depending on the type of hospital, to make up for the removal of the Commonwealth subsidy. What will be the impact of those changes on the health insurance contribution rates? First of all, let me say that when the Government imposed restraint on itself and asked for restraint from ordinary Australians it was also asking for restraint in prices from the great commercial organisations in this society. The private health funds have done very well indeed out of Medicare. In fact, the health insurance funds' financial reserves have increased dramatically under Medicare. Indeed, the latest available figures show that the fund reserves now total $570m. The funds are commercial organisations well able to exercise restraint in relation to their contribution rates. On the basis of the decision that has been made; that is, to remove the private hospital subsidy, Australia's largest health fund has informed me that its increase will be only 50c a week for family membership. It is expected that most other funds in a competitive situation and with large reserves will follow the lead of that major fund. Additionally, the private hospitals are in a relatively healthy state. Their bed numbers have grown at 3.38 per cent annually since the introduction of Medicare, their bed utilisation rate is on the increase and large corporations and chains are being formed to operate groups of hospitals. Indeed, honourable members opposite need only to read their business journals to see how profitable an area private hospitals have become. We have current market prices in the private hospital area as high as $150,000 per hospital bed. In this climate of restraint, the hospitals are another group that should be expected to exercise restraint in relation to their fees. I also note that in special cases a number of major private charitable hospitals, mostly of a religious kind, have historically provided hospital care for needy uninsured patients, and we have evidence of that. If the viability of those hospitals has been reliant on that charitable work, they will be looked at and assistance arrangements will be worked out between the hospitals and the Government. In the detailed examination of what this Government has done in the Budget, I believe that in the health area we have honoured completely and utterly the commitment by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) that we must have restraint, but that that restraint must be with equity. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr MacKELLAR(Warringah)(5.34) —One is always interested in listening to the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) because he sounds such a reasonable man. He stands up in the Parliament and other places and goes through the catalogue of the so-called achievements of the Hawke socialist Government in terms of health care, and it all sounds so reasonable. He says that we have honoured the objective of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and his statements of restraint. He does not say, of course, that he has totally dishonoured a promise that both he and the Prime Minister made during the last election campaign. He does not say anything about that. When we strip away all the apparent reasonableness of the Minister for Health, what do we find? What does the average Australian find when he or she is confronted with the health administration system presently operating in Australia? We find an increase in costs for the many thousands of Australians who rely on the health care system for medical treatment and attention. We find hundreds of thousands of Australians queueing for elective surgery. No reasonable statement by the Minister for Health will get away from the reality of those people who queue and wait in pain and suffering for elective surgery. No reasonable statement from the Minister will help alleviate the sadness which affects the families of those people who wait in queues with no apparent thought given by the Government for the suffering that they are going through. What about the many thousands of pensioners throughout Australia who will pay more for necessary and commonly used pharmaceuticals as a result of this Government's and this Minister's administration of the health care system? Reasonableness will not get them anywhere; they will have to pay more. What about the millions of Australians who will pay more through the Medicare levy? They are not too concerned about having a reasonable Minister for Health; they are concerned about the extra money they will have to pay out for the Medicare levy. What about those other millions of Australians who not only pay extra for the Medicare levy, but also will be faced with extra health insurances premiums coming from this Government's attack on Australian hospitals? I take the House back to those halcyon days of the Australian Labor Party's election promises of 1983. The Minister in the House today was for some years before then advocating Medicare as being the panacea for all the problems which beset the health administration systems in this country. This was going to be the system which brought in the best medical and hospital attention at an affordable price. It was portrayed, as so many of these things were portrayed at the time, as a socialist paradise beginning to emerge in the health area. Now we face the reality, as so many other countries have faced it, of the imposition of a socialist ideal on a system which simply does not fit it. As I have already mentioned, we have queues of people seeking treatment. Let us look at some other aspects of the health administration system which this Minister and this Government have forced on our country. For the first time in Australia's medical history we have nursing staff leaving their profession because they are sick and tired of the difficulties and the problems that have been forced on them by the imposition of this stupid scheme. Public administrators right throughout Australia are making it absolutely plain both publicly and privately that the public hospitals simply are unable to meet the pressures and the needs being forced upon them. Quite frankly, the system has been tried and found wanting. A similar system was tried and found wanting overseas. We have and we see in the imposition of this system a manifestation of a socialist ideal proving to be detrimental to the ordinary man and woman throughout Australia. It is a system that does not care for people. It is a socialist ideal which simply does not fit in with the way people want their health to be looked after. How much extra will the average wage earner have to pay on the Medicare levy? It will be about $52 a year. That is because the levy has gone up from one per cent to 1.25 per cent. I just mention again, because it bears repeating and I want more people to understand it, that this is yet another broken election promise. The Prime Minister is always talking about integrity. He mentions integrity more than just about any other member of this House. I worry about that, because when somebody talks about a subject constantly-and he talks about his own integrity constantly-it makes one wonder what he has to hide, what he has to worry about. If his integrity were so sound he would not have to keep protesting it. Mr Porter —It would be obvious. Mr MacKELLAR —It would be obvious. But what is obvious is that his integrity and the integrity of his Government is very much open to question. Here we have another prime example. In 1984 the Prime Minister said: `We will not lift the Medicare levy'. What happens in 1986? It goes up by 25 per cent. The Minister does not even apologise for it. He says quite proudly: `We have met the Prime Minister's requirements'. Let us not forget that this is yet another broken prime ministerial promise, and it is a promise that the Minister for Health has reiterated throughout Australia time and again. But, as my colleague the Shadow Minister for Health has pointed out, even this increase of 25 per cent does not pay the full cost of Medicare. So what is being done? As taxpayers, we are paying twice for a failed system. What will the rate go up to in the future if the cost containment exercise that the Minister keeps talking about simply does not work? As the shadow Minister said, there was a blow-out last year of $166m in the total medical and hospital costs-and that despite fudging on the payments to the doctors during the last month of the financial year. What is it likely to go up to this year? It was mentioned today that a figure of $120m is on the cards for the blow-out. If the Budget does not work, what will we be looking at in extra costs under this socialised system which was to be the panacea and to bring such a tremendous system of health care to every man and woman in Australia? What a lot of nonsense! There is suffering; there are queues; people are actually dying because they cannot get into hospital. Doctors are going on strike; nurses are going on strike. That is the sort of system that this Government has brought into this country. Subsidies to private hospitals are to be abolished, representing $129m in a full year. What a stupid thing to do. It is being done on the apology of saving money. What will it do? It will have the immediate impact and effect of increasing health insurance premiums by $1 to $2 a week. What will that cause? Does the Government think that that will encourage people to join the health insurance funds? What a lot of nonsense! Of course, it will force more and more people out of the health insurance funds. What will they do if they are forced out of the health insurance funds? They will line up at the public hospitals. How much does it cost them to go to the public hospitals? It costs the Government $40 a day bed subsidy in private hospitals. But how much does it cost the Government for a person who goes to a public hospital? It costs $280 per bed day in a public hospital. What extraordinary economics from the Minister at the table. This is supposed to be a so-called cost saving. But what will the effect of it be? It will force up insurance costs. It will force people out of the insurance organisations and onto the public hospital system which, as we all know, is already totally overstrained. Over 100,00 Australians are queuing up to go into public hospitals for elective surgery. The simple fact is that Medicare has failed, It looks good on paper. It looks terrific on paper. But it does not work; that is its main problem. It simply does not work. We will have an imposition of economics onto something on which one cannot use the usual impact of economic theory. Medical costs do not fit into the economic theories. Queues will increase. Costs will increase. Strikes will increase. It will further diminish the morale of the health service professionals. Whether they be doctors, paramedics, nurses or those in other fields of medicine, their morale will be further diminished. Finally, the Government will achieve that great success of which I do not think it will really be proud. It will achieve a two-tiered system-one for the rich and one for the poor. For the first time in Australia's history we will have a system of medicine for the rich and a lesser system of medicine for the poor because the poor simply will not be able to afford the cost of medicine-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Ruddock) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(5.44) —The Opposition talks about gall yet its history in health policy is a saga of twists and turns that had everyone confused for the entire term that it was in office. It is fair to look at the Opposition's proposals and to see what it would like to do. It would not surprise me if what Opposition members are really telling us is that they want to go back in time. They are really caught in a time warp-and not only in health policy. If we look at their policy on taxes, we see that they want to go back and to get rid of the fringe benefits tax, the capital gains tax and all of the reforms relating to retirement incomes, the assets test and lump sum superannuation that have fixed up the taxation system and made it fairer. As for industry, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) says that he can dig up another couple of mines and revive Australian industry. The Opposition has no policy but just wants to go back to the 1970s and early 1980s. As for wages, he wants the old free for all system that existed under his Government. The Opposition's health policy of going back to the failed and unfair scheme of the Fraser years means that the rich can opt out while low and middle income earners get hit with a levy well in excess of what they pay under the universal scheme of this Government. I remind the House that this Government's scheme, Medicare, is based on income, on the ability to pay, which is how it should be. It will be a poor day in Australian history when the quality of health care that one receives is dependent on one's income. Under the universal Medicare system, everyone contributes equitably, that is, according to one's means. It is based on a percentage of income. In contrast, health insurance is based on a flat rate. It does not matter whether one earns $100,000 a year or $10,000 a year, one pays the same rate. There is no fairness or equity in that. Health care is a basic requirement for everybody in this community regardless of income. It is much fairer to have a system based on the ability to pay rather than on a flat rate of payment. The proposal put up by the Opposition without government subsidies means that the cheapest private health insurance would cost about $25 a week. I will look a little later at the impact of that on the different ranges of income and what it will mean to people on low and high incomes. It would not surprise anybody here to know that what the Opposition really wants is what the previous speaker, the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar), spoke about-two schemes, one for the rich and one for the poor. Thus the rich would be able to opt out of contributing through the tax system to the health care of those people less well off. Middle and low income earners would have to pay more. That is a reversal of our scheme. Under our scheme, people on higher incomes pay a higher amount, as the Medicare levy is based on a percentage of wages, and lower income earners pay less. That is very much more equitable. The Medicare system recognises that there are people on very low incomes who cannot afford the Medicare levy. Those people are exempt from the levy. The cut off rate is indexed so that as inflation takes earnings higher, the cut off rate is increased. Income tax creep does not result in those people paying the levy. We have protected those people in that way. The question has to be asked: If the Opposition has so much faith in the unfair arrangement that I spoke of previously, why did it abandon it the first time round and go on to experiment with one mishmash of a health scheme after another? There were five or six different changes in five or six years. Nobody really knew where they were. I suppose it kept many printers busy printing all of the different forms. But it did little else. It just had everybody confused. The Opposition does not want to face the facts about the virtues of Medicare as it now is. Opposition members will not be honest about the facts implicit in their alternative scheme. As I have said, under Opposition Policy, it will cost $25 a week for private health insurance. As I have said, we will look at the impact that that will have on people with different incomes. Someone with an income of $20,000 a year currently pays $299 a year by way of levy for basic hospital and medical cover. Even if that person wishes to add private hospital cover to this, the cost is still only $579 a year. Under the proposals put forward by the Opposition the payments would be increased by $14 a week. The amount would go from $579 to $1,300 a year, which is the flat rate. The comparison is that, under Medicare, for the same hospital cover one pays $579 a year instead of $1,300 under the Opposition's proposal. A family on a taxable income of $50,000 a year will also be better off under Medicare. The Medicare levy for such a family currently is $572 a year. If that family wishes to have private hospital cover, it would still pay only $920 a year. That means that that family pays $920 a year, being the Medicare levy plus the private additional cost for hospital cover. That $920 a year compares with the Opposition's proposal which would cost $1,300 a year. Once again, such a family would pay more under the Opposition's proposal-in fact, $7 a week more. The Opposition did not say much about that. Let us look at people earning $100,000 a year. These are the people whom the Opposition wants to help. The only person who might consider himself better off under the Opposition's scheme is a person earning $100,000 a year or more. At present that person must pay a levy of $1,145, or $1,495 for the levy and private hospital cover. The Opposition's scheme provides for a flat rate of $1,300 a year, compared with the present levy of $1,495. Therefore, people earning $100,000 a year or more would be much better off under the Opposition's policy. I spoke earlier about the fact that the Opposition's policies are backward-looking. Under those policies the rich would get their own health scheme. They would be protected from having to pay a fringe benefits tax. They would be able to dine at restaurants and have their meals subsidised by the taxpayers. The rich were always better off before the imposition of the capital gains tax. We know of at least 12 millionaires who received the pension before the imposition of the assets tax. Many more had the nous not to fill out the form. Lump sum superannuation arrangements, once again, were usually the preserve of the more affluent. The Opposition would revoke all of those measures. It prefers to help those who are better off in our society at the expense of those who are less well off. That is a measure of Liberal fairness. What about the unanswered questions in regard to the Opposition's scheme? Would a Howard government-were it to be elected-pay a Commonwealth benefit of any sort to people who take out private insurance? Would it use taxpayers' money to prop up that private hospital insurance, as is the case in regard to the education system? Would it allow the funds to offer gap insurance, recognising that that gives the incentive to doctors to charge more than the schedule fee? This is a very subtle way of allowing doctors to put up their fees, to pirate the patients, if one likes, and to charge exorbitant rates. I make the distinction between general practitioners and surgeons, who are usually the people who charge such rates. Does the Opposition propose to keep bulk billing pensioners? The Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) raised this question; it is a question that must be answered. Does the Opposition intend to offer tax rebates for health fund contributions? We all remember that that practice was allowed in the infamous family Budget of the Fraser Government. The previous Government might have philosophically believed that people should receive some tax relief if health insurance helped to ease the burden on the public purse. However, it never applied that belief until the family Budget was brought down. Of course, the previous Government could not sustain the cost-not that the cost was a worry to it, because it framed that Budget so that it could win the 1983 election. However, this speaks volumes about its integrity in regard to the issue of bulk billing. Opposition members have contradicted each other. The honourable member for Barker (Mr Porter) said that health care costs are rising because unscrupulous doctors are overservicing and direct billing. Some members of his Party would agree with the honourable member for Moreton (Mr Donald Cameron), who said that doctors are so intimidated by the Government's fraud and overservicing surveillance mechanisms that they are underservicing. They are two extreme positions. On the one hand, the honourable member for Barker says that doctors are making piles and piles of money out of the system; on the other hand, the honourable member for Moreton, who is a member of the same Party, the Liberal Party, says that they are not doing that. He says that doctors are being intimidated and, in fact, are not providing as many services as they could. I do not know who in the Liberal Party we should believe. We can take our pick or maybe take a central position. I do not know which of their utterances to believe. In closing, I think it is important to look at what may be one of the causes of increased health care in this country. In terms of the medical market we cannot and should not continue to think solely in terms of policies aimed at reducing patient demand. We should look at the number of doctors in this country. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The time allocated for this debate has now expired. Mr MILLAR(Wide Bay) —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fifth report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera, and I ask leave of the House to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr MILLAR —The Committee found this inquiry both unique and challenging-unique because Woomera is located in an isolated part of South Australia, with a climate that would tax even the most equable temperament; challenging because of Woomera's retreat from its halcyon, days when it enjoyed a population of 6,000 resulting from the activities of the United Kingdom-Australia joint project, to a population presently of about 1,900 people. This circumstance has generated a view in some places that Woomera is in a state of continuing decline and, as a consequence further investment by way of housing would be unsustainable. The Committee paid particular attention to this aspect and was thoroughly satisfied by cross-examination of witnesses that there would be a defence commitment for at least the next 15 years and therefore it would be financially prudent and socially responsible for the existing houses at Woomera to be replaced. They are old and have reached the end of their economic life. Refurbishment of the housing to an acceptable level would not be cost-effective; indeed, refurbishment would exceed the cost of replacement houses. Against this background, and in the context of negotiations between the Commonwealth and the South Australian Government about normalising Woomera, the Committee has concluded there is a need to provide 50 replacement houses. The Committee has recommended, however, that the houses should be of a higher standard than that proposed. The Committee further proposes that other instrumentalities or bodies obliged to provide accommodation for their employees or personnel should seek on the score of cost benefit to incorporate their housing needs with the defence proposal contained within this reference. The Committee's report contains recommendations about the process of normalisation, the need for other Commonwealth departments and statutory authorities to rectify housing allocated to their employees and a number of other matters relating to construction of the houses. The Committee believes these recommendations should be examined carefully by the Government before any decisions are taken about proceeding with the work. I thank the House. Mr TICKNER(Hughes) —On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts, I present the 252nd report of the Committee entitled `Job Seeker-Computer Acquisition by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations'. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Mr TICKNER —This report contains the findings of the Committee's inquiry into the Job Seeker computer acquisition and related aspects of the automatic data processing operations of the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. It was tabled in the Senate on 13 June 1986 by Senator Georges, the Committee chairman. This inquiry resulted from advice to the Committee of an unusual level of disquiet in the computer vendor industry about the conduct of the Job Seeker tender and from serious criticisms made by the Auditor-General in his September 1985 report about the adequacy of planning, cost-benefit justification and management supporting a previous ADP contract in the Department, Job Bank. The Committee's principal concerns about the Job Seeker computer acquisition were reported to the Parliament in a statement made by the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Senator Georges, to the Senate on 3 December 1985. I propose to seek leave to incorporate a copy of the statement. The Committee took the unusual step of making such a statement, prior to the completion of its inquiry and the tabling of its full report, because of the Committee's concern not to delay unnecessarily the implementation of the Job Seeker project and several other computer-based projects in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations. The Committee's principal concerns stated at that time were that, proper planning and evaluation had not been undertaken to support the particular implementation strategy chosen for the Job Seeker project. There were documented instances during the tender evaluation where proper tendering procedures were not followed. In consequence, the impartiality of the tender result could not be guaranteed. Furthermore, certain features of the original contract with the successful tenderer, Wang Computer Pty Ltd, were improper. The Committee, having given careful consideration to the costs resulting from the cancellation of the Job Seeker tender, recommended that the Job Seeker purchase proceed, subject to important amendments being made to the proposed contract with the recommended supplier, Wang Computer Pty Ltd. Subsequent advice from the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations and the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services indicated that most of these amendments were made before the contract was signed with Wang on 31 January 1986. The Committee had some outstanding concerns about the inadequate level of compensation provided for in the contract with Wang in the event that Wang was unable to deliver by 30 June 1986 certain crucial and critical outstanding performance requirements of the request for tender. This was viewed by the Committee to be of paramount importance because Wang's commitment to deliver this performance by 30 June 1986 had been a deciding factor in the company winning the contract. Additionally, this performance was a mandatory requirement of the tender specification and crucial to the successful implementation of the Job Seeker system. The Committee was therefore greatly concerned when it subsequently learnt that Wang had in fact been unable to deliver this performance by the due date and had lodged a claim for excusable delay. The Committee was informed yesterday that the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services has, after seeking legal advice from the Attorney-General's Department, refused Wang's claim for excusable delay. Wang has been advised that it has 30 days in which to deliver the outstanding performance or the contract will be terminated. If Wang fails to deliver, as appears likely, and this contract is cancelled, the consequence will be that the Job Seeker project and a range of other labour force and youth programs in the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations which are dependent on computer support will be delayed by as much as 18 months. The Job Seeker project is already well behind schedule and it may be a further 12 months before a re-tender is completed and alternative equipment delivered. The Committee stands by the view that it expressed when this report was tabled in the Senate in June, that should this contract be cancelled, the Commonwealth should seek full compensation from Wang for the major delay and dislocation to the Commonwealth's employment and labour force programs which have resulted from Wang's failure to deliver as it had contracted. The Committee recommends that all equipment purchased or loaned by the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations should be returned. It also endorses the stand taken by the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services that no further equipment purchases be made until a new contract has been awarded and the Department is in a position to standardise on new equipment. The Committee believes that, notwithstanding the urgency of the Job Seeker project and other projects in that Department, it would be indefensible for the Department to purchase equipment which is not part of a standardised computing environment in the Department. In summary, these recent developments fully vindicate the findings contained in the Committee's report and fully confirm the concerns which Senator Georges stated on 3 December 1985 to the Parliament. As a personal aside, I would add that it also vindicates the view of those of us in all parties who strongly support an effective committee system operating in the Parliament. The Committee has concluded that the Department of Employment and Industrial Relations, and in particular the Secretary to that Department, must carry principal responsibility for the improper manner in which this tender was conducted and its consequences. The Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and its Secretary, given the clear responsibilities of that Department for ensuring that procurement proceeds in line with government purchasing practices and policies, must also carry responsibility in this matter. The Department of Employment and Industrial Relations has undoubtedly moved with great speed over the past few years in implementing computer-based information systems to support and expand the services it provides to its clients. However, in the case of the Job Seeker project the Committee believes that this speed and the Department's disregard for proper planning and procurement procedures have undoubtedly now resulted in much greater delay and cost than would have occurred had planning and procurement proceeded in the proper manner. I commend the report to honourable members. I am informed by the officers of the Parliament that Senator Georges's statement which I sought to incorporate does not conform to the guidelines of the House, as I had been led to believe by officers of the Committee. I do not believe it necessary to read that rather lengthy statement into the record of the House of Representatives, but I would refer all honourable members to the statement made in the Senate by the Chairman of the Committee. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —The honourable member's comments are noted. Debate resumed. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(6.06) —Before the interruption at lunchtime of this debate on the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities I was mentioning the fact that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) had claimed that the Dibb report is an intellectually complex and rigorous analysis, a significant intellectual achievement. I commented that complexity, clarity and consistency are not as important as the substance of the rationale and the final recommendations. Quite simply, the rationale is flawed, I believe, and the recommendations subsequently as a result of that rationale are inadequate. The Opposition said so when the report was first released, and we have now been joined in our concern over fundamental aspects of the report by such notable people as Admiral Sir Anthony Synnot, the former Chief of Defence Force Staff; Air Marshal David Evans, the former Chief of Air Staff; Vice Admiral Leach, the former Chief of Naval Staff; Major General Stevenson, the former Chief of Logistics; the United States Commander in the Pacific, as I have already mentioned, and Drs Ball and Babbage from the Strategic and Defence Studies Centres. Overall, the report would ultimately lead to a situation where our adversary would have the initiative and be able to force disproportionate responses on us without offering our commanders any similar capacity-an intolerable situation for us to be in. I wish finally to challenge the generally optomistic strategic assessment that the Dibb report presents and the Government appears to accept. Not all the plausible scenarios for Australian security and its strategic environment at the turn of the century are, to use the words of the 1982 report of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence, `cautiously reassuring'. It is not unjustified, I believe, to describe peace and stability in Australia's region as precarious. There are a number of existent and latent sources of conflict and instability, including economic development problems such as food, resource, energy and employment shortages; internal ethnic and religious conflicts; problems of leadership succession; conflicting off-shore territorial claims; long standing national enmities and border conflicts; resource and market competition; massive increases in military competition and the introduction of advanced military technologies; and, finally, the expansion of the presence and influence of the Soviet Union and its proxies, Vietnam, Cuba and Libya. It has been said that an army is a body of men assembled to rectify the mistakes of diplomats. I believe that this report is dangerously optimistic and flawed. It needs critical amendment and supplementation. If the Government wishes to proceed to questions of force structure, it should develop a more realistic and prudent set of strategic assumptions and rationale and review, as we have heard in the last couple of days since the Budget was brought down, its pitiful recent Budget handouts to Defence. Ms MAYER(Chisholm)(6.10) —I was most interested in the final remarks of the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster), I really was. I am still a little puzzled about the aggression that Vietnam, Cuba and Libya could offer us. However, I think there are some interesting quotes in the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities and it may be that the honourable member has not read them. Mr Dibb says quite clearly that no country has ever blockaded another country which is surrounded by sea, such as Australia. That is a pretty reasonable and rational sort of statement. It is rather hard to think of a country which would have the capacity, the desire and the need to blockade a country with our coastline. However, given that we have the odd person around here who sees that as a possibility, we need to ask ourselves whether we should use that as the basis of our national defence and equipment policy. I would suggest that it would certainly be very expensive. I would like to remind honourable members of the policy of the Opposition as recently as 19 November 1982. I shall read some extracts from a speech made then by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) who was then the Minister for Defence. He made these comments when he was speaking to the Australian Defence Association. They may enlighten us about the basis of criticism by the Opposition of Mr Dibb's propositions. The right honourable member said: In selecting those defence force elements that we need to produce an independent defence capability, it is essential to clarify as far as possible the nature of our future defence needs. The starting point for this is our examination of the range of credible circumstances that could arise to threaten Australia and particularly those circumstances in which substantial allied assistance may not be available. He went on to say, for example: Three threat situations are identifiable-operations by small raiding parties against important national installations, challenges to the sovereignty of our off-shore maritime resources and harassment of our coastal shipping. We do not seem to be terribly far from the comments of Mr Dibb, do we? The right honourable member continued: Rational thinking dictates that there would need to be a serious deterioration in our security outlook before we could justify the maintenance of all operational capabilities necessary to defend Australia against major attack. I remind honourable members that that is not a statement by Mr Dibb, Mr Scholes or Mr Beazley. That was a statement by the right honourable member for New England, made not quite four years ago. I wonder what has changed in our environment to make it so impossible for Opposition members to accept Mr Dibbs analysis of the likely threat to our sovereignty. Let me quote from Mr Dibb who said: An important and recurring theme of the Review is the need to concentrate force structure priorities on our area of direct military interest, where we should seek to exert independent military power. I think that that statement sounds similar to the one I read a few moments ago. I wish to take up some of the issues in the Dibb Report which I found extremely interesting. I must say that it was refreshing and exciting to be able to read a review of our defence capabilities and needs which had the clarity, the logical assumptions and the logical arguments and which covered the whole picture. It did not concentrate on one thing or another, leaving important bits out; it took the whole of our defence capabilities and needs and put them into a global context. In a recent speech the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) said: A self reliant Australia is an expectation both of the Australian people and of our allies. This has been required by our principal ally, the United States of America, since the early 1970s. Self reliance includes two very important areas addressed by Mr Dibb in his excellent report. These are the development of a proper infrastructure supporting our forces where we want them to be and the industrial development which allows us, as far as possible, to supply equipment and to support that equipment bought overseas. To deal with the industrial implications first, I wish to quote Mr Dibb who said: The industrial capacity to maintain, repair, modify and adapt defence equipment to the Australian environment is of fundamental importance for our combat effectiveness and credible contingencies. Every effort should be made to limit our dependence on overseas sources of repair and maintenance support. Civil industry should contribute to maintenance, adaptation and through-life support of defence equipment. That is a statement with which I wholeheartedly concur. We have to realise that industry capable of supplying our defence forces and defence industries and a specifically created defence industry are distinctions made by Mr Dibb in his analysis of the industrial needs of our defence forces. The problem with the defence industries as such is that they are limited to finite contracts or series of contracts for defence that are budget driven and this is probably the most expensive and wasteful way to go. It is really fascinating to find out who is responsible for all of that. The enormous subsidies required to keep our defence factories going and the capital investment in tooling and equipment, demands a totally different premise from that which has existed. Traditionally defence factories and facilities are limited to the supply of equipment or parts directly for the defence forces. Once the contract for equipment is fulfilled we have that `go-stop' situation which leaves facilities and skills unused and work forces depleted or doing far less than they are able to do. Mr Dibb has recommended the introduction of commercial cost accounting and a start is being made at Williamstown Naval Dockyard and in a number of other areas where we have major projects. It is ironic that the disciples of privatisation for years resisted both effective commercial cost accounting and the freedom of these institutions to complete in the private sector for non-defence contracts. It is extraordinary to think that the taxpayer has set up many highly technical facilities with highly skilled work forces and has not been able to use those facilities or skills once the defence contracts have been fulfilled. The cost to the nation of the lack of commercial discipline and the subsidies and premiums paid is enormous. These same prophets of efficiency, the privatisation disciples, failed to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of the management, both in defence and in the manufacturing facilities and allowed practices to continue which culminated in a finding by the Public Accounts Committee that of 16 projects examined by that Committee, 11 had failed or might fail to be completed on time to budget or to technical requirements. Yet all these projects were initiated by the previous Government and the control of those projects was determined by the previous Government, if it was interest at all, which I very much doubt. Mr Dibb says that self reliance is not a prescription for Australia to have the full range of defence industrial capacities. I think that any rational person would agree with that. Inevitably there will be some reliance on overseas sources for components and for major parts of capital equipment. However, although defence purchasing is not the answer to Australia's industrial difficulties, the expenditure being only half a per cent of gross domestic product, it does have a high technological component which, properly used, can assist in the transfer of skills to our workforce for a much wider use. The great value of the Dibb Review in the industrial context is that given the sound and logical strategic basis, equipment purchasing planning can be undertaken in a way which would be of maximum benefit to Australian industry. One phrase that one hears fairly frequently when talking to people about the way in which things are being managed in defence is `in hindsight'. The review allows us perhaps to replace that phrase with the word `foresight'. The Government, for example, in its handling of the submarine buy is exercising the very careful definition of needs and capabilities which, once they are put into operation, will be of permanent value to Australian industry. Rather than having competition between arms of the defence forces for preferred equipments and budget-driven decisions about whether some or all of those equipments will be bought, whether purchases will be started, slowed down or adjusted and whether manufacturing programs will be brought to a halt and then re-started, the propositions in the report would allow much more sensibly planned acquisition and build projects. In the report a number of principles are identified in this area. They are worth quoting in full. The report states: Every effort should be made to limit our dependence on overseas sources of repair and maintenance support. A critical area is electronics, particularly the software needed to support modern weapons systems. Australian private industry is increasingly developing high-grade and competitive expertise in this advanced-technology area. * * * * Our requirements for design capacities are limited to those areas where we have unique Australian needs, but a skill base in the design area can be useful for the selection and adaptation of the most suitable overseas equipment. Much of our design skill base will, for this reason, need to be maintained within the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Defence engineering staffs. But where unique Australian requirements exist, for example, mine countermeasures forces, every effort should be made to involve local industry at the design stage so that innovation is fostered and design requirements maximise local production opportunities. Those are words of hope to Australian industry and particularly those industries that are interested in defence projects. They are words that bring about the understanding that, given the quality of this review, it is likely that Australian industry will not be in the situation of hoping, with its fingers crossed, that it will be allowed to partake in the manufacturing of our defence equipment. There is no doubt that changing political theories have long distorted defence equipment provision. We have had the domino theory, the `great and powerful friends will look after us' theory, the forward defence theory and so forth, each formulation requiring a different mix of equipment and training. Given the long lead times in acquiring major capital equipment, it is not surprising that the innocent onlooker might be a bit confused on observing the variety of defence equipment. Mr Dibb identifies a number of areas requiring more attention. They include the testing of the logistics of operations in the north supported from the south, the developments of a comprehensive infrastructure to support our forces in the north and the examination of the use of civil assets in times of need. Another facet of the infrastructure need not considered by Mr Dibb as it is not in his terms of reference but which was paid some attention by the Minister and which I think will need more close attention in the future is the social needs of the families of military personnel posted to northern bases. The social implication of a greater use of northern bases has considerable implications for the support and provision of facilities for the spouses and children of service personnel posted there whose housing, educational, career and recreational needs have been paid insufficient attention in the past. Mr Dibb's report is a substantial basis for a much better level of debate on the needs of Australian defence. I must say that I have been extremely disappointed in the contributions of some of our retired military personnel, who seem to believe that they do not have to read the report in order to discuss it. If they do read the report, they read it with closed minds and hope that their favourite theory when they were young, whatever it was, will continue to be the prevailing theory. One finds all too often as one travels around Australia's major defence bases and industrial facilities the feeling that our service personnel and their families have been the victims of planning not based on sound, long term principles. The global considerations of Australian defence needs provided by this report offers just that. For the first time we have as a public document a statement of strategic principles and their implications for the development of defence bases, supporting infrastructure, equipment needs, personnel needs and the industrial and logistic support for Australian defence. Public debate and comment can address itself sensible to the propositions advanced. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(6.25) —In the course of history many nations have made some fairly fatal errors in the determinations of their defence strategy. The statement made by the previous speaker, the honourable member for Chisholm (Ms Mayer), that Australia could never be blockaded is equal to any of those previous fatal errors in strategic determinations. Anything is possible in this world. Australia could quite easily be blockaded. In the course of the year hundreds of pieces of business come before the Parliament. As a result of all this business we tend, on an individual basis, not to see the significance of each piece of business as it comes through. The piece of business before the House tonight is probably the most significant thing that any government in any country can engage in; that is, determining proper and adequate defences for our nation. The defence of a nation is important because without it we can have no nation. As a result of the last few months of economic ills the need for trade and the importance of trade in terms of how it affects our economy, our society and our Government has been borne out. I think it is fair to say that, if we cannot protect our trade, our society will be destabilised, our country's economy will collapse and our Government may fall. Indeed, our system of government may be put at peril. I am quite sure that the words of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer (Mr Keating) over the last few months exemplify that very statement. The Treasurer, of course, has said that because of our trading situation at the moment, with our huge current account deficit, Australia is becoming a banana republic. The Prime Minister has said that, because of our trading problems, we face the most serious economic time since the Great Depression. He has said that we are back to the time of the Second World War and our nation has to pull together in order to fight for itself and to maintain the sort of society and the sort of country that we want to live in. This has all come about because of our poor trading situation. Let us just imagine what would happen if Australia's sea lanes were blockaded. The honourable member for Chisholm believes that it could not happen. If our sea lanes were blockaded our trade would be cut off. Eighty-six per cent of Australia's trade, in terms of value, comes via our sea lanes. That is worth $27 1/2 billion. If our trade were cut off the economic crisis of today would look like nothing. The political problems of today would fade into obscurity. Australia's problems would be massive. In fact, anybody who wanted to attack us could do so without having to fire a shot, purely and simply by blocking off our sea lanes and strangling our trade. That is one of the very flaws in the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. There are two flaws in the Dibb report that I believe are worth mentioning tonight. Whilst the report is a most comprehensive and detailed summary of Australia's strategy for the years ahead and has many good parts, I believe that the fact that it devotes only one of its 176 pages to discussing the protection of our sea lanes is in itself one of its great flaws. On the one page that the Dibb report devotes to talking about the protection of our sea lanes it argues that trade as a matter of defence is over-estimated; that because Australia has since the Second World War built up a manufacturing industry and a lower percentage of its gross domestic product depends upon trade, there really is no need to worry if trade is blocked off. It argues that on the one and only page devoted to the protection of our sea lanes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed from 19 August, on motion by Mr Keating: That the Bill be now read a second time. Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(8.00) —The challenge now facing Australia goes far beyond one of immediate economic crisis. It is also a challenge to many of the attitudes and institutions of our past. The right response to this challenge will require not only Budget decisions of a radically different order than that proposed by the Government, but also some fundamental changes of attitude and direction on the part of the Australian people. All of us will utterly delude and deceive ourselves if we accept for a moment the Government's claim that the only problem we have now is a temporary reversal of our terms of trade. The problem goes far deeper and much further than that. It is in the context of that broader challenge that this year's Budget must be assessed. The fundamental failure of this Budget is that it offers not a flicker of hope that the Hawke Government has the will, the vision or the commitment to promote those basic changes to attitudes and institutions which are so clearly needed. Tonight I propose to give some of the directions that the coalition will follow after the next election. In doing so, I shall indicate the areas of greatest disagreement between the Opposition and the Government. There are six major reforms and changes of direction that are needed if there is to be any hope that the Australian economy can be turned around from its present malaise for the long-term good of us all. These reforms must include reduced government spending, reduced levels of taxation, reduced levels of militant union power, the provision of greater incentives for both employers and employees, the encouragement of further overseas investment and a major improvement in our transport and communications systems. The profound scepticism already demonstrated by financial markets reflects not only a rejection of the arithmetic of the Budget but also a belief that it is too little, too late. It also reflects the fact that the Budget is essentially negative. The Budget does not point the way for the future. It does not even indicate how the Government will overcome its horrendous budgetary problems next year. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) says that it is a tough Budget. Yet strangely for a tough Budget, it does not provide for the abolition of a single ongoing function of the Federal Government. The level of spending under this Budget is greater than that under each of the seven Budgets of the former coalition Government. Moreover, the Government is extraordinarily complacent about inflation, our balance of payments crisis and our national debt. This year, Australia's inflation rate will be at least 8 per cent. That is four times that of our major trading partners and 16 times that of Japan, our best customer. Our current account deficit is predicted to amount to a staggering $15 billion this year. On these Budget estimates, Australia is going into debt at the rate of $30,000 a minute. Our international debt on a gross basis will reach at least $100 billion by next year. The so-called `World's Greatest Treasurer' has the great distinction of out-spending, out-taxing and out-borrowing any of his predecessors on either side of politics. The Hawke Government has smashed to pieces, for the second year in a row, its much proclaimed trilogy promise not to increase taxation as a percentage of gross domestic product. This has been in every sense a taxing and not an axing Budget. The much vaunted deficit of $3.5 billion has largely been achieved through a tax hike of $1.4 billion and absurdly optimistic forecasts of economic and employment growth. The promised and much-heralded personal tax cuts were not only delayed three months. They have been effectively wiped out by the new tax rises announced by the Treasurer in the Budget. Australia faces an economic crisis unmatched since the Great Depression of over 50 years ago. It is to the everlasting shame of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Treasurer that they both misled and deceived the Australian public for so long about the true state of our economic plight. Only three months ago, the Treasurer said that the Australian economy was `entirely healthy' and that we had the strongest growing economy in the Western world. The Prime Minister joined the chorus, describing our economy as `entirely robust'. For over 18 months this Labor Government ignored all warnings about the State of our economy and rejected all responsible plans for responding to the looming problems. Instead, Labor maintained that all was well and waited Macawber-like for something to turn up, while interest rates went through the ceiling, the dollar went through the floor, inflation continued to rise, our balance of payments deficit reached crisis levels and our international debt continued to grow at an alarming rate. By failing to introduce a mini-Budget to cut spending, by failing to ensure that there was full discounting for the price effects of the devaluation, by supporting the 3 per cent productivity rise under the accord mark 2, and by refusing to abandon the anti-business taxes, the Treasurer responded abysmally to Australia's looming economic crisis. All of these actions were pressed upon the Government month after month by the Opposition. Time and time again our entreaties were rejected. Then, unable to defy reality any longer, the Prime Minister suddenly discovered that we had a crisis after all. This was to be repentance with a real difference. Everyone else was wrong except for the Prime Minister. Having maliciously sat by and done nothing while the economy burned, the Prime Minister now seeks respectability as a latter-day apostle of budget rectitude. He must really think that the Australian disease is amnesia. Now that our economic crisis has finally been recognised, the Government has been unable to come up with policies to overcome our deeper-seated economic problems. Australia needed a tough, responsible and, above all, believable Budget last Tuesday night. We did not get such a Budget. Australia also needed a grand plan for turning the Australian economy around. Such a plan, and the vision of how to obtain a more prosperous and productive Australia, was totally missing from the Budget. This Budget was short on hope but long on presentation. Hope, as the Government will learn, is an essential element in successfully implementing any economic or political philosophy. Sacrifice, restraint, reduced expectation and all the other rhetoric of economic recession are not, and cannot be, ends in themselves. They can be given meaning and draw support only if they are part of a strategy and philosophy which offers the hope over time of a better, more prosperous future with rising living standards. Government in Australia has grown far too big. It must be permanently and not temporarily reduced. This will mean lower government spending and will make possible lower levels of taxation. The basic malaise facing this country is that governments-Federal, State and local-have been spending too much, taxing too much, borrowing too much and interfering too much. This trend must be dramatically reversed if Australia is to be set firmly on the path to economic recovery. Australia's taxation system must be radically reformed and simplified. There must be a substantial reduction in the marginal rates of tax which have such a major disincentive effect. The coalition's taxation policy will reflect a number of basic principles. Firstly, the total taxation burden will fall. Taxation reform without tax- ation reduction is no reform at all. Secondly, there will be less reliance on personal tax, made possible by reduced spending and some broadening of the indirect tax base. Thirdly, our taxation policy will also positively favour families with dependent children. I believe very strongly that a taxation system which does not favour those with the responsibility of bringing up dependent children is a taxation system without a social vision. These basic principles are guiding the final determination of our new taxation charter which I will announce at an appropriate time before the next election. That policy will be simpler, less intrusive, more productive and, above all, will liberate the latent energies of Australians and encourage greater productivity and hard work. The great economic reform needed for this country is a radical overhaul of our outdated, anti-productive and archaic industrial relations system. This change will involve a major reduction in the unreasonable power held by trade union bosses. It will also require that unions and union officials alike, like the rest of us, be made subject to the ordinary courts of this country. Australia needs a lot more Mudginberris. Our rigid, centralised wage fixation system must be changed. If we have been taught any economic lesson over the past 18 months, it is that there is a fundamental conflict between a deregulated exchange rate and a highly regulated labour market. The Government remains committed to the existing inflexible system. In view of the disturbing evidence that unemployment will rise significantly this year, the Government should attempt to initiate a 12 months wages pause under the system. This will be the best way of preventing significant rises in unemployment, especially in those industries and enterprises which will suffer most from the recession. A major goal of our industrial relations policy is to encourage greater incentive at an enterprise level between workers and their employers. We will provide incentives to encourage profit sharing and employee share acquisition schemes. We want workers and employers to get together and agree to get rid of restrictive work practices. The great lesson of Mudginberri was that if that occurs the productivity can rise, real wages can rise and the country can benefit overall. We want an environment in which the work ethic becomes again a mark of honour, rather than a term of mock derision. If this can happen we can create an environment in which Australian workers believe that their pockets will benefit and that they will have more at stake in the prosperity of the firm that employs them than they do in the industrial success of the union to which they might belong. Then Australia once again can be a country of rising rather than falling living standards. The time has come for Australia to abandon totally all foreign investment restrictions and to abolish the Foreign Investment Review Board. Put simply, we now need all the equity investment we can get. The enormous complex of regulations which shackles our transport and communications systems must also be dismantled. For example, for too long Australia has suffered from a union dominated coastal shipping trade which has grievously inhibited our external and internal trade. It is absolutely indefensible that in 1986 it costs less to ship goods from the Tasmanian port of Burnie to Hong Kong than it does from that same port to the port of Sydney. This deadening disincentive ought to be removed. What is central to this six-point plan is to require a dramatically reduced role for government and a dramatically increased role for the private sector. We have committed ourselves to a spending freeze for the entirety of our first three years in government. This commitment, when achieved, will make possible the removal of the deficit, reductions in our overseas debt and some reductions in the total taxation burden. Over the last few weeks the coalition has reassessed all its existing commitments in light of the economic crisis facing Australia and the urgent need to cut back on government spending and taxation. Whilst it is not possible to provide in its entirety an alternative Budget, I now intend to provide some of the details of our changed approach. As a result of this review, the Opposition remains, on the spending side, committed only to the abolition of the iniquitous assets test. That remains the only current expenditure commitment on our return to government. On the tax side, we remain committed to the scrapping of the Hawke capital gains tax, the throwing out of the Hawke Government's fringe benefits tax and the repeal of the Hawke Government's tax on lump sum superannuation. All of these taxes hit hardest at the productive element of the Australian economy and are excessively harsh on small businesses, the self-employed and the battling Australian farmer. Also, if there is any life left in the concept of a Bill of Rights when we are elected to office, that will also be abolished. The next Liberal-National Party Government will operate far fewer government departments than currently exist. As policy statements are made there will be no commitments to the maintenance of existing departments so as to enable greater flexibility when assuming office. Many statutory authorities and bodies will be abolished. These will include the Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Commission, the Commission for the Future, the Prices Surveillance Authority, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, the Economic Planning Advisory Council, the Advisory Council on Prices and Incomes and the Foreign Investment Review Board. Major savings can be made if we overhaul the Medicare system. We will put choice back into Medicare by a number of steps. Firstly, we will allow individual Australians to opt out of Medicare; that is, not pay the levy provided they take out private insurance. Secondly, bulk billing will be abolished except for such people as pensioners who really need it. Finally, the health insurance market will be freed up by allowing it to operate in a variety of ways to offer a variety of packages to health consumers. A coalition government will substantially reduce the ever-burgeoning cost of Medicare and improve private health insurance choice in the process. A Liberal-National Party government will attack welfare fraud by enshrining the principle that the unemployed should be required to work in return for receiving unemployment benefit. The Prime Minister has gone to water on this issue in the Budget. Welfare fraud is imposing considerable burdens on Australian taxpayers. Its elimination will be a top priority for the next coalition Government. We will also remove existing abuses of the sole parent benefit by ensuring that parents are compelled to accept some financial responsibility for the upkeep of their children. As well, we will amend that absurd provision of the Family Law Act so that available welfare benefits are not taken into account by the Family Court when deciding whether or not a maintenance order will be made. These measures-more will be announced before the next election-are in no sense symbolic gestures. They represent a major attack on government over-regulation, duplication and waste. Our attack on government spending will not end there but will be expanded as we move over the next 18 months. Australia simply cannot afford more and more spending. Additional spending can lead only to higher taxes and more national debt. At the moment, we have too much of both. The clear message that I have received as I have moved around the cities and the provincial areas of Australia is overwhelmingly that, for too long, governments have been taxing too much, spending too much, borrowing too much and interfering too much. It will be a major goal of the next coalition Government to put an end to that fundamental malaise of the Australian economy. As I said at the commencement of my remarks, the key flaw of this Budget is that it is a big-taxing but a small-axing Budget. That is precisely the wrong remedy for Australia's economic ills. As well, the Government has failed once again to come to grips with the problems for the Australian economy caused by our rigid, inflexible, centralised wage fixation system. After all the huffing and puffing, all the crisis talk about a banana republic and all the wartime analogies, almost nothing has been done permanently to reduce the level of government spending in this Budget. In fact, outlays have increased in this Budget by 6.9 per cent in money terms and by a very slight amount in real terms. Two of the seven Budgets of the previous coalition Government achieved a better result on expenditure restraint, with falls in real outlays in 1976 and 1979. Yet there was no suggestion then that Australia was in the midst of an unparalleled economic crisis. In fact, last Tuesday, Mr Keating delivered the fourth largest-spending Budget in Australia's history-surpassed only by his drunken sailor approach to spending exhibited in his first three Budgets. The Government has achieved this much-vaunted deficit of $3.5 billion by lifting taxes, by dubious accounting methods and by heroic forecasts for economic growth, the strength of the world economy and unemployment levels. It is no wonder that it has so far received a resounding thumbs down from the Australian financial market. The bringing forward of company tax instalments and provisional tax payments from 1987-88 into 1986-87 have also worked to lower this year's deficit in a one-off fashion. Many of the cuts in outlays have resulted from delays and postponements in expenditure. They are therefore, largely one-off cuts and do not seriously tackle the fundamental problem of the excessive size of government. This is clearly revealed on page 71 of Budget Paper No. 1, which shows that the full-year ongoing expenditure savings are considerably less than the anticipated savings in 1986-87. Of the $2 billion taken from the forward estimates, no less than $1.1 billion is accounted for by deferrals, changes in timing or so-called improved efficiencies. In other words, the only real reduction from the forward estimates amounts to from $800m to $900m. At the beginning of this expenditure restraint exercise, the Government said that it would cut $1.4 billion from the forward estimates. That was when we were still doing brilliantly. That was before the banana republic. That was before the great prime ministerial repentance. After all the huffing and puffing and all those weeks during which the Prime Minister never tired of telling us that he was tied up with the Budget and could not get out to meet the people-anyone would think that no one had ever been tied up on a Budget process before-all that the Government brought forth was another $500m off the forward estimates. That is the measure of what happens when the Prime Minister gets bailed up working on the Budget over a period of two to three months. The Reserve Bank's profits-this is a very interesting figure-have primarily resulted from its sales of foreign exchange at the heavily devalued exchange rate of the Australian dollar. In other words, it is very important that the Treasurer understands this, the additional amount of revenue would not have been obtained had not the dollar been devalued so sharply over the last year. Consequently, the alleged Budget deficit of $3.5 billion would have been significantly higher. Clearly it will not be possible to assume that this source of revenue in such large amounts will be available in the future. The Budget projections on unemployment beneficiaries, medicare and debt repayments also look far too optimistic. In other words, the Budget deficit figure looks very shaky indeed. But this is not all. The Budget forecast of GDP growth of 2.25 per cent for this year is overly optimistic, requiring as it does June-on-June growth of over 5 per cent. Most of the economic growth is expected to come from net exports of 1.75 per cent. However, it is clear that this will result more from driving the economy into recession and reducing imports than by the J-curve working. The Australian economy has now experienced three successive quarters of negative economic growth. We are technically in recession. Yet the Government expects the world to believe that our economy will grow by over 2 per cent this financial year. The assumption of continued economic growth overseas also seems very optimistic. To the extent that world growth is lower, particularly in the United States and Japan, the demand for Australia's exports and hence our economic growth rate will be lower. Unemployment is forecast by the Treasurer to rise only moderately. This is totally unrealistic given the expected low level of domestic demand growth. Unemployment is likely to rise well above the current level of 8.3 per cent. Business fixed investment, already relatively weak in the recovery period, is forecast to fall in 1986-87. This will undermine any export growth and import replacement coming from any operation of the J-curve. Despite the fall in imports associated with the recession, the current account deficit is forecast to be worse than this year's $13.7 billion record and around the same as a percentage of GDP-namely, $14.6 billion. Overall, on current policy, the recession is likely to continue for longer than anticipated by the Government, unemployment will rise considerably and the Budget deficit will blow out above the estimated figure of $3.5 billion. The Government's economic strategy involves the tightening of fiscal and wages policies in such a manner as to allow an easing of monetary policy-that is, a lowering of interest rates-without a further fall in the value of the Australian dollar. However, with the continued large external imbalance and the forecast high inflation rate, the Australian dollar still remains vulnerable to periods of chronic weakness which will limit any substantive fall in interest rates during the year ahead. The reliance on sustained lower interest rates is a very high risk strategy indeed. Overall, the Government has not done enough and it has waited too long before acting. The 2 per cent discount figure is nowhere near enough, particularly in view of the worsening unemployment situation, and applies only to the next national wage case. The Treasurer failed to deliver the promise he made in last year's Budget that there would be full discounting for the price effects of the devaluation. The Treasurer's stance on wages once again has been distinctly wimpish. Under the existing industrial relations system, Australia needs a 12-month wages pause. Yet the Treasurer in his Budget Speech complacently predicted that wages will increase by over 6 per cent this year. Budget Paper No. 2 admits that wages in Australia in 1986 will increase at a faster rate than that of our eight major trading partners. And yet we are told that we are in a wartime situation when extreme measures are required. Well, they were not contained in the Budget. Wages policy involves a 2 per cent discount from the expected 4 per cent wage claim due at the next national wage case. This of itself is an inadequate response to the continued impact of the depreciation on the consumer price index and the deterioration in our terms of trade. The last wage case did not incorporate adequate discounting and neither will the next one. With our inflation rate still far too high and substantial depreciation effects still to flow through, no wage increase can be justified if we are to minimise the impact of the current recession on unemployment. There is no clear commitment to wage discounting beyond the next national wage case. If discounting is not undertaken, the inflation outcomes expected in the September and December quarters this year will lead to a 4 to 5 per cent wage increase at the 1987 April national wage case. In the current economic climate, such an across the board wage increase would drive thousands of Australians on to the dole queues. The Budget makes it abundantly clear that Australia desperately needs more investment. But in fact the Government has actually discouraged investment by mugging business with new anti-investment taxes such as the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. The Treasurer is constantly running around saying that the corporate profit share figures are running high at the moment. That may be so in the First French Empire clock business but, as any businessman will tell us, it is the after-tax real rate of return that is the relevant indicator in investment decisions. Australia's real rate of return on investment, which is calculated after interest rates and taxation are taken into account, is far too low. At a time when the United States of America is reducing its corporate tax rate to 34 per cent, Britain has a 35 per cent rate, Singapore has announced a reduction to 33 per cent and there is a general international trend towards lower corporate tax rates, the Treasurer has increased Australia's corporate tax rate to 49 per cent with effect from 1 July this year. This will further decrease the rate of return to Australian businesses. It will dampen the desire of overseas companies making direct equity investment into Australia. Not only did the Treasurer slug business with massive new taxes last year, but he is also now changing long established practices to bring forward the payment of $220m in taxes by certain companies. At a time when the Treasurer wants companies to invest, he is making business pay $220m in tax earlier than it normally would have done. This is hardly the way to encourage business in the current depressed economic climate. It once again underlines the Government's obsession with tax collection as the solution to its economic problems. The basic problem with this Government, as illustrated by that and many other decisions, is that it does not understand that unless the rate of return is sufficient business will not start new projects. Risks will not be taken unless adequate returns are made and new jobs will not be created unless investors have the incentive to take risks. The Hawke Government has wasted three years of economic opportunity. It came to office at the end of the world recession and the worst drought in Australia's modern history. As well, it benefited enormously from the former Government's wages pause which the Prime Minister not only opposed but also did his level best to destroy. Yet three and a half years later Australia's economic plight is the worst it has been for 50 years-and that is not my claim but the Prime Minister's own admission. The coalition believes that there is a way to restore Australia's position and to restore the living standards of all our citizens, but this can happen only if there are substantial changes to existing institutions and attitudes in the Australian community. That is the hope that all of us have as Australians. We can offer hope through a greater commitment to individual freedom, through a greater commitment to greater individual choice and through a greater commitment to greater individual incentive. The Hawke Government is essentially backward looking. It wants to make the system of the past work better, but it has failed to realise that many elements of that old system have totally failed. We need a new economic system in Australia, and one which places much greater stress on initiative, productivity and incentive. Only a coalition government can provide this new economic system. Only a coalition government can bring about a long term restoration in Australian prosperity and living standards. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(8.36) —I can see that the speech from the world's worst Opposition leader, formerly the world's worst Treasurer, has sent his colleagues running from the chamber in total despair and that the legs of those remaining have gone to jelly. Those who are sitting here cannot move. They are either riveted to or lost in their seats. I do not know why they cannot move; perhaps we need some first aid assistance for these people. I am concerned for the Opposition, but I am also concerned for the people of Australia. What the people of Australia have heard tonight and what we have witnessed in this chamber is a demonstration of the fact that there are no alternative policies coming from this Opposition. It has failed again-in the fourth Budget in a row-as it failed in the Budgets it brought down in the past. It has failed totally. The world's worst Leader of the Opposition has failed to recognise his own failure as Treasurer in the way he left this country. He did not even have the simple grace to show the people of Australia what this Government has achieved. He did not talk about the growth or the jobs that this Government has achieved in only 41 months. That is what the people of Australia are stuck with; that is what they are left with. Any Government could be returned to office with an Opposition such as that. Tonight, as in the days and months before and I am sure in the months and years ahead, members of the Opposition will continue to confound the people of Australia with their ineptitude. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has failed, along with all his supporters, to indicate in any real, specific way, in figures-dollars and cents-what the Opposition would do. He said that he would give presents to everyone, that he would hand out presents to the pensioners, the farmers and everyone else. But when would he send them the bill? What would the bill be? Would it be another $9.6 billion? Is that what we would face if those opposite ever got back into power? The people of Australia will judge the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Opposition-they will be in opposition for a long time-on their past performance and on what has been offered here tonight, if one can call that an offering worth looking at. On Tuesday this Hawke Government brought down its fourth Budget. Effectively, this is only the sixth Labor Budget in 37 years. This is particularly relevant because it draws Australia's current economic and industrial circumstances into a more vivid and realistic perspective than is being understood by the vast majority of Australians today. As we all know, Australia does face very severe economic and industrial structural problems. Only the most churlish fool, the most churlish idiot, would suggest that they are the fault entirely of this Government. It does not take much to realise what has been going on. But Opposition members persist in degrading the integrity and the intelligence of the Australian public with their churlish assertions. It is no secret that we have a balance of payments problem. Before we as a nation can realistically and rationally address this, we have to look at our economic and political history to understand the correct path that we have to take in the future. History shows quite conclusively that we have been sold down the river by the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia. We have been sold off at bargain basement rates, sold into economic slavery by Opposition members such as the honourable member for Bennelong who was the Treasurer in the previous Government. The country was sold off by John McEwen and his protectionist policies. When an industry was going bad, he subsidised it. The attitude was: `To hell with the future; we will subsidise it'. We are now paying the price of that. Farmers, exporters, manufacturers, every person in Australia is paying the price, but particularly the poor people. That was the answer of the Liberal and National parties which brought down at least 31 of the last 37 Budgets. Their answer year after year, decade after decade, was to avoid the hard decisions and to offer to people the easy ones. I hope that the people of Australia have woken up to that easy sell, to the stuff that we have been handed here tonight. It was a ridiculous and absurd insult to the intelligence and the integrity of all Australians. Today all of us, but especially those three million people and those 800,000 children in poverty, are paying the price for that betrayal of this country, the incompetence of the people opposite when they were in government and what they pretend they will do when they get back into government. Let us face the fact that people get the government that they deserve. Over the years the people of Australia have voted for those economic men of clay. So, as Australians we must now collectively take the blame for the incompetence with which we allowed them to govern over the four decades since World War II. But it has been the poor people, now numbering three million and including 800,000 children, who have paid the greatest price of all. They have never been fooled by the Liberal and National parties. For generations they have seen from the faces of their hungry children the effects that the Liberal and National parties and their successive Budgets have had upon them. It is those people who have always turned to the Australian Labor Party for help. It is the poor and the powerless people of this country who have always stood by the ALP when it needed support and when it deserved it. I hope that the Government of this country will recognise that and think of those poor people when it looks at the finance marketeers, at the money market operators and at the dollar. The dollar is worth 61c on the international money exchanges. It is with 61c that a poor supporting mother or father has to feed her or his children every meal. Could anyone here feed his kids on 61c a meal? Honourable members should try to feed themselves on 61c a meal. All of the 12 million people in Australia who live on much more than 61c a meal should try to feed themselves, look after themselves and keep healthy on 61c a meal. That is what poor people are expected to do. I can understand their anger and confusion now. There are people in my electorate who wonder what is going on, with all of the confusing things that are being thrown up at them. The middle income earners are the people who change governments in this country. We have seen governments come and go and members of parliament in this place come and go. But on average the middle income earners have failed to recognise the plight of the poor. They have failed to realise that they, with their middle income taxes, and the escalating tax rates and inflated incomes of the Howard-Fraser years in particular, have paid the price of poverty in this country, as well as the poor people. They have paid for the social security, health and everything else that goes with the cost of poverty. What have the wealthy been doing? They have been welshing on the people of this country. They have been welshing on the poor and on the middle income earners. For generations they have avoided taxes and avoided their responsibility to this country. It is the nature of poverty to be powerless in society. This powerlessness has encouraged the wealthy to blame the poor for this country's problems. We have seen it here again tonight. It is fashionable and easy to criticise supporting mothers and dole bludgers rather than the wealthy tax evaders. Whatever happened to Australians' care for the underdog? It is a myth to make us feel good when we denigrate and attack the powerless. I am afraid that this Budget has been framed to appeal not to voters but to the international money markets. Those who are influenced by the yo-yoing of the dollar are so easily fooled. When we listen to radio reports we hear on one hand the weather report and on the other hand the price of the dollar. But it is irrelevant to what is happening in this country today. The sooner we wake up to it, the better we will be and the better off the country will be. We are being manipulated by the international financiers around the world and the people sitting in their leather-lined boardrooms in this country. We are being manipulated by undemocratic corporate and international financial forces which have no allegiance to this country, its well-being or the well-being of its 15 million people. In this Budget Government spending has been cut. The poor will have to wait longer for any benefits. We have had drastic Government cuts in vital social areas in an attempt to create an environment for the much vaunted private sector to drive this country forward. That is what the money markets, private enterprise and the media have all been calling for. I hope that they are now writing that into their reports on the Leader of the Opposition. The media, the money markets and those in private enterprise have everything they need, but they want more. They have everything they need, but they want more blood, they want more from the 800,000 children. They want to take the food out of the mouths of the 800,000 Australian children because they want more. But the obligation is now on them. They have everything they need, but the obligation is now fairly and squarely on their shoulders. No longer can the public sector and the poor people in this country pay the price for that incompetence. The poor, the low paid workers and anyone but those in the money market, in private enterprise and in the media are being asked to pay. The poor are being asked to have their pensions and wages cut. But those in the money market, in private enterprise and in the media do not look at themselves in the mirror and see what they are doing. If this situation continues, this country will go further into ruin and into economic and social decay. This attack on the poor has happened in the past and will happen in the future just as it is happening in the present. Australia's private enterprise is basically lazy and incompetent, just as the Opposition is lazy and incompetent. Those people in private enterprise and those with money in this country are selling us into economic slavery. Let us look at some examples of this incompetence. The Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd, the `Big Australian', made $1,000m profit last year. At a time when the country has current account deficit and balance of payment problems, BHP is reported to be agonising over spending $100m on expansion of its Port Kembla steelworks to increase its export potential. It is agonising over that decision. There are people tonight who are agonising because they do not have shelter. If it were a government that was agonising, it would be hauled up in the newspapers. But, no, the BHP decision merited only a little piece in the Australian Financial Review. The company, the `Big Australian', the epitome of private enterprise, is incompetent and is allowed to get away with it. I have another example of incompetence in the private sector with financiers. A business in my electorate has 99 per cent of the Australian market with a very sophisticated high technology product. It is a state of the art product and the business is a world leader in this area. That business could not get $10m from the big financiers of this country to set up operations in China, whose market for the product is 100 times larger than the market in Australia. The Chinese Government provided it, and we lost. Where are the big foreign and private enterprise risk takers in the Australian financial system? They are lost; they are hopeless. Let us look at some of the things that we do well in regard to design. The best Australian design that has come out of this country for ages is the boomerang. That is probably our most original design. We have creative young people; we have creative talent. We have tremendous designers. But, instead, we play around with silly little things and unoriginal designs. It is no wonder the world will not buy our products. I have just been to Japan. The Japanese have signs in their shops stating: `We like imported goods'. They want to buy our goods, When representatives of our big companies go to Japan, they are told: `This is what we sell in this country and this is the way we sell it. Why won't you send your goods over here?'. Private enterprise in this country is not interested in changing. It is not interested in growing. It wants to sit back and be protected by the taxpayer and the poor people in this country. The AMP Society and other big assurance companies are involved with superannuation. An amount of $7,000m of superannuation funds-workers' money-has gone out of this country in the last year or so and has been invested in the economies of other countries. Does that not ring a bell with anyone here? It is a double loss. What could we do if $7,000m were invested in Australia? If nothing else, where is the patriotism of these companies that send Australian workers' money to the tune of $7,000m a year out of this country to be invested in other people's economies? This puts more Australians out of work. Why is this story not portrayed on the front pages of newspapers? Why do we not hear that story every hour in news reports, instead of hearing about the minor fluctuations in the value of the dollar? That is causing a double loss and it is a criminal waste of this country's resources. This money is supporting the economies of our direct competitors, and we have to pay interest on the foreign capital that we bring into this country. The corporate bludgers-not the dole bludgers, not the supporting mothers, but the corporate bludgers-and private enterprise are destroying this country. I turn to the subject of competitiveness. We hear so much about Australian wage costs. The Opposition's solution to all the problems is to cut wages and pensions. It is ridiculous. We are competitive in our wage costs. We do have some higher on-costs than many other countries. Much of that is due to our distance from markets both internally and externally, our small population and our economies of scale. The fact is that 70 per cent of our imports-the things that we bring in, sell and use in this country-come from countries that have higher wage cost structures than Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a table that clearly shows that that is so. Leave granted. The table read as follows- AUSTRALIA'S TRADE PATTERN, 1984-85 Destination/ Origin Australian Exports Australian Imports Cumulative Share of Imports $Am % $Am % % ASEAN(a)... 2,401 7.8 1,725 5.7 China... 1,065 3.5 377 1.3 Taiwan... 854 2.8 1,053 3.5 Hong Kong... 844 2.7 658 2.2 South Korea... 1,141 3.7 474 1.6 Papua New Guinea... 571 1.9 114 0.4 14.7 Canada... 303 1.0 620 2.1 EEC... 3,864 12.6 6,286 20.9 Japan... 8,043 26.2 6,645 22.1 New Zealand... 1,591 5.2 1,115 3.7 Saudi Arabia(b)... 518 1.7 638 2.1 Kuwait(b)... 119 0.4 339 1.1 Sweden... 53 0.2 523 1.7 Switzerland... 53 0.2 360 1.2 USA... 3,598 11.7 6,816 22.7 USSR... 879 2.9 2.9 . . 77.8 Other Countries... 4,846 15.8 2,250 7.5 85.3 Total... 30,743 100.0 30,022 100.0 100.0 (a) ASEAN comprises Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Brunei. (b) Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are included as high cost countries because they mainly supply oil to Australia. Source: ABS, `Australian Exports 1984-85'; ABS, `Australian Imports 1984-85'. Mr STAPLES —I thank the House. Let us face it: If long working hours and low pay were the key to economic success, Bangladesh would be an economic super-power. But it is not. If low pay and long working hours were the key to economic success, Sweden would be a banana republic. But it is not. There is something fundamentally wrong in the logic of honourable members opposite, the logic of the media and the logic of those who control the value of our dollar. A few years ago when this country revalued its currency, the cry went out: `You have to cut wage costs so that you will be competitive with the rest of the world'. Today our dollar has been devalued to a point which is probably lower than it has ever been. Our currency could not be more competitive. What is the cry? We must cut wage costs. Does something not click in the minds of people that this is totally inconsistent? The call of the Business Council of Australia, the Liberal and National parties, the Leader of the Opposition here tonight, and the finance markets is a hollow facade of deceit and a vicious assault on the poor of this country. If people in this country have any national pride, if this country means more to them than a bit of red, white and blue coloured cloth-I think that is all it means to many people-if they have any belief in that great Australian idea of mateship, they would not attack the poor. We should protect the poor, but we do not. We should thumb our noses at the finance markets and the people who have pushed this country around, but we do not. We suck up to them and we enslave ourselves to them day after day. Mr Lightfoot, a member of the Liberal Party in Western Australia has written an ignominious letter to the United States Administration. As was the case with Pig Iron Bob, this letter will go down in Australian history. What elected representative of the people of Australia would say to the United States Secretary of State, Mr Shultz: `You keep up your policies of destroying our economy because we will be re-elected if you do'. That is what it is all about. Two million to three million people in this country live in poverty. Tonight, 800,000 children will go to bed in poverty, many of them without food. Many will go to school tomorrow without food. The Leader of the Opposition talks about choice and hope. He has offered these people, and the rest of us in the long run, no choice and no hope. That is the political reality-no choice and no hope. Tonight we are faced with the fact that two million to three million Australians, including 800,000 children, are living in poverty. If the Opposition is re-elected, the rest of the country will face that prospect. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(8.57) —At the outset one must express some admiration for the tenacity and vigorousness with which the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) delivered his speech on the Budget tonight. But one cannot express the same degree of admiration for his common sense and judgment about the real facts of the world. He made a number of allusions to minor adjustments to the dollar and related to that all sorts of internal problems in this country. What he has failed to understand properly is, of course, that the valuation given to the dollar at any particular time is the measure of international credibility of the economy of the country in question. Over a long period, if one traces the valuation of various currencies, one can see mirrored the strength of the economy concerned. From the remarks of the honourable member for Jagajaga tonight, one could have been forgiven for thinking that he was a member of an opposition talking about another government. I remind him that, of course, he is a member of the current Government and that our current difficulties have been brought about by that Government. If the dollar deteriorates substantially over a period, this Government must bear the complete responsibility for what has happened. It is interesting to look at what has happened to the Australian dollar since this Government was elected to office. To give the Government due credit, during 1983 and 1984 the dollar did hold its value reasonably well. Of course, we know that the reason was that the Government was able to inherit the good fortune of the benefits of the wages pause that we had put in place prior to our going out of government. It had the benefit of the breaking of the drought very early in its period of office and that set off, of course, a mini-rural boom which left it in a very good position for a short period. Of course, as the reality of its policies set in and it could no longer live off the previous Government savings account and policies and it had to start to write out its own cheques, the reality of what it was really doing to the Australian dollar started to sink in. If one looks at what has happened to the dollar since the Hawke Government was elected, one finds some very disturbing figures-not the minor adjustments to the dollar of which the honourable member for Jagajaga spoke. If one looks at the value of the Australian dollar set against the United States dollar, the Japanese yen and the trade-weighted index since the Hawke Government was first elected on 5 March 1983, one sees some very disturbing figures. Set against the United States dollar, the Australian dollar has fallen from that time until now by 36 per cent; set against the Japanese yen, the Australian dollar has fallen by 58 per cent, and, on the trade-weighted index, it has fallen by 38 per cent. It is particularly interesting to note that the bulk of that fall has been concentrated in the period since the last Federal election, that is, since 5 December 1984. If one looks again at those measurements one sees that in that 20-month period since the last Federal election the Australian dollar has fallen by 29 per cent against the United States dollar, 55 per cent against the Japanese yen, and 39 per cent against the trade-weighted index. The bulk of the fall has been concentrated in the last 20 months since the last Federal election. That is the period in which the Government's policies have started to impact most heavily on the Australian economy, because in the first 18 months of government the Labor Government was able to live off our policies, off our wages freeze and off other of our policies. That carried the Labor Government through the first 18 months. Now the reality has started to set in. The figures I have given show quite clearly that one cannot dismiss the movements in the dollar as being minor or inconsequential. They are quite major and a measurement of the way in which national governments, international financial institutions, banks overseas and the world at large measure the worth and credibility of the Australian economy. It is interesting to note also in that regard that even in the short period since the Budget was brought down the dollar, after an initial surge, went down again and as at yesterday had reached 60c against the United States dollar. Over the past year and a half the Government has attempted to explain all this away by saying that this was all pre-ordained, all part of a general economic strategy, and that great benefits are being derived for the Australian economy, particularly our export sector, from the fact that the dollar has fallen so dramatically. That is not necessarily the case. If one turns to a report by the Economic Planning Advisory Council put down in January of this year and its judgment on various sectors of the economy and the extent to which they were affected adversely or positively by depreciation of the dollar, one comes up with some very disturbing conclusions. I quote from an article in the Australian Financial Review on 3 February this year commenting on the EPAC report in some detail as it related to particular sectors of industry. The article was entitled `EPAC doubts depreciation gains' and was written by Richard Hubbard. It begins: The Federal Government's Economic Planning Advisory Council has cast doubts on the predictions by ministers of an economic windfall accruing from the depreciation of the dollar by being unable to identify many areas of significant net benefits. The exception is probably tourism. In a report, entitled `A Note on the Sectoral Effects of the Depreciation' released yesterday, EPAC reviewed the outlook for four major sectors of the economy-agriculture, minerals and energy, manufacturing, and services-but found each had its own constraints. The article continues: For the agricultural and the mining sectors, it said the major benefits which could be expected from a depreciation, including increased Australian dollar returns for the same level of exports, could be largely offset by falling world commodity prices. While in the critical area of manufacturing, increased input costs from the use of overseas components in production, combined with general cost increases, were expected to diminish the overall benefit to the sector. In the services sector, a considerable boost was expected for the tourist industry but any major stimulus would depend on the other sectors increasing their competitiveness on domestic and export markets. In line with the general economic theory of a depreciation, the report noted that there were many potential long term benefits for each of these sectors if the fall in the dollar was sustained. But the prospects for the so called J-curve effect which was expected to turn around the poor balance of payments position remained, in the words of EPAC, `mixed'. That is a fair judgment because, in the ultimate, a falling dollar does not mean increased export opportunities. A falling dollar means that the credibility of the economy in the judgment of the world at large is declining. I turn now from some of those macroeconomic considerations to the specific effects of a falling dollar on particular industries and to a few case studies relating to individual firms. I want to give the House some idea of the dramatic effects of the falling dollar on industry planning, on budgets, on marketing strategy and on the attempts of small to medium business in particular simply to stay in the black and to survive in these difficult times. Let us look at one particular industry, and I quote again from the Australian Financial Review of Thursday, 24 July 1986, just under a month ago. The report is entitled `Forwarder's computer system wards off the dollar woes' and deals later with the effect of computers on the freight forwarding industry before it leads in on the dollar. The article is written by Kay Barney and the introduction reads: The freight forwarding industry has fallen victim to the Australian dollar's depreciation which has reduced import volumes with a consequent cut into margins as the market competes for the reduced business. The managing director of freight forwarder and customs clearance agency, WTC Stephenson, Mr Paul Stephenson, said that, overall volume in the industry had fallen about 20 per cent. The depreciation had not boosted exports sufficiently to offset the decrease in imports, Mr Stephenson said. So much for the J-curve. The article continued: This was forcing forwarders to attempt to increase market share to maintain volumes in a diminishing market. So much for the benefits of the falling Australian dollar to individual industries. In the time available I turn to a few individual case studies which give some indication of the effect of the falling dollar on particular individual enterprises. I draw attention to figures provided to me by a local firm not far from my electorate office, a firm engaged in the business of importing garden tools and other basic household tools from Hong Kong and other places. Because of the falling dollar in recent months, the firm has been forced from having been in the black to a substantial loss situation and its future is now very much in doubt. That is why I shall not mention the company's name, but I have the documentation with me. The firm has allowed me to use the figures which clearly indicate the effect of the falling dollar on that enterprise. The firm has taken a basic tool which can be found in any garden shed or household workshop and indicated precisely the effect of the falling dollar on the cost of that tool over a period. When the dollar was rated at 70c against the United States dollar, the firm was able to put this garden tool on the shelf at $46.20; when the dollar went to 65c against the United States dollar, the firm then had to up the price to $58.61. As the dollar came down to 63c, it was forced to move the retail price to $60.29. Finally when the Australian dollar reached the 60c mark against the United States dollar, the firm would be looking at a retail price of $63.39. This has put the firm into the red, and it may go out of business. The item to which I refer is not easily manufactured in Australia. That is just one indication of what has happened to one firm. It is not a particularly large firm, indeed it is a fairly small one. It is a local firm which up to now has had a good record. It has now been thrown into complete disarray and its future is very much in doubt because of the impact of the dollar. Let me take another firm, and the gentleman concerned has allowed me to use his name. He is a constituent, Mr Gordon Griffiths, a local businessman who imports cosmetics and toiletries from New Zealand. The goods that he imports to and markets in Australia include skin care preparations, face powders, lipsticks, nail enamels, colognes and deodorants. These goods are manufactured entirely in New Zealand-the particular line that he wants to market here cannot be obtained within Australia, therefore he must bring them across the Tasman to sell them here. Under the closer economics relations he is not subject to import duty so his problems have been created by the falling dollar alone. Back in June 1985 when one Australian dollar bought 1.385 New Zealand dollars he would have to pay $7,200 to meet a bill of $10,000 worth of New Zealand cosmetics. That was just over a year ago. Since then the Australian dollar has fallen markedly against the New Zealand dollar and by June 1986 one Australian dollar bought 1.23 New Zealand dollars. The effect of that is that when he buys $10,000 of New Zealand cosmetics now he has to pay out $8,130. That is a significant increase of $930 for the same quantity of goods. That has thrown all his budgeting and planning for the immediate future into disarray. He does not quite know where to go with his marketing strategy and he must think very carefully about the sorts of things he will do in the future. At this point he has not yet been pushed into the parlous situation of the importer of garden tools whom I mentioned previously, but certainly he has been put in a very difficult situation, brought about by the falling Australian dollar. I also wish to draw attention to another case study from a small business in my electorate. In this case the information was provided by a Mr Peter Harkness who runs a small electronic firm. This constituent of mine is engaged in the business of selling video and audio cassettes and other related equipment. He brings video tapes from Japan in pancakes for use particularly in television studios and one of the key components that he uses in the assembly of these products is a device which is called a DL control print motor. That equipment is used to assemble and cut video tapes to the required size and type. This particular commodity, which is quite critical to his operation, cost him $150 in August 1985. He will now have to purchase another identical unit from Japan and in 12 months the price has risen to $350-a rise of 133 per cent. Of course there is an inflation factor in that as well as the depreciation. I use these case studies to illustrate the very telling point that the fundamental difficulties that have been created for Australian industry by the falling dollar go very much to the survival of various types of industry in a number of different facets. During the period this Government has been in office the fall in the dollar has not brought about the great benefits that it was supposed to bring. One must be very aware of this. Not only does the falling dollar indicate a collapse in credibility of our economy but also for all forms of business-small, medium and large-it is playing havoc with their budgeting, planning, marketing strategy and everything else. Of course recently their woes and troubles have been added to by this Government's idiotic fringe benefits tax which I have talked about at length on other occasions. In conclusion I wish to draw to the Government's attention the fact that when it talks about the falling dollar it should not talk about it in terms of its being some mythical benefit to Australian industry. It is not. In fact it is another factor that is destroying industry in this country, creating havoc and making it very difficult to survive. I would hope that in future discussions in this chamber about the falling dollar some element of common sense prevails in the argument that the Government puts forward. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(9.16) —Regrettably we have not heard much common sense from the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred) who has just finished speaking. We have just heard the old hoary argument that somehow we should have a fixed exchange rate. If we had a fixed exchange rate in Australia today, what would be our position? The Government would be spending 24 hours a day trying to determine the rate of the dollar. Surely such arguments have gone out once and for all in this country. But no, dinosaurs from the Opposition still exist. They pop up and come back with these strange notions of economic principles which have long been thrown out in most other countries. I would have thought by now that most Australians-except members of the Opposition-would have realised that there is a fundamental crisis in the Australian economy and that is caused by our terms of trade. The price we get for our commodities is much less than the price we are paying for our imports. Pretty obviously if one increases the value of the dollar one will decrease the price of imports, hence one sucks in further imports. If the view of the honourable member for Bruce is the position of the other members of the Opposition, what they are saying is this: We should increase the value of the dollar the way the Opposition did when it was in government-that is our problem and the Opposition caused it-to the stage where imports are cheaper than locally produced products. Thus we suck in imports all over the place, reduce our own manufacturing capacity and cause the disaster that we now face. Do Opposition members never learn anything? It is pretty obvious that they do not. I had a nicely prepared speech tonight, but when I heard the failed former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), speak I threw that speech away and decided that it was time to expose very quickly some of the strange and fallacious statements that he made tonight. One of the statements he made which really encouraged me to throw away that speech was that the Opposition would scrap the capital gains tax, throw out the fringe benefits tax and throw out the Prices Surveillance Authority. Let us take the last of those three items first-the Prices Surveillance Authority. The capacity to purchase of Australian wage earners during the last two years has been drastically reduced. This year earnings rose by about 7.1 per cent while costs went up more than 9 per cent. We all know that the capacity of Australian consumers to purchase is diminishing severely. I might add that we should be very thankful that the average Australian wage earner is acting so responsibility in accepting the wage cuts. The Opposition does not appreciate that. It does not want to give the workers any wage increases. It wants a wage freeze for three years. Every wage earner in Australia should shudder at the thought of no wage increases when the Opposition, at the same time, would throw out the Prices Surveillance Authority. Honourable members should just think about that. What a lot of nonsense! The Opposition is asking wage earners not to take a wage increase for three years, yet it wants to throw out the Prices Surveillance Authority. The Opposition is saying to industry: `You can increase your prices any way you like-this way or that way. We will not worry about prices, we are on about big profits'. Yet the Australian wage earner will carry not just the discounting of wages but the effect of no wage increases at all. What a lot of economic drivel. The Leader of the Opposition talks about his concern for families. I wonder which families he is concerned about-the ones who are making the profits or the wage earners whom he wants to destroy. They are Australian families and I think the Opposition should be condemned. The whole of Australia should be horrified by this concept. Let us have a look at the fringe benefits tax. The Opposition has made a great deal of political capital out of this in the last few months. It has had a ball; it has distorted the truth and it has basically distorted what the tax is all about. Let us get a few facts on this matter. Since 1915 there has been a section in the Income Tax Assessment Act known among those involved in taxation as section 26 (e). It is known as section 26 (e) because there is also a section 26e. Section 26 (e) is very simple. It has always said that all benefits paid to employees are taxable. That has been in the Act since 1915. Honourable members might well ask why benefits which have been paid so often in this country have not been taxed. The Opposition cannot tell me that these benefits have been taxed because everyone in Australia knows, and no one denies it, that benefits paid to employees have not been caught by tax. Why not? What did honourable members opposite, when they were in government in the seven years prior to this Government coming into office, do to make sure that that section was enforced? What did this miserable Opposition do, in the 30-odd post-war years in which it was in government, to make sure that that tax law was enforced? The answer is zero. You did not do a damn thing about it because you did not care. It was part of the tax rorts when you were in government, when the whole taxation system of this country was destroyed. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Millar) —Order! The honourable member for McEwen is obliged to address the Chair. I trust that he is not charging the Chair-- Mr CLEELAND —My apologies, Mr Deputy Speaker. One gets a bit enthused when such disasters have occurred in our history and honourable members opposite are still making the same mistakes. Let us get back to section 26 (e). As I will explain, fringe benefits have always been taxable but the tax has never been collected. The old system operated as follows: If a benefit was paid to an employee the employer was obliged by the then current tax law to value the benefit to each employee receiving the same. Payee tax was then required to be deducted from the value of the benefit. It was not the employee who had to deduct it; it was the employer. Was it done? Did it ever happen? Of course it did not. It was never deducted and never paid, so the system did not work. It was a disaster. It is impossible to make the existing section 26 (e) work. How do we tackle this problem? How do we change a system which has proved to be false, which does not work, and on which we could not collect tax at a time when the amount being paid in benefits in Australia was increasing at an alarming rate and the amount of revenue being received by the Commonwealth was diminishing. The answer is simple: If the employer will not comply with the existing tax law we change the law to ensure that the employer pays the tax. That is exactly what the fringe benefits tax does. But the people on the other side of the House do not seem to understand that. Of course, when it comes to tax matters they do not have a brain among them. If we listen to what they say in this House about income tax and tax-related matters we realise right away that they have had no professional practice in this area. They do not know about section 26 (e); they have never made it work. That is the fundamental truth about section 26 (e) and the fringe benefits tax. But honourable members opposite are going to abolish it. They are going to legitimise certain people in this country having their wives paid a hostess allowance. That is right; a hostess allowance which can range from $5,000 to $10,000. The excuse for paying a wife a hostess allowance is that the wife may be required to assist the husband on some company matter. She might require her hair to be styled, she might require particular clothing or she might want a new imported pair of shoes so that she fits the bill of the company executive's wife. That is wonderful. I have no objection to that. That is a fair proposition, but why should the rest of Australian taxpayers subsidise such expenditure? I would like to hear an answer from any member of the Opposition as to why that should happen. What about free schooling and bursaries paid to private schools? Why should an individual taxpayer, at the expense of the rest of the Australian wage earners, have the privilege of paying less income tax simply because, with the connivance of his employer, he decides to take $10,000 off his $50,000, $30,000 or $20,000 salary to be paid as a bursary to a private school so that his children can then go to school free? In that way a taxpayer reduces his taxable income by $10,000 a year and, accordingly, pays less tax. If he pays tax at the rate of 60 cents in the dollar that represents $6,000 slashed off Commonwealth revenue, yet honourable members opposite support that sort of thing. They want to change all that and re-institute that rotten system under which 11 per cent of Australian taxpayers have been subsidised by the other taxpayers of this country on such rorts. That is what honourable members opposite are going to do. They are going to stand up in this House and try to convince the rest of Australia that that is equity, that that is Liberal fairness. Is fairness and equality what they are on about? They want equality for whom? Let us look at the capital gains tax. Honourable members opposite amaze me. Their incompetence in matters of tax just baffles me. Why do they think we need a capital gains tax in this country? We need a capital gains tax because people abuse the income tax system. The Opposition has known about it for years. It was the most incompetent government when in office. It let every tax rort slide under its feet. It destroyed the tax system, yet it wants to go back to it. It amazes me. Let us look at the tax system. Any person involved in the business of taxation advising, which I was for many years, can tell anyone who has the capacity how to convert a source of taxable income into a capital gain. Any reasonably competent accountant or tax lawyer can tell any person who has the capacity how to convert a taxable income to a tax-free capital gain. That is what honourable members opposite are again on about. They want to go back to the system under which the Income Tax Assessment Act did not just leak but had a flood pouring out of it, a flood that honourable members opposite created. When this Government came into office it did its job and plugged up the holes, but no, the coalition's friends bleated. So we have that privileged few against all the Australian wage earners, against the vast majority of families who depend on wages and pay their fair measure of tax. Honourable members opposite are going to rort them again, are they not? I do not understand the people opposite. They just baffle me. One would think they would have learnt in government what equity and fairness in taxation was all about, but they have not. There is enormous hypocrisy about this matter. Honourable members will recall that, back in 1980, the failed former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Bennelong (Mr Howard), was the Treasurer. We should not forget what happened in 1980. The then Treasurer decided that some of the rorts occurring in relation to the provision of mining housing had to be stopped. He understood then that these rorts were not fair and that somehow we had to change the system. He tried to introduce a new section into the Income Tax Assessment Act-from memory it was section 26aaa. He introduced in the House a Bill designed to impose a tax on the benefit provided to mining company employees in the form of a house. We should congratulate him on that as that was to be a tax on fringe benefits. The former failed Treasurer, to his credit, tried to do it in 1980. Let us look at what he said about it. I refer to Press release No. 81 of the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong, the hypocrite, dated 11 July 1980. What did he say about it? I quote him: A provision such as Section 26 (e) has been a feature of our taxation laws since 1915. Fairness demands that employees who are paid solely in cash as most Australians are-should not be asked to pay more tax, and thus effectively subsidise those whose income is obtained partly in cash and partly in the form of valuable benefits of other kinds, such as employer-provided residences. That statement was made by the then Treasurer, the honourable member for Bennelong. What do the people of Australia say to him today? An effective fringe benefits tax has been set up in this country to stop this practice, which he opposed in 1980, from occurring, and he now says that he is going to throw it out the door. People can make their own judgment on the credibility, the honesty and the integrity of a man such as that and the Party he represents. Let us go further. This is the man who wants to take on the trade union movement. This is the man who will do all the strong, tough things. What happened in 1980 when the union movement in Queensland went out on strike because of the Act? Did he stand up to the unions? Did he take them on? Did he exercise that toughness that he now says he has to tackle the trade union movement? Do honourable members know what he did? He capitulated. He withdrew the proposition and walked away from taxing fringe benefits. That was the action of the brave Leader of the Opposition we now have-the man full of rhetoric, the man who will not cost one promise in this House, the man who will promise everything for power but never deliver-the fistful of dollars former Treasurer. That demonstrates the sort of Leader of the Opposition and the sort of Opposition we have at the moment. Honourable members opposite should be ashamed of themselves and their proposal. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(9.29) —I rise to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 with misgivings not only for my electorate but also for the people of Australia. We on this side of the House have warned the Government for many months of the folly of its economic policies. Now those policies have brought us to the presentation of a Budget which, according to socialist policy, will cure Australia's financial problems. Looking at the Budget, what do we find? Naturally enough, we discover the common socialist elixir of imposing more taxes. In fact, the increase in taxes will amount to $1,500m in one year. When will this Government ever learn? Apart from the extra taxes announced in the Budget that will be imposed on every Australian, there are other additional taxes that will severely impact upon the viability of many small farmers, businesses and individuals in the electorate of Riverina-Darling. The recent decision by the Federal Government to reduce funding to the States will also add even more costs indirectly to every Australian because of the need for State governments to increase their taxes and charges to cover the reduction in funding. With all these additional taxes on top of the asset test, the capital gains tax and the most recent nightmare, the fringe benefits tax, I believe that the Government's promise to reduce the number of public servants is a nonsense. If anything, it will have to increase the numbers significantly to implement and process all these taxes. To understand fully why the people whom I represent, particularly those in the Murrumbidgee and Colleambally irrigation areas, are so upset about the Budget, I must turn back the clock to a speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 20 February 1983 at the Yoogalie Club in Griffith, which is in the heart of the Murrumbidgee irrigation area. The Prime Minister addressed a packed hall and clearly said: The wine industry is beset with problems. The industry is faced with the need to make bold decisions at a time of low profitability, if the industry is to be in a position to meet the opportunities of the 1980s. Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wines. I shall repeat that. The Prime Minister said: Labor is pledged not to impose a sales tax or an excise tax on wines. Mr Cobb —Did it keep that promise? Mr HICKS —No, it did not keep it, along with many other promises. This, along with the Prime Minister's guarantee not to introduce a capital gains tax, is another of his many broken promises. After bringing the fortified wine industry to its knees with an on-again off-again tax arrangement, a sales tax of 10 per cent was placed on all Australian wine in August 1984. Since then, because of the extremely competitive market-place and the over-production of grapes and wine since the imposition of the sales tax, the retail price of wine has risen only 6.5 per cent. This compares with an increase in the total consumer price index over the same period of 12.3 per cent. Therefore, the retail price of wine in real terms has declined by 5.2 per cent since the imposition of the sales tax. Clearly, the sales tax on wine has been completely absorbed along the production and distribution chain. From the reaction of growers in South Australia to the vine pull scheme, it is clear that growers have absorbed a considerable amount of the tax. This could be expected given their relative bargaining position, which is weakened by the overall level of individual family farm debt. Certainly growers in the electorate of Riverina-Darling have had major problems over the last season. In the 12 months to March 1986, sales of Australian wine were only 2.7 per cent. In volume sales were greater than the sales in the 12 months to March 1985, and this situation is not helped by the amount of wine presently being imported. A new product has recently come onto the market and, without the phenomenal sales growth exhibited by this new drink, the wine industry would be in further economic trouble. This product has also received a 10 per cent sales tax imposition. Given the current problems besetting the grape and wine industries, the Mckay Committee recommended: There should be no increase until sufficient time has gone by to measure the impact of the present tax (at least 2 to 3 years). This is particularly relevant, and obviously has been ignored by the Government. The importation of wine is another burden the local industry is having to bear. Some weeks ago I was amazed to receive a letter from a brewery lobby suggesting that because beer was heavily taxed, wine should also be taxed. What a puerile argument. If the beer lobby is savage about the amount of tax that it is paying, and I do not blame it, why does it not lobby the Government for the reduction of the taxes placed on beer rather than trying to have wine grape growers ruined and the economy of whole regions adversely affected? With this attitude it appears that much of the nation is suffering from the heavy taxing socialist mentality. The arguments against placing a tax on wine are not new but I would like to remind the House of the following: There are in excess of 400 wineries, located mainly in decentralised rural regions throughout Australia; there are 19 plants producing beer, mainly located in capital cities; and there are fewer than five distilleries in Australia making spirits other than brandy. Brandy, it should be noted, is produced in distilleries integrated with wineries. Ninety-six per cent of all wine sold in Australia is made in Australia in an annual production period of maximum duration of three months. From the highly perishable grapes grown throughout Australia, approximately 70 per cent of the grapes used for wine making are in fact suitable only for winery purposes and have no other use. Honourable members can therefore see the very real problems wine grape growers in particular face. This additional tax is going to cause extreme hardship not only to the wine industry but also to those people in regional areas who depend so much upon that industry. Mr Cobb —A decentralised industry. Mr HICKS —Yes, a decentralised industry. We all know of the problem that we are having in rural Australia because of the Government's policies, and this will cause further hardship. I turn now to the citrus industry and the Government's 10 per cent taxation on Australian fruit juice. Harking back to another quote of the Prime Minister of 20 February 1983, the honourable gentleman said: The citrus industry is threatened by the Fraser Government's decision to reduce its protection. A Labor Government will maintain existing protection levels. How this situation has changed. It is yet another broken promise. Honourable members will understand if I dwell on the citrus industry because I know that other will speak of the tax placed on other fruit juices and flavoured milk. Recently a telex was sent to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and other senior Ministers. This telex from the Australian Citrus Industry Council, representing the interests of the citrus industry, placed before the Government a request that in consideration of matters pertaining to the 1986 Budget, no action be taken to remove the current sales tax exemption provision applicable to fruit juices, fruit juice drinks and fruit juice cordial. I shall mention some of the contents of the message. It pointed out that fruit juices, fruit drinks and fruit juice cordials were subject to sales tax, but were granted exemption from tax provided that they contained not less than 25 per cent Australian fruit juice. This vitally important exemption arrangement was first introduced in 1932 to encourage the use of Australian fruit juices. The present 25 per cent content arrangement had been in place since 1953. The exemption arrangement provided an incentive to manufacturers to use Australian fruit juices at a time when the Government was encouraging a `Buy Australia' approach by consumers and, of course, we are back in that phase again. It ensured that, even though economic consideration may have favoured the greater use by manufacturers of lower-priced imported fruit juices, at least 25 per cent of the fruit juice content in the said fruit juice products would be of Australian origin. The removal of the exemption arrangement would eliminate this incentive and result in a dramatic increase in the use of imported citrus juices, with disastrous effects for Australian citrus growers and processors. We can see what is happening at this moment in Australia. Mr Cobb —It is crippling them. Mr HICKS —Yes, it is crippling them. Australian citrus juice production in 1985-86 was estimated at 150 million litres, and this production would be subject to severe economic pressures in competing with the lower priced imported product if the exemption were removed. Next week in my electorate I have a meeting with the citrus growers, who are very concerned about these imports. The citrus industry was already suffering extreme hardship in the 1986-87 season due to the collapse in world orange juice prices in 1986 and its resultant effect on the industry, particularly the growing and processing sectors. The removal of the exemption would undoubtedly further exacerbate this hardship and contribute to additional grower viability problems, loss of employment opportunities in the industry and a serious effect on the economies of the inland citrus-producing regions and irrigation districts, including those in the Riverina. The removal of the exemption would increase the retail cost of the product to the consumer and this increase would be particularly severe on pensioners and low-income families who see these products containing at least 25 per cent Australian fruit juice as an important `food' in the `necessities of life' categories. Mr Cobb —Vitamin C. Mr HICKS —Yes, vitamin C. As an alternative to increasing the retail price, manufacturers could move away from producing products containing at least 25 per cent fruit juice to lower juice content products. The product would be then in the same category as carbonated soft drinks, which contain little or no fruit juice. Consumers, particularly pensioners and low-income families, would have reduced access to these beverages, which contain an important level of nutritional value. This research has confirmed the important role of fruit and fruit juices in providing an invaluable source of dietary fibre to the community. Previous governments have always wisely recognised the value of fruit juice products to the community and now, despite the crisis faced by the growers and their families in the citrus industry, the Hawke Government has decided to deal them another savage blow. The worst fears of the industry previously mentioned have been realised. I should like to draw to the attention of the House and recommend a document produced by the Australian Catholic Welfare Commission entitled `A Fair Go for Families'. We in the National Party believe that the family is the primary unit of support and nurture for individuals. The document points out the serious situation in which many Australian families find themselves today as the result of this and previous Federal Budgets. Over the last 10 years there has been a major decline in Federal economic support for the Australian family. For instance, the tax imposed on the family with four children living on average weekly earnings has increased by 435 per cent while wages have increased by only 135 per cent. This, in Australia, is simply unbelievable. Even families with two children will be receiving tax rebates worth 0.78 per cent of average weekly earnings, whereas in 1951 the average weekly earner with two children had his taxable income reduced by a deduction worth 21.56 per cent of average weekly earnings; that is, 0.78 per cent compared with 21.56 per cent. It is a sound principle of social philosophy that the State should not take upon itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller bodies. The family is a natural society which existed prior to the State or any other community and possesses rights which are inalienable. Poverty hinders many Australian families, whether living on their own income or supported by social security benefits, from performing with dignity their role of caring for family members. Family incomes must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity either through an appropriate salary, often called a family wage, or through other social measures such as family allowances, tax rebates or the financial recognition of the work performed in the home by one of the parents. Family incomes should be such that one parent is not obliged to work outside the home to the detriment of family life and especially, the emotional stability and education of the children. Yet the only area of welfare that has received spending cuts is that of family allowances. Spending has been cut by 11.2 per cent. Mr Cowan —And aged pensions. Mr HICKS —Certainly aged pensions have been delayed, but actual recognised cuts to Australian families amount to 11.2 per cent. The Government has decided to penalise families at the most expensive time for parents by means testing the family allowance payments for 16- and 17-year-olds. I wonder what happens when one has a 16- or 17-year-old on unemployment benefits. Is that situation means tested? I can see a very serious problem developing here and I can see the whole situation getting out of hand. There is also the new Government scheme to pay an amount to those 16- and 17-year-olds who wish to live away from home for one reason or another. I can see a serious situation developing in that respect. Surely the Government should be spending some money in trying to keep families together instead of trying to keep families apart, or so it seems from every piece of legislation that comes before this Parliament. Most Australian taxpayers with dependants, especially single income families, will suffer a decline in real income by 1988, despite the proposed new tax scales devised after the 1985 Tax Summit. It is clear that the tax system penalises families with children, particularly single income and large families. Failure to protect the interests of families, particularly large single income families, in the taxation system and in some components of the social security system means that the Federal Government is allowing the standard of living of parents and children to fall while protecting childless groups through the accord and the indexation of adult pensions. The Australian tax system effectively ignores the cost of caring for dependants. In the main, it treats taxpayers with children no differently from their childless workmates. Family unit taxation is already a component of the Australian taxation system. The tax system allows voluntary income sharing for tax purposes among family members in company and business partnerships. If the tax system can be arranged to suit the families of owners of businesses and investment property, there is no reason why family unit taxation, through splitting family income against family members, should not be made available to pay as you earn taxpayers with dependants. To refuse income splitting to these taxpayers, as the present Federal Government advocated in its 1985 draft White Paper on taxation reform, is to treat ordinary workers as second class citizens. It is notable that the Australian Council of Trade Unions supported the extension of income splitting rights to wage and salary earners before the Asprey Taxation Review Committee. Children are a social asset, not a luxury. They are a nation's investment in the future. My time has almost run out and there are many things I would have liked to have spoken on, particularly the increase in the excise on fuel from 6.1c per litre in March 1983 to 23.9c per litre today. In my electorate of Riverina-Darling, where most things have to be trucked in, where everything is transported and a great amount of fuel is used, not only on the farms, it will add to the price of just about every commodity that is brought into the electorate. I would also just quickly like to mention the Army Reserve. At last the Government has woken up to the fact that the only way to have any sort of an Army Reserve is to reward those people who provide that service to the nation, all of them very dedicated people. We were all aghast to learn that the Government had cut out the taxation provisions for Army reservists. I am pleased to say that now the Government has restored those taxation provisions for the Army reservists. I say also to the Government, while I am on my feet, that I think it is about time that it got very serious about this matter and provided some finance for these young people, particularly in country areas, to travel to their units for training, and also so that these people can have some time in training. They are dedicated; otherwise they would not be in the Army Reserve, and I just ask the Government to think seriously about supporting these young Army reservists in the way they deserve. Mr FREE(Lindsay)(9.46) —In Melbourne last evening, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), in the course of an address on the Budget, favoured his audience with a literary illusion in terms of Norman Lindsay's famous The Magic Pudding. This marvellous creation in the book was a self-replacing pudding. The characters in the book could place enormous demands on the pudding and its response was to regenerate itself. In the words of the book, one could cut and come again. I must say that I am pleased with that Prime Ministerial allusion for two reasons. First, it allows me the opportunity to do a commercial. It allows me the opportunity to draw to the attention of the House to an excellent exhibition titled `The Plague of Lindsays', which is currently on display at the National Trust's Norman Lindsay Gallery at Faulconbridge. The exhibition is sponsored by James Hardie Industries Ltd. It was opened last weekend by John Reid, the Chairman of Hardies, and the exhibition concentrates on the early illustrative works of the remarkable Lindsay family. As the member for the electorate which bears the Lindsay name, I am pleased to discharge my responsibility by saying that the exhibition is certainly well worth a visit and to encourage people to go along and enjoy it. I am pleased with that allusion for a second reason. It very neatly encapsulates the message of this Budget. We all recognise that while demands may be infinite, the resources to meet them in the real world of 1986 most certainly are not. In many ways they are diminishing resources and that means difficult choices and unpalatable decisions for the Government. Given this environment, the Government has had the courage to do three very necessary things. First, it has faced the realities of Australia's current position and it has taken the public into its confidence. Secondly, it has recognised that there is no easy way out of our difficulty, that there is absolutely no quick fix and that sacrifices have to be made in the short term for long term benefits. Thirdly, the Government has asserted very firmly that in the face of these difficulties the burden of sacrifice must be shared. That is the government position. I believe that it is the position of the overwhelming majority of Australians. It is certainly the position of the overwhelming majority of the commentators, and I believe it to be the position of the trade union movement. The commentators yesterday gave the Budget a response that could really only be described by the term `rave reviews'. Let me quote from the Melbourne Age. The commentator said: As the Prime Minister amply warned, the Budget is `tough'. But, also as promised, the Treasurer has done his utmost, within the constraints imposed by economic imperatives, to distribute the burdens fairly. Further down he said: . . . The imposed burdens have been necessary in aggregate and have been generally distributed to the best economic advantage and least social detriment. The Australian said of the Budget: The Federal Government has given us a tough budget, but one that deserves considerable praise. The Australian Financial Review referred to the Budget as `economically responsible and politically honest'. The Canberra Times headed its editorial `A Sensible Budget'. I referred earlier to the trade unions. The co-operation that the trade unions have provided to the Government under the prices and incomes accord has been magnificent. That co-operation has been an essential ingredient in the many successes and important achievements of the Government and of the progress that has been made since March 1983. I remind the House of the record. In the past four successive financial years, real labour costs have fallen each year. So, too, have working days lost through strikes. The paradox was noted by Ross Gittins in the Sydney Morning Herald in April. He said: The more the unions have lifted their game, the more strident the Right's anti-union rhetoric has become. The more evidence has emerged of the Accord working, the more demands have grown that it be smashed. At a time when union militancy is demonstrably at its lowest ebb in memory, we're hearing more about `the abuse of union power' than ever before. Katharine West has drifted so far from reality as to speak of `ousting the union dictatorship'. Far from what commentators such as Katharine West would have us believe, it is widely recognised that all Australians have been the beneficiaries of sensible, co-operative industrial relations. In particular, I am glad that sense appears to be prevailing on the question of holiday loadings and flexitime. Despite claims to the contrary, holiday loadings operate at equal or greater levels in many overseas countries. The hidden agenda behind the current campaign for their abolition is to impose a selective wage cut and to throw the burden on to wage and salary earners. It is certainly a burden that would not be borne by the non-wage sector. Those who argue for the abolition of flexitime also miss the point. Flexible hours maximise the use of plant and equipment in the work place, provide overall extended hours of service and reduce peak demand on transport systems. The practice should be encouraged and extended. Those who point to the abuses, whether real or imagined, are arguing only against badly administered systems of flexible hours. Those arguments would apply in respect of any badly run system. Properly run, the system can and does produce great benefits. I referred earlier to the common position which I believe is emerging following Tuesday night's Budget-a position that is shared by the Government, the majority of the public, the commentators and the unions- Mr Beale —But not the financial markets. Mr FREE —And not you either. In this context, it is not unreasonable to ask where the Opposition stands. One commentator in the Melbourne Age mentioned the `responsibility and duty' of the Opposition to at least agree that a nation in crisis has to face up to hard options. He asked the question: Will John Howard be big enough to accept that national survival is at least as important as short-term political advantage? On recent form, the chances of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) being big enough to accept that proposition are 100 to one. It is not even a chance, because he is not even a trier. He made his position clear at the Liberal Party's recent Adelaide conference, when he said that he would be concentrating on the 2.5 per cent of voters that he needs to sway to win the next election. The Leader of the Opposition-the leader of the party of individual selfishness and collective greed-will seek to anaesthetise public intelligence for a period sufficient to extract those necessary votes. The evidence is clear from the Liberal Party's recent advertising campaign. We have all seen the advertisements where a hairy fist squeezes an object of unknown origin to produce a liquid that varies in colour in the different editions of the newspapers from orange through to red. The advertisements say that only a Liberal government will scrap Labor's fringe benefits tax, scrap Labor's capital gains tax, scrap Labor's superannuation lump sum tax and scrap Labor's assets test. Those four promises would cost $940m each year. That is $940m on top of the Leader of the Opposition's April expenditure promises of $1,500m a year and on top of the National Party's promises to the rural sector of $500m. Those figures are all part of John Howard's $11 billion credibility gap that we heard about at Question Time today. It is clear that the architect of the $9.6 billion deficit has learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. Given the chance, he would do it to Australia all over again. In the first edition of the National Times on Sunday, Patrick Cook identified the Liberal obsession with the hairy fist syndrome in political advertising. It began many years ago with one of Bob Askin's advertisements in New South Wales. That consisted of two hands clasped. It has been a recurring theme in Liberal Party advertising since then. Who could possibly forget the Liberal Party advertisement in the 1977 election campaign? That was the famous fistful of dollars campaign. There were two hairy fists, one empty and one full of $5 notes. The message back in 1977 was: Liberal gives tax cuts. Wage earners will receive extra dollars in every pay packet. The slogan was: Liberal. Doing the job. We all remember what happened to those tax cuts. They were the famous Claytons tax cuts, which were taken away by the Liberal Treasurer, who is now the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that he remembers equally the reaction to the mini Budget that broke those promises and took those tax cuts back. I am sure that the Leader of the Opposition remembers the article in the Illawarra Mercury at the time, which had the headline `Lies, lies, lies!'. There was a picture of John Howard and the comment that Mr Howard had brought down a savage mini Budget which broke two promises on personal income tax. The Leader of the Opposition simply cannot be believed and cannot be trusted. The promises to scrap fringe benefits tax, capital gains tax, the tax on lump sums and the assets test would not only cost $940m a year but would reintroduce the abuses of tax avoidance and double dipping that were abolished by the reforms of the Labor Government. I refer especially to the fringe benefits tax, because the Liberal Party in New South Wales has been writing to people recently. Most of their mail is passed on to me pretty smartly. This was a letter sent last week by Mr Robert Frost, the chairman of the central Finance Committee of the Liberal Party's New South Wales division. It uses pretty extravagant language. It is printed in two colours with much underlining. The sting is in the tail of the letter, where he says: If you could send a special contribution of at least $50 it would be a great help . . . Or better yet, if you could manage $75, $100 or even more, we could fund the most intensive campaign to get rid of Labor . . . Right now we're pre-selecting Liberal candidates in marginal Labor seats and it's their campaigns we have to fund to beat Labor. And your contribution will help do that. They have not been very successful in my area. Twice in recent weeks they have opened and closed nominations without finding a candidate. I should add that Mr Frost seems to be a little out of date. He gets stuck into the Australian Democrats in this letter as well, and calls them the `soft-bellied Democrats'. He invites the recipients of the letters to send postcards to Senator Don Chipp. I do not think he was aware that the leadership was about to change. It is a fascinating item of correspondence in the Liberal Party's current campaign against the fringe benefits tax, which has been a most dishonest campaign. We all recognise that abolition of the fringe benefits tax would mean a return to a system under which the vast majority of pay as you earn taxpayers would, once again be subsidising the lurks and perks enjoyed by the privileged few at the expense of the many. The abolition of the tax would mean a return to the days of tax minimisation, for which the majority of taxpayers would pay $500m a year. The fringe benefits tax is an essential part of this Government's tax reform package. It is essential for three reasons: Firstly, because it brings fairness and equity into the overall tax system; secondly, because it will help pay for the cuts in personal income tax that are an integral part of the package, the Government's two stage program to reduce marginal rates as well as the corporate taxation return; and thirdly, because it is only through a fairer and more stable taxation system and a more efficient economy that we will be able to help to give Australia a better economic future. We need have no doubt about it-the Liberals commitment to abolish the fringe benefits tax amounts to a commitment to tax loopholes, to an unfair system and to higher levels of direct taxation. It amounts to a return to injustice in taxation. Earlier in my remarks I referred to the importance in the Budget strategy of sharing the burden. I am pleased that the Budget contains some measures to protect the poorest Australians. In particular, I was pleased to see that the family income supplement was increased because I have been concerned for some time about the extent to which the family income supplement is taken up. My concern began at the opening of the new office of the Department of Social Security in Penrith in my electorate some months ago when I noticed that the regional office statistics for the family income supplement showed that only 73 families in the area served by that office were receiving the family income supplement. I believe that many more than that number would be eligible. In thinking about it, I can see some problems with the administration of the family income supplement. I think there are two important problems that ought to be addressed. The family income supplement is not a terribly visible benefit and, for that reason, public awareness of its existence tends to be lower than awareness of other benefits. There is obviously very wide awareness in the public that the age pension becomes available at a particular age and that people apply for this pension as they become eligible. The family income supplement is rather different because eligibility depends on the income level of the family concerned. The second reason is that eligible families-to be eligible one cannot be in receipt of another benefit-would be unlikely to be regular or even occasional visitors to Department of Social Security offices, and that is where the information is available. The actual extent of the problem across Australia is very difficult to gauge. There are some overseas figures on take-up rates of similar programs and they are not terribly satisfactory either. A similar program, called the family income supplement scheme, runs in Britain. The best estimates in the mid-1970s of the take-up rate in the United Kingdom was 75 per cent. Following some controversy about difficulties involved in actually measuring the take-up rate there was a rather dramatic downwards revision of the estimates in 1979 that suggested that only about half of those eligible families in Britain actually participated. There is a similar scheme in the United States of America as well-the assistance to families with dependant children scheme. There have been estimates of the take-up rate in the United States also, but they are equally unsatisfactory. In the 1970s the estimates of the take-up rate varied from 20 per cent to almost all eligible families participating. The task in Australia is equally complicated by a lack of appropriate information. But a calculation based on the 1984 household expenditure survey suggested that of a possible 150,000 eligible families only 26,000 families were taking up the benefit. It is likely that the estimate of 150,000 is a high estimate. Some of those families may be ineligible because they are receiving some other cash benefit. This difficulty does concern me. I trust that it will be taken up in the current review and that some investigation will be undertaken into the means of providing better information services, co-ordination of the Commonwealth Employment Service with the Department of Social Security and the possible use of the records of the Australian Taxation Office to identify the eligible and very needy families that may be missing out on a very important Commonwealth benefit. I simply say in commending the Budget that I am pleased that it recognises the great challenges that face this nation and recognises and spells out very clearly that there is no easy way out of our problems and no quick fix. It is a long haul. I commend the Budget to the House. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.07) —The Budget Speech made by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has firmly identified that Australia is suffering a serious economic crisis. He even acknowledged in his preliminary remarks that the economy was `doing so poorly in 1986'. He further identified that `the answer lies in the dramatic collapse in world commodity prices since late last year'. Having diagnosed the economic crisis, the Treasurer then told us not to worry, that he would fix everything, and he proposes to do it by increasing taxation. Everybody is now aware that both the Treasurer and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) have acknowledged Australia's economic difficulties only in the last few months. Until that time they were telling the Australian people that our economy was running along smoothly, that we were experiencing healthy growth and that the Government had the situation well under control. Incredible as it may seem, in view of their bullish statements for the greater part of the last fiscal year, the Treasurer's own Budget Papers for the year 1985-86, which were presented to the Parliament and the people of Australia a year ago, had already drawn attention to what the Treasurer now calls the heart of our economic problems. On page 73 of last year's Budget Paper No. 1, the following sentence appears: A marked deterioration in the terms of trade is expected reflecting primarily the relative weakness of world prices for our commodity based products. Not a slight deterioration, a small deterioration, or even just a deterioration, but a marked deterioration in terms of trade was expected according to the Budget Paper. It is to be hoped that, in sharp contrast to last year, the Treasurer actually reads the present Budget Papers. If he reads them they will tell him the following: Inflation in Australia will be several times higher than the inflation rate of our major trading partners; unemployment in our community will rise; our terms of trade will continue to deteriorate despite the savage decline in the value of the Australian dollar against the currencies of our major trading partners that has occurred over the past year; and interest rates will stay at high levels. It should be noted that there is very little mention of the sort of monetary policy the Government intends to pursue. Will it defend the dollar or not? What trade off does the Government see between interest rates and currency stability? For how long will monetary policy be used to protect the value of our currency if the technical recession in which Australia now finds itself is to continue? The Budget Papers also say that household disposable income and domestic demand will fall; investment will be lower; wages will increase by 6 per cent; the public sector debt is now over 50 per cent of gross domestic product; public sector interest payments are at record levels; and our overseas debt is at a record level and will probably be around $100 billion by the end of the current financial year. In the housing industry, expenditure on dwellings will fall by 5 per cent and expenditure on non-dwelling construction will also fall. If the Treasurer reads the Budget Papers, that is what he will find. Those points are a very succinct summary of the economic mess into which the Government has led us. Unbelievably, the Treasurer's response is to increase taxation. Taxation receipts for the current year will be substantially higher than in the last two years, as will be total receipts. Furthermore, in another piece of sleight of hand, the Budget's funding is assisted by an involuntary donation from the Reserve Bank of Australia. This involuntary donation from the Reserve Bank is spelt out on page 392 of Budget Paper No. 1. In 1976-77, the Reserve Bank contributed $80m to the coffers of the Commonwealth Treasury. In the first Budget of the current Government in 1983-84, this figure rose to $746m but the estimate for the current year is a massive $2.6 billion. That is the extent to which the Reserve Bank has been forced to dip into its reserves to help bale out the Government. There has been a great deal of hoopla from the Government about the fact that the deficit has been reduced. The forecast for the current year is $3.5 billion compared with the forecast for the previous year of $4.9 billion. This reduced deficit has been achieved not by spending cuts, as promised by the Government, but by increases in taxation and a huge and reluctant donation from the Reserve Bank. Here we see yet another action by the Government that will contribute further to the seriousness of Australia's economic position. At present the Reserve Bank is spending a great deal of money, valiantly trying to protect the value of the Australian dollar. Yet the Government has weakened the Bank's ability to protect our currency by robbing it of the necessary reserves that it requires to do so. Furthermore, it should be clear to everybody that the deficit assumption of $3.5 billion is very shaky indeed. There could be no better way to justify this than to examine what happened last year. Last year, the Treasurer estimated a deficit of $4.9 billion. The deficit turned out to be $5.7 billion, or really $6.5 billion if one counts the extra $800m taken from the Reserve Bank. That figure would have been even higher had not the Government broken its trilogy promise by raising taxes earlier this year. We heard a great deal about the trilogy in the 1984 election campaign. We have heard very little from the Government about the trilogy since the Government broke its promise not to lift tax revenues as a share of gross domestic product from the 1984-85 level either in 1985-86 or over the life of the Parliament. Accordingly, the deficit figure looks very shaky indeed. Furthermore, we should be quite clear that a deficit is a deficit. It is grossly misleading to say, as the Treasurer has implied, that the Government has improved its position by $1.4 billion from last year to this year as a result of a reduction in the deficit year to year from $4.9 billion to $3.5 billion. The fact is that this year, according to the Treasurer, Government debt will increase by a further $3.5 billion. The Government has made us $3.5 billion worse off this year. Repayment of Commonwealth debt is the third largest item of expenditure in the Federal Budget. It is higher than expenditure on defence; it is higher than expenditure on health and higher than expenditure on education. What we are now seeing is that funds that might have been used for legitimate government services or given back to the taxpayer as lower taxes in order to increase demand, investment and jobs are now being dissipated in debt repayment. In order to achieve this deficit level of $3.5 billion, the Government has proudly boasted that there will be no increase in Government expenditure in real terms in the current year. What sort of achievement is that? Debate interrupted. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! It being 10.15 p.m. I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. Mr Scholes-I require that the question be put forthwith without debate. Question resolved in the negative. (Budget Debate) Debate resumed. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(10.15) —What sort of an achievement is that when we are looking at such a high base? Government expenditure in real terms rose at an annual rate of just over 2 per cent in the seven years of the previous coalition Government. Yet in three years of the current Government, expenditure in real terms has risen at around 7 per cent, 6 per cent and 3 per cent respectively. After having increased Government expenditure so sharply in the past three years, it can hardly be described as a worthwhile achievement that the Government is estimated to contain Government expenditure to zero per cent growth in real terms in the current year. We need to understand how the Government has got Australia into such an economic mess. We need to understand how the Government has lost the confidence of both international and local investors. What has happened is that as a nation we have been spending at a much faster rate than we have been earning. This has resulted in a massive increase in Australia's overseas debt relative to our total output. In the past four years our gross overseas debt has increased from around 16 per cent to nearly 36 per cent of our gross domestic product. Our overseas reserves have been run down and we have now had four years in which the current account deficit has climbed from around 4 per cent to around 6 per cent of gross domestic product. This deteriorating situation compares with the historical two and a half per cent level of current account deficit to gross domestic product. As the Treasurer said, the problem arises because our terms of trade have deteriorated sharply. Since most of this deterioration has occurred over the past two years, the Government should have acted responsibly to change its policies and to create an environment which would allow the necessary adjustments to occur without creating the instability and uncertainty that now exists. The Government has failed to take the necessary steps to create that environment. It has blamed everybody but itself. It has blamed overseas investors; it has blamed the financial markets; it has blamed local management and it has blamed local investors. The Government should have recognised-and taken the appropriate responses-that we have been living in an increasingly competitive world in which demand for our products has been slowing. What the Government should have been doing was to take steps to improve our international competitiveness and contain our domestic spending to a rate more consistent with our capacity to earn. The Government's fundamental mistake was to rely on the depreciation of our exchange rate to allow it to maintain its big spending policies. The effect of Government policies, and the splurge in domestic spending, increased imports and held back exports, added to our current account deficit and external debt and caused the depreciation of our exchange rate 12 to 18 months ago-long before the terms of trade started their major deterioration. The Government's policy of growth at all costs has indeed been costly and we will have to pay a high price. A good deal of our economic growth over the past few years has been based on shaky ground. It has been overseas borrowings that have financed the binge of consumption in both the public and private sectors. The Government's economic policy failures now mean that for some years we will need to contain domestic spending consistent with reducing the current account deficit. Furthermore, the Government has failed to realise that there will be continued weak demand for our exports and the likelihood of a fall in price of those exports. The Government should not base its economic strategy on the assumption that revenue from our exports will show any significant increase over the years ahead. The Government must also recognise that it will take some time to create an economic environment that is conducive for Australian manufacturers to develop facilities that will produce import replacements. Our heavy dependence on imports of capital equipment should continue, and when business investment starts to recover, import volumes will increase. The Government has also failed to recognise that the Australian currency remains very much at risk. Some of the depreciation that has taken place over the past 18 months may have been necessary to improve international competitiveness, but it should be emphasised that further falls would be counter-productive. If we are to attract the foreign capital that is required to finance our large current account deficit, we must have domestic conditions conductive to foreigners making large purchases of Australian securities and to discourage Australians from making large investments offshore. It is clear that there has been a complete loss of confidence by both overseas and domestic investors in the Government's capacity to adopt the policies needed for a stable exchange rate. That confidence must be restored by firmer domestic policies to achieve exchange rate stability. What has happened to the Australian economy over the last few years demonstrates the high price we are paying for our inflexible wages system. The small reduction that has occurred in real wages in recent times is totally inadequate for Australia's economic needs. It is this that marks the accord between the Labor Party and the Australian Council of Trade Unions as a failure and makes nonsense of claims by the ACTU that the trade union movement is unable to bear any further cuts in real wages. If a significant reduction cannot be achieved through adjustments to real wages, we will see the emergence of much higher unemployment and a stagnating economy. Bold and firm decisions are needed to restore Australia's economic viability, and this Government has failed the test. It is clear that what needs to be done is for the Government to adopt significant changes in its fiscal and wages policies. What has been suggested in the Budget Papers is totally inadequate. Australia needs reduction in taxation, both personal and corporate, in order to restore incentive. Australia needs the abolition of disincentive taxes-the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. Australia needs less government expenditure. It is vital that we reduce our reliance on external savings. To achieve this, the Government must effect a major reduction in the public sector's call on savings. If it does not do this, the only way in which our reliance on external savings can be reduced is by a recession in private sector spending. A zero per cent increase in government expenditure is inadequate, given the high base from which the current financial year commenced. Australia needs a sharp curtailment in the growth of wages; major changes in work practices; the abolition of all unnecessary regulations which inhibit business and personal freedom; and a review of our education system so that it is geared to careers and not to teacher's hobbies. We in the Opposition know what Australia needs. A coalition government would create a climate of lower taxes, less government involvement in our lives, a freer wages market and lower interest rates that would encourage investment in our industry. The Government has identified that Australia is in a severe economic crisis and that the major contributing reason for this lies in our inability to sell more to the rest of the world than we buy from the rest of the world. But this Government has introduced a Budget that demonstrably fails to deal with the crisis. It should have created an environment for lower interest rates; it should have cut taxes, not increased them; it should have cut government expenditure in real terms; and it should have determined a policy that will cause real wages to fall. This Budget is a major disappointment and the Government has failed the Australian people. However, the next coalition government will not fail them. Debate (on motion by Mrs Kelly) adjourned. Motion (by Mr West) proposed: That the House do now adjourn. Mr WHITE(McPherson)(10.25) —I raise briefly an important matter relating to the Australian Institute of Sport. It has been reported that on 5 August members of the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Australian Federal Police raided the Australian Institute of Sport, a private home in New South Wales and some premises in Melbourne. Because the Criminal Investigation Branch is involved, it is obviously no light matter. This is but one of the continuing saga of the problems that have beset the Institute of Sport for some time. People at the Institute, people who take an interest in sport generally, and I, are disturbed that the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism (Mr John Brown) has not made a statement on this matter. I have spoken to him and he has declined to make a statement. I believe the matter should be raised in the House in an effort to get some response from the Government. At the very least, the Minister owes it to the staff and members of the Australian Institute of Sport to give an explanation as to what is happening, because the morale of the staff and the athletes at the Institute has suffered. We should have had a full inquiry last November. Although at that time the Minister said that all was well, I said that an auditor's check on the problems at the Institute was not enough and, as it has turned out, it was not enough because the Criminal Investigation Branch of the Federal Police is now involved. Since last November the Auditor-General's staff and the Department of Finance have been crawling all over the place in an effort to tighten up the administration. On behalf of the Opposition and all the taxpayers of this country who are contributing $12m in this year's Budget to the Australian Institute of Sport, I ask these questions: When will the Minister address the problem? Will he address it before he retires from this Parliament-which, according to him, might be imminent as apparently he has had enough? Did the raids in fact take place? Mr Young —We are not going to tell you. Mr WHITE —There is the man who should be answering the question. What about the staff and athletes at the Institute? Will they be kept in limbo for days, weeks or months? Mr Young —We are not going to tell you. Mr WHITE —I see. It will be a deep, dark secret in the Minister's little cabinet. Mr Young —You wait until you win the election in the year 2020. Mr WHITE —It will not be that long, my friend. When are we likely to know what is to happen as a result of these police raids? Mr Young —Why don't you join the police force? Mr WHITE —The honourable gentleman is the responsible Minister. What about telling the taxpayers who are contributing $12m to keep the Institute running? That is a fair question. Why does not the Minister say something instead of having a little giggle and saying `I'm not going to tell you'. Does the Minister still maintain that all is well? Does he intend to get up and tell us another funny joke about the police, the Institute and the 300 athletes who are waiting to find out what is happening? Why was there not a full inquiry in November? Is all of the staff at the Institute under suspicion? If not, who is? Why were the police raids also carried out in New South Wales and Victoria? Why were the raids carried out by the Criminal Investigation Branch? These are some of the questions that should be answered. There is no question of the matter being sub judice. It is not before the courts; no charges have been laid. Why did those raids take place? How long will the people at the Institute be kept in suspense as to what is going on out there? The Minister is obviously too tired or too disillusioned to turn his attention to this matter. As I said, this matter was raised a couple of weeks ago. For God's sake, if the Minister cannot address the problems that have been going on at the Institute for months on end, he should get out and give someone else a go. The fact is that these problems have been going on for months. The Criminal Investigation Branch of the Federal Police is now involved. The Special Minister of State (Mr Young), who is responsible for the police, sits on the front bench and giggles as though it is a light matter. Thirteen or 14 people from the Criminal Investigation Branch raided the Institute and other premises. For God's sake, show some sense and tell us what is going on out there, instead of leaving all of those people in limbo. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CAMPBELL(Kalgoorlie)(10.30) —I wish to refer to a letter written by Mr J. B. Leslie, Chairman of Qantas Airways Ltd published in the Australian Financial Review of 28 July 1986. I would say in passing that, if that newspaper wants to maintain its claim to being a responsible newspaper, it should at least give an opportunity for an alternative point of view to be put in its letters column. On that occasion it gave Mr Leslie a large amount of space in which to put his case. In view of Australia's most recent and worrying balance of trade figures, I feel it is timely to take to task recent critics of Australian exporters attempting to increase the nation's share of world trade. In particular I would like to correct the defence of Qantas recently reported by its Chairman, Mr J. B. Leslie. Mr Leslie has poured scorn on attempts by other international airlines to help Australia's present trading problems by providing air freight services to our falling Middle East markets and elsewhere. He argued against a deregulation of international air rights and the freeing of international freight markets. His public arguments were made shortly before it was officially announced that Australia's current account deficit in July of $1.5 billion was almost $500m more than in June. While the fluctuating Australian dollar helps the export side of the Australian economy, it is obvious from the latest figures that more needs to be achieved and by all possible means. While Mr Leslie may feel that Qantas has the capacity to service chilled primary produce markets, two salient points need to be made. First, Qantas is, as fast as possible, introducing one stop flights to London, by passing most Middle East ports. Secondly, Australian exports to the Gulf states fell from a peak of $115m in the year ending June 1984 to $70m in the year ending June 1985. These specific markets were found to be highly attractive by the Middle East food export drive set up by the then Secretary to the Department of Trade, Mr John Menadue, who now happens to be the General Manager of Qantas. Mr Leslie is on record as asserting that there are no new markets for which Qantas and other scheduled carriers are not currently catering. These assertions not only fly in the face of findings by the Scully Review of International Airfreight Policy but go against independent studies by the State governments of New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia and such bodies as the National Farmers Federation. For example, the Western Australian Government old the Scully Review: It seems to have been too easy for regulators and the regulated alike to convince themselves that the service they provide caters for demand. What disturbs both the producer representatives bodies and the Western Australian Government is that, if this situation persists, would-be exporters will lose heart and cease to attempt to produce for markets which an inadequate transport service denies them access to. Mr Leslie, in his public comments, attempted to shoot down the attempts by an Asian airline which is seeking to resume scheduled flights to and from Australia and promising to deliver Australian primary produce to the Middle East. On 15 August the Government of Sri Lanka lodged an application for the resumption of scheduled direct air services between Australia and Colombo by its national airline, Airlanka. The application was lodged under the existing air service agreement signed by the two countries in 1950. The agreement is still in force. Airlanka proposes to run a twice weekly Sydney- Melbourne-Perth-Colombo and return service using a Boeing 747 Combi aircraft. Each aircraft would be capable of carrying 42 tonnes of freight, which could to transhipped at Colombo to lucrative Middle East markets. A key to the Airlanka proposal will be the establishment of chilling facilities, with Australian management and equity participation in the free trade zone at Colombo. It will make use of 30 outward flights a week to the Gulf states. To the Gulf area alone ex Colombo, there are six weekly flights to Abu Dhabi, two to Bahrain, four to Dhahran, one to Doha, seven to Dubai, two to Jedda, four to Kuwait, three to Muscat and even two to Tripoli. It is positive offers such as these which will help Australia trade its way out of economic difficulties. It is the negative and knocking attitudes of certain sections of the Australian business world and the bureaucracies which will not help. Mr REITH(Flinders)(10.35) —One of the standards of good government is for Ministers not only to be above reproach but to be seen to be above reproach. It is a standard that is acknowledged throughout the Western democracies and was a hallmark of the Fraser Administration. Last week the National Times on Sunday raised serious allegations about the conduct of the Treasurer (Mr Keating). On Tuesday at Question Time I asked the Treasurer what steps he intended to take to answer the allegations. On Wednesday a question from the media provided him with an opportunity to answer one aspect of the allegations. On both occasions he avoided the question and heaped abuse on the questioner. I make no allegations. I simply put the proposition that the newspaper article raises more questions than it answers and the Treasurer has an obligation to clear the air. The questions that should be answered-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) -Order! The honourable member should be aware that he cannot come into the House and make allegations about another member except upon a substantive motion. That is the standing order. Mr REITH —Mr Deputy Speaker, I made it quite clear that I was making no allegations. I was simply going to ask some questions which I believe required answering. One can hardly call a question an allegation. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —One cannot couch questions in the form of an aspersion. Mr Porter —Perhaps we ought to hear the questions first. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Barker does not have the call, so he will remain seated and quiet. If a member wishes to make allegations against another member, it has to be by substantive motion. That is clearly the forms of the House. I am quite happy to entertain a motion from the honourable member, except that it would be out of order at this stage, I would think. The honourable member may wish to couch his points in some other way, but he should be aware of the fact that he cannot just stand up and do what I think he is about to do. Mr REITH —Frankly, that may be rather indicative, may it not? The simple situation is that I have made the statement that I do not intend making any allegations. I simply intend to ask the questions and as you said, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have not as yet heard one of the questions. I would appreciate the opportunity to put the questions. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member said that he thought that there were allegations made which needed answering. The Standing Orders provide that if a member makes imputations, if he makes allegations, if he wishes to say something that is open to debate, he does so by substantive motion. I refer the honourable member to the standing order concerned-it is standing order 76. Standing Order 76 reads: All imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly. Mr REITH —I have not as yet made any allegations, nor have I had an opportunity as yet-an opportunity I should have as a private member in the adjournment debate-to ask the questions, which I do intend asking. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I am warning the honourable member that he should be aware-- Mr REITH —In that case I shall proceed. I shall be quite happy to proceed, Mr Deputy Speaker. My first question is: On how many occasions has the Treasurer utilised for free helicopters provided by Mr Warren Anderson or any company in which Mr Warren Anderson is a shareholder and/or director? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Flinders is aware that one cannot use the form of questions as a method of imputation against a member. If one wishes to canvass issues such as that, one should do it by substantive motion. The Chair would be quite happy at the appropriate time to entertain a substantive motion. Mr REITH —If you are ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, that there was an imputation in my first question, I invite you to make a similar ruling in regard to my second question, which is: Has the Treasurer ever sold any property to Mr Warren Anderson? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SNOW(Eden-Monaro)(10.40) —I wish to refer to a recent media release by Senator Michael Baume who often comes into the Eden-Monaro electorate for five minutes or speaks from afar, pontificating about local issues with little regard to local knowledge. He also pontificates about national issues with little regard to accuracy. In a recent media statement Senator Baume said that Australia's pensioners were being forced into paying for a number of commonly used drugs from 1 November. These drugs had previously been available free under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. I would point out that this is a gross inaccuracy. In fact, it is not the Government which has removed certain items from the pharmaceutical benefits scheme; it was the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) acting on the advice of the Pharmaceutical Advisory Committee which consists of medical practitioners and pharmacists who are specially appointed to look at the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. Senator Michael Baume went on to say that the Government had tried to sneak the changes in by stealth, by advising pharmacists that a number of analgesics and other products had been deleted from the pensioner list. First of all, I would point out that the reference was to the Minister from the Committee-a committee of doctors and pharmacists-who told him that these items were not essential. Opposition members interjecting- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Eden-Monaro is trying to make a point. Honourable members on my left might listen to him carefully. Mr SNOW —I point out to honourable members opposite that pharmacists and doctors made this recommendation. They recommended that there were other items which were more important and which should come under the scheme. These items were more expensive and therefore it was more important that they should be available to pensioners. Senator Baume also made the point that an item prescribed for angina-glyceryl trinitrate-had been deleted from the pensioner list. There was only one particular product in that range of items that had been deleted from the list-it was a patch containing the glyceryl trinitrate medication which is far less effective than the oral dose. In fact, the longer it is used the less effective it becomes. I stress the point that the recommendations of the Advisory Committee were based on medical, not financial grounds. The Committee meets three times a year and recommends both additions to and deletions from the scheme. The specific meeting that recommended the deletions also recommended that 19 new drugs be added to the PBS list. I wish to make another point about the actual cost to the Government of providing some of these non essential drugs through the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. It is far more than the cost of producing the drugs. A well known item is paracetamol and one of the over-the-counter lines of that product is Panadol. Paracetamol is available over the counter at a cost between $2 and $3 from any chemist. Under the national health scheme the taxpayers of Australia have been required to pay $17 for this item which is available at between $2 and $3 over the counter in the family chemist shop. This $17 is made up of $13.30 for Medicare benefits for a normal consultation, $1.66 for the cost of the drug and $2.40 for the dispensing fee. That totals $17.36 to be exact. I am sure honourable members would agree that it was in the interests of taxpayers that non essential items like this should be removed and replaced by more expensive items. I also point out that Senator Michael Baume's aspersions against Medicare are grossly untrue. Total health costs in Australia are two per cent less than total health costs in the United States. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable members time has expired. I call the honourable member for Dunkley. Opposition members interjecting- Mr MacKellar —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: Would you inform the House why you have chosen two members from the Government side in succession? Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would have thought that the honourable member for Warringah, having been in this House even longer than I, would be aware of standing order 91. That standing order allows me to call the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr CHYNOWETH(Dunkley)(10.46) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very pleased to rise to-- Mr Donald Cameron —You cannot ignore this point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are worried that this is a factional coverup-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr Rocher —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr CHYNOWETH —They are taking up my time, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is just filibustering. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, as I understand it the practice in this chamber has been, for as long as I can remember-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Rocher —Mr Deputy Speaker, you know very well that you must hear the point of order. In the years I have been here the practice as I understand it is that you will call a speaker from one side of the House alternately with one from the other. As I understand it, the honourable member of Flinders was on his feet and seeking the call-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. Mr Rocher —But I have not finished making my point of order. You have a duty to this House to wait until I have finished. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Curtin is a Deputy Chairman of Committees in this House. He knows about standing order 91. I suggest that he read it, and I now call the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr CHYNOWETH —Mr Deputy Speaker, you can see by what has happened here tonight- Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Speaker, I draw your attention to standing order 91. There is no requirement under that standing order for you to call members alternately, but there is a practice in the House that you do so. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I draw the honourable member's attention to the standing order. He should read it, then he would realise. Mr Cadman —I have read it, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is no requirement to call members alternately, but the- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The problem that the Chair has is that I have drawn the attention of members of the Opposition to the standing order's provisions. The Opposition member who sought to rise was the honourable member for Flinders (Mr Reith) who had already spoken in the debate. Standing order 91 provides that if no other member rises then a member who has already spoken can rise again. I call the honourable member for Dunkley. Mr CHYNOWETH —Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. Opposition members have been at a party and they have been drowning their sorrows. Now they come in here and they just do not know what they are doing. They have had to put up with a speech from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) which was pure rubbish, so I do not blame them for being upset and for forgetting exactly what the Standing Orders are in this place. Mr Rocher —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In arriving at a decision you impugned upon me a certain knowledge as a result of the fact that I am a Deputy Chairman of Committees in this Parliament. I resent your imputation that somehow I should have a superior sort of knowledge than that which stands in the conventions of the conduct of this place. I say to you, Sir, that you are quite wrong. How is the clock going? Is this bloke's time nearly finished? I will sit down any time you like as long as the honourable member for Flinders gets the call the next time. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Motion (by Mr John Brown) agreed to: That the question be now put. Original question put: That the House do now adjourn. The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker-Mr Leo McLeay) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jacobi, R. Beddall, D. P. Jakobsen, C. A. Bilney, G. N. Jenkins, H. A. Blewett, N. Keogh, L. J. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, John Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charlesworth, R. I. Maher, M. J. Chynoweth, R. L. Martin, S. P. Cleeland, P. R. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Dawkins, J. S. Morris, AllanDuncan, P. Morris, PeterEdwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. Price, L. R. S. Fitzgibbon, E. J. Saunderson, J. Free, R. V. Scott, J. L. Gayler, J. Simmons, D. W. Gear, G. Snow, J. H. Grace, E. L. Staples, P. R. Hand, G. L. Theophanous, A. C. Hayden, W. G. Tickner, R. E. Holding, A. C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Beale, J. H. MacKellar, M. J. R. Blunt, C. W. Miles, C. G. Brown, N. A. Millar, P. C. Cadman, A. G. Moore, J. C. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Cameron, Ian Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Rocher, A. C. Conquest, B. J. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Drummond, P. H. Shipton, R. F. Edwards, Harry Slipper, P. N. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hawker, D. P. M. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Hunt, R. J. D. Question so resolved in the affirmative. House adjourned at 11.03 p.m. The following papers were deemed to have been presented on 21 August 1986: Acts Interpretation Act-Statements relating to extension of specified period for presentation of periodic report-Australian National University-Report for 1985 (Part II). Australian Bureau of Statistics Act-Australian Bureau of Statistics-Proposals for collection of information-1986 No. 7-Survey of family formation. No. 8-New topics to be included in the population survey. No. 9-Survey of income, current and alternative working arrangements and accommodation costs. No. 10-Survey of major labour costs. Fisheries Act-Plan of Management- No. 8-Northern Prawn Fishery (Amendment). No. 9-Southern Bluefin Tuna Fishery (Amendment). Freedom of Information Act-Notice of Ministerial decision made under sub-section 58A (1), dated 27 July 1986.