Thursday, 16 October 1986 Madam SPEAKER (Hon. Joan Child) took the chair at 9 a.m., and read prayers. Consideration resumed from 15 October. Schedule 3. Attorney-General's Department Proposed expenditure, $247,499,000. Mr SPENDER(North Sydney)(9.01) —The greatest single internal threat to our society is organised crime. Organised crime threatens the law abiding, degrades Australians, especially through the spread of drug addiction, corrupts our institutions and law enforcement agencies, and undermines the values that underpin our society. There is a great volume of recent evidence on the size, growth and power of organised crime and of the vast tax-free profits that can be made from it. We have had Mr Justice Stewart's 1983 report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Drug Trafficking and his 1986 report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Alleged Telephone Interceptions; Mr Costigan's 1982, 1983 and 1984 reports of the Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union into union racketeering and tax evasion; Special Prosecutor Redlich's annual report of 1983-84; Special Prosecutor Gyles's annual report of 1983-84; and recently the Australian Police Ministers' Council annual report of 1984-85, which said that it is now clear that organised crime is firmly entrenched in Australian society. That report gives a chilling insight into some of the BHPs of organised crime, and I will read two excerpts from it dealing with two major crime syndicates. I quote: A principal ABCI project identified a syndicated criminal organisation with international connections. At this stage of its development its primary source of income is the illicit drug industry but it is penetrating legitimate business and commerce with the funds generated by such illegal activity. The annual income of this group, derived from local marihuana plantations alone, has been conservatively estimated to be in excess of $550 million. The organisation resorts to violence, including murder or suspected murders, 3 of which have occurred overseas. The organisation remains a continuing threat to Australian society, despite 270 arrests by Australian Police forces. I repeat that that is from the Australian Police Ministers council annual report on the activities of national common police services for 1984-85. I quote another instance in the same report: A recently commenced research project has revealed illicit activities by an organisation that is believed to be involved in the importation into Australia of approximately 250 kg of heroin per annum with a street value of $450 million. Other activities by the group include gun-running, extreme violence, prostitution, illegal immigration and marihuana cultivation. What has the Government done to meet this kind of threat? The Government's efforts to combat organised crime are characterised by confusion of thought, weakness of purpose, indecisiveness of action, and a quite stunning degree of incompetence. Part of the work of the Government and a specific function of the Attorney-General is to review laws to respond to new development and changed circumstances. Laws cannot lag in the fight against organised crime, whether in drug trafficking, the use of intercepts to detect those engaged in contract murders, extortion rackets, gun running, organised prostitution or in any other area of organised crime. Laws must close loopholes and, while taking proper account of civil liberties, give law enforcement agencies the tools they need in this war. This Government has had a wealth of recommendations from royal commissioners and special prosecutors on changes needed to the laws to fight organised crime. Loopholes in the laws have been exposed. What happens? Recommendations are ignored, relegated to the too-hard basket, evaded, given to government working parties and never heard of again or forgotten or implemented only after delay and compromise. The theme that runs through it all is delay, delay and delay. Let us take a few examples. The Taillon case is one. Mr Taillon came here in July 1985. He was in transit from Bombay to Canada. Eleven kilos of hashish, worth an estimated $300,000, were found in his suitcase. But he was in transit and he was not prosecuted because the advice was that there was a loophole as he was in transit. Later, an opinion was obtained from Mr Porter of Queen's Counsel. Mr Porter disagreed with the original advice given. Mistakes can be made, opinions can differ but one thing is imperative: If there is any doubt, and there is, we should shut the loophole and act swiftly. We are dealing here with a relatively simple amendment to the Customs Act. Four months later, in November 1985, the Australian Federal Police wrote to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young), so a newspaper report tells us, asking what action was planned to prevent drug traffickers trafficking through Australia without fear of arrest. The Special Minister of State said that he would refer the matter to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). What has happened to the amendment? It has been lost. The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) says that the Attorney-General has it. He said this on 24 September this year when asked in the Senate about a review of this loophole. In part, his answer was: The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General and I will obtain an answer to the honourable senator's question from him. The Minister was referring to the Attorney-General, who is at the table today. What did the Attorney-General say? On 9 October he said that Senator Button has the amendment. I quote from his answer in this place. The Attorney-General said: Because the importation aspect is not a matter within my portfolio but one for the Australian Customs Service, that opinion- the Attorney-General was referring to the opinion of Mr Porter of Queen's Counsel- and advice has been forwarded to my colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I understand that arrangements are now in place to amend the Act to ensure that, whether a case relates to importation and or possession, prosecution can be launched. Well over a year later these two Inspector Clous-seaus of law enforcement cannot decide who has the carriage of this relatively simple amendment to the legislation. It is a national scandal that that should be the case. I move on to the matter of intercepts. Intercepts are restricted to drug-related matters. It is quite illogical that that should be so. In February 1983 Mr Justice Stewart in his report into drug trafficking recommended that the intercept power be widened. He said: It should not be restricted to the commission of certain narcotic offences as presently provided. Special Prosecutor Redlich, in his report of 7 September 1983, recommended amendments to enlarge interception powers. Mr Justice Stewart, in April 1986, in his report on the Age tapes, the tapes the Government tried so hard to discredit, repeated his recommendation-that is, to extend with safeguards intercepts in regard to all serious offences. What happened? On 4 June 1986, there was the ultimate cop-out. A committee to examine Mr Justice Stewart's recommendations was set up. After 3 1/2 years, therefore, there was unconscionable indifference and delay. On assets confiscation it is the same story. Let us consider Redlich's report in 1983-84, Gyles's report in 1983-84, Costigan's 1984 report and the Australian Police Ministers Council in November 1983, May 1984 and May 1985. Legislation is now in place in New South Wales and South Australia. Federal legislation was announced last month after another 3 1/2 years. What has happened? It appears that we will not see it. The legislation is not before this chamber. We may not see it until next year. That is a positively appalling saga of ineptitude. Let us consider money laundering. Stewart, Redlich and Costigan are all critical of the ease of opening and operating false bank accounts. Costigan, in his report in July 1983, made detailed recommendations that those opening bank accounts should have to give specified information and penalties should be levied against them for false information. Bank accounts are essential to criminal activities, to organised crime, to money laundering. What has happened? After three and a half years, nothing. No doubt an interdepartmental committee, lost somewhere in the Attorney-General's Department, is looking at it, but we have had nothing in this place. On the use of mail for the distribution of illicit drugs the present laws are deficient. The Attorney-General has acknowledged that. In May 1985 the Attorney-General, in answer to a question on notice by the honourable member for Hawker (Mr Jacobi), announced that the Government would create a new offence of sending illegal drugs through the mail. Where is this new offence? What is the difficulty? Why do we have this delay? Why do we have this extraordinary and unconscionable indifference and incompetence? In some countries there are governments so corrupt that they support and profit from criminal activities. In others, crime flourishes through incompetence, weakness and indecision. The effect is the same. The cardinal failing of this Government, aside from any absence of commitment to the fight against organised crime, is that it has no strategic plan for combating organised crime. That plan could be drawn up from the work of Stewart, Costigan, Redlich, Gyles and others. No attempt has been made. That lack of a strategic plan, which has nowhere been announced-if there were one we would have seen it-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SPENDER —Means that the task is beyond the power of this Government or it does not care. The CHAIRMAN —I might just say to the honourable member for North Sydney that, when a member's time has expired, he should resume his seat rather than attempt to talk over the Chair. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(9.13) —I welcome the opportunity to enter this debate, particularly to pay tribute to the Attorney-General and Deputy Prime Minister, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith (Mr Lionel Bowen). I pay that tribute because of his special and personal commitment to the cause of consumer affairs. I appreciate that he has many responsibilities within his portfolio but, despite the myriad activity that he must be involved in, he has a special commitment to this field. He has demonstrated that commitment by the introduction in the last 18 months of though new amendments to the Trade Practices Act but, more importantly, in the last Budget by the additional financial support that he has ensured for the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations. We all appreciate that the Budget had to be tough. Despite that, the Minister was able to ensure that, whilst last year the AFCO group received $170,000, this year the amount increased to $200,000. I stress the importance of that because, at this point of time, a war is being waged against consumerism in our community. A fortnight ago I went to a meeting of the Advertising Association of Australia held at the Gold Coast. Four months ago I went to the Housing Industry Association conference in Brisbane. At both these places I found that a New Right attitude was being expressed that was specifically aimed at attacking consumerism; aimed at saying that governments ought not to be providing funds to community groups, especially those that have expert backing, such as AFCO, the Australian Consumer Association and others. It was put to me that all that money ought to be taken away and that these groups ought not to be allowed to operate. I suggest that we need to counter that. I am pleased that the Minister has been able to do that in part by making more funds available. AFCO is a very important executive body elected by delegates from some 60 consumer organisations throughout Australia. It plays an important role as a national community consumer watchdog. But it is under attack and it is important that we counter it. I wish to raise a number of aspects that demonstrate the importance of consumerism and the reason why we ought to fund these bodies. Governments can make legislation but it is surely the community groups that localise the decision-making process. They are a counter to bureaucratic misjudgment, they can create community interest and concern and they can break down social apathy. More importantly, they can act as a social conscience and certainly as a people's watchdog. In the market-place, where too often decisions are made with cash register eyes and a quick quid mentality, consumer groups can play a very significant role. If it were not for the consumer groups we would not have the protections we have today in the statute books of the States, the Territories and the Commonwealth. We would not have controls, for instance, over the amount of water that we can have in frozen chickens. We would not have controls over advertising Australian made products, where previously people were simply packaging imported products in Australian packages and saying that they were Australian made products. We would not have controls over real estate agents who now cannot buy houses or properties for themselves unless they declare their interest. We would not have a shelf life Act in may States, nor the model food Act. We have all these things because consumer groups have reacted to the problems, rorts and scams that have taken place. This Government has acted to control the unsafe goods, the dangerous and hazardous products. Because of this Government we now have controls over companies which import dangerous car jacks which can threaten the lives of mechanics. If it were not for this Government we would not have controls over products such as magic toys which, when immersed in water, expand to 20 times their size. One can imagine the problems if a child swallowed such a toy. We would not have controls over the toy guillotine which we have now been able to ban across the nation. The toy can cut a carrot but it is not supposed to be able to amputate a child's finger. We would not have controls over the swimming pool accessory which disembowelled 16 children in the United States of America and which was, regrettably, introduced into Australia. We have these protections, these laws, because of the attitude of the consumer movement. I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General has done to ensure that the Australian Federation of Consumer Organisations has money. However, I raise the problems which still exist and which we will have to try to address nationally. As I said, I attended an advertising conference. I was quite amazed by the points being put forward. I suggest that the time has come to bring together private enterprise people, the entrepreneurs in the market-place, the Government and consumer groups to talk through some of these problems. I realise that we cannot have a law to cover every circumstance. We cannot protect people from themselves. We cannot have a law to cover every advertising aspect. I have some concerns about advertising. Not so very long ago a very prominent radio personality in Brisbane lent his name to an advertising campaign for a video hire group. That resulted in something like 5,000 people in Brisbane alone being ripped off by the video hire group. The same thing happened in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia. The time has come for those who lend their names to advertising and promotions to take upon themselves some responsibility. If one is a radio or media personality and adds one's name to some sort of scheme that ultimately ends up in a scam, one ought to carry a legal responsibility. After all, we have now changed the Trade Practices Act to ensure that credit providers have to carry out some test as to the bona fides of the organisation they supply credit for. If that organisation finally takes down consumers, the credit provider, be it a finance company or a bank, can be legally responsible. I suggest that we consider across the board what we might do to those who lend their names to these groups. More importantly, such bodies should work together to ensure that there is a code of practice. (Quorum formed) As I have been saying, there is a need for this co-operation in the market-place. We need a market-place environment based on value for money, fair and honest representations and safety. I believe that this can be achieved if we have a code that ensures that a product is as it is represented; a code that ensures that warranties and guarantees are worth the paper on which they are written; a code of advertising that ensures that product safety is meaningful and is not something that places a person at risk unknowingly; a code that also ensures that the consumer knows and understands what he is buying and, finally, that the broad public interest is borne in mind. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(9.21) —The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), who is at the table here in the Parliament of Australia this morning, is the first law officer of the Commonwealth and, as such, is duty bound to uphold the law of the Commonwealth. It gives me no pleasure to say this morning that this Government, the Hawke socialist Government, is too scared to lodge prosecutions in relation to the fringe benefits tax; in short, it does not have the courage to have this mad law tested in the courts of Australia. I am convinced that threats to gaol alleged offenders are the bluff and bluster of an intimidatory and bullying government which thinks it is dealing with a group of dumb cockies and stupid shopkeepers. The Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Treasurer (Mr Keating) and, I am sad to say, the Attorney-General do not have the guts or the courage to prosecute Bob Ansett, John Hay or me for our public statements condemning this unjust, discriminatory, ambiguous, uncertain, contradictory and probably unconstitutional law-the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986, Act No. 39 of 1986. In a cowardly manner this Government is hiding behind the skirts of the Public Service, principally the Australian Taxation Office. When I appeared recently on the Willesee program, one of the reasons given by the Treasurer for not appearing on that program was that the administration of the law, including prosecutions, is now in the hands of the Australian Taxation Office. It is therefore appropriate that in this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 I call upon the Attorney-General, who is present in the Parliament, to do his duty and to prosecute alleged offenders with respect to the fringe benefits tax legislation now. I challenge the Government to deny that it has been informed that, in view of the state of the legislation, the contradictions, the ambiguities, the vagueness and the uncertainties, it would be very difficult to make any FBT prosecution stick. I also challenge the Attorney-General to table today in this Parliament all legal advisings which he has received as to whether the fringe benefits tax legislation is constitutional in relation to its application to the States and whether it contravenes section 114 of the Constitution, to which I will refer in more detail in a few moments. The public has a right to know whether this Government has been told that its iniquitous fringe benefits tax legislation is in fact unconstitutional because its contravenes the provisions of section 114 of the Constitution, as interpreted as long ago as 1901 by the High Court of Australia in the case of D'Emden v. Pedder. The Government must now come clean and table these advisings so that this Parliament and the people of Australia will know whether we have on our hands a hypocritical government which is forcing upon the people of Australian legislation which it knows is unconstitutional. This is not the first time I have had to raise this matter. My first public statement on this issue was as long ago as 16 September, when I publicly confirmed that in an address in Melbourne the previous week, I had advised people who could not get clear explanation of the law from the Australian Taxation Office and who could not get specific answers to specific questions, not to pay the fringe benefits tax. I said at that time that the law was not only unjust by also that it was a bad law, it was vague, uncertain, contradictory, ambiguous, a disgraceful shambles, a legal jungle, and an accountant's nightmare. I said at that time that some of the best business brains in Australia still could not understand it months after it passed through the Parliament. I made the comment that both the Prime Minister and the Treasurer were repeatedly making public statements adding to and subtracting from the legislation, endeavouring to explain the administrative changes, and offering on the spot advice-mostly on the run advice-when it suited them. I said that this was simply not good enough, and I commented on the fact that on that very day-16 September-in the Parliament the Treasurer offered gratuitous advice about the use of log books in motor vehicles and he did not even know the precise kilometre rates at which different percentage allowances applied, and he did not even know what the law said about the keeping of log books. If the Treasurer of Australia can stand in this Parliament and give wrong and incorrect advice as to his law, how can he and this Government demand that 15 million Australian's comply with a law which the Government does not understand and cannot explain? On 17 September I wrote a detailed letter to the Prime Minister in which I asserted most of the points to which I have referred. I will read part of that letter verbatim: Prime Minister, the right to disobey Objectionable Laws-and by so doing to challenge the same in the Courts is constitutionally well recognised. The great Dicey-- Mr Keogh —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The honourable member for Denison is clearly infringing standing order 73 in reflecting upon a vote of the House, which he did in his statement a few seconds ago when he called the legislation passed by the House on fringe benefits tax a bad law and an unconscionable law. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Blanchard) —Whilst I accept that there is some strength to the argument put forward in the point of order by the honourable member, I again ask the honourable member for Denison to keep within the confines of debate. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. I will leave my comments on that point of order to a later time. I said in my letter to the Prime Minister: The great Dicey held that `there are political limits on what parliament may impose on the people. If parliament chooses to pass a thoroughly unacceptable law, it can command obedience only by meeting resistance with massive forces'. Blackstone properly asserted `the right to rebel' while at the same time acknowledging the principle of the `sovereignty of parliament'. Thirteen years ago the distinguished C. P. Mills of the University of Sydney wrote in The Australian Law Journal that `most of us today are conditioned to the idea of the ultimate supremacy of the parliamentary will, and so it seems axiomatic to us that the law (whatever it decrees) must be obeyed, but it was not always so in the English experience. The Great Charter of 1215 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 were products of revolt against what were then regarded as oppressive laws'. He concluded his remarks: `Wherever it is claimed that parliament has an absolute and unlimited right to legislate, such a claim by its very nature will give rise to another claim, that of the right to resist oppressive or unjust laws'. The reference is 47 ALJ 270 to 80. With the time lost through the point of order, I simply say that this legislation is law which reflects no credit on this Parliament. It is law which, frankly, cannot be obeyed because it cannot be understood. Mr Keogh —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The honourable member is again, in my opinion, breaching standing order 73. He has clearly said that the law carried by this Parliament is a bad law. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I have already ruled on that point of order. I again ask the honourable member to keep within the confines of the debate. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr Deputy Chairman. This is Australia, not the Soviet Union. We have a right to condemn bad laws. I regard this law as so bad that I will physically do to it what will be done to it in the courts. It will be torn into shreds. This legislation is so bad that a gutless government is not prepared to prosecute me, Bob Ansett or John Hay. If honourable members opposite think the law is so good they should have it tested in the courts. It will be torn into shreds, as I am tearing it into shreds right now. Those opposite are members of a cowardly government which has no confidence that its legislation will be upheld. If they believe, on material I have given them, that I have incited a breach of Commonwealth laws, let us have the matter brought on in court. I will beat them in any court, any time, anywhere. I will call witness after witness to confirm everything I have said in this place today. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. I trust that the honourable member will clean up the mess on his table. I call the honourable member for Charlton. A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung-- Mr Cunningham —Mr Deputy Chairman, I draw to your attention the fact that members of the Opposition left the chamber after the calling of the quorum. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I did not observe who left the chamber. Mr Gear —The honourable member for Mitchell left the chamber. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the Serjeant to recall the honourable member for Mitchell. Mr Lloyd —He left the chamber before I called the quorum. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Chairman, on a point of order: Without querying your ruling, which is perfectly proper, I just support what the honourable member for Murray said. I believe that the honourable member for Mitchell left the chamber before the quorum was called. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! I just make this point: I have heard from the Serjeant-at-Arms that the honourable member for Mitchell left the chamber before the request was made for a quorum, so there is no point of order. (Quorum formed) Mr ROBERT BROWN(Charlton)(9.34) —I just mention before I start my comments about the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department that we have witnessed a quite extraordinary exhibition here this morning. The first thing to which I draw attention is the fact that the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) is still in the process of damaging and destroying government property. I do not know whether-- Mr Hodgman —On a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman: It is my property. I have this wretched piece of legislation. I can tear it up if I like, and I will, whether the honourable member likes it or not. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr ROBERT BROWN —I repeat that the honourable member for Denison is still in the process of destroying government property. He is possibly committing an offence and I think it should be considered by the Parliament. Mr Ronald Edwards —He has not taken those pills that we told him he should have. Mr ROBERT BROWN —It is suggested to me by the honourable member for Stirling that the honourable member for Denison has failed to take those pills that have been prescribed for him. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. This is making a mockery of the Parliament. I take no pills, on prescription or otherwise. If the honourable member wants to prosecute me he may prosecute me, because I will be tearing this legislation up from now until the next election. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. There is no point of order. Before calling on the honourable member for Charlton to continue his speech I suggest that it would be better if he addressed the substance of the debate, which is the Attorney-General's Department. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Exactly, Mr Deputy Chairman, but what is more appropriate than the vision of a member of this Parliament destroying government property when we are dealing with the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department? A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung-- Mr Hand —You won't even let us answer your questions. You call stupid quorums on us all the time. You are the greatest joke that has ever been in this place. You are a bigger joke than Billy McMahon. Mr Hodgman —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. I ask the honourable member for Melbourne to withdraw that statement. I have been in this place for 11 years. I have never called a quorum in that entire time, nor did I do so in the State Parliament. I ask him to withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Melbourne has been asked to withdraw a comment which is apparently- Mr Holding —Mr Deputy Chairman, I raise a point of order. The chamber is not in due process. A quorum has been called. It is not appropriate for any honourable member to raise a point of order when a quorum has been called. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I accept that point of order but I remind the honourable member for Melbourne that he was interjecting while out of his seat. Mr Hand —I apologise to you, Mr Deputy Chairman; only to you. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —No, you apologise to the Chair, not to me. Mr Hand —I apologise to the Chair. (Quorum formed) Mr ROBERT BROWN —I think it is absolutely appalling that a Queen's Counsel, a person who is supposed to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth, should be still in the process of destroying government property. I think it should be brought to the attention of the Presiding Officers of this Parliament. I had a number of important matters to which I wanted to refer in connection with the Government's unavoidable decision not to proceed with the Bill of Rights. Regardless of the developments that have taken place, including the attempt that has been made to silence me by actions of members of the Opposition in calling quorums to use up the time-I hope people who are listening to this debate know the purpose of that tactic-we still have the QC, the honourable member for Denison from Tasmania, destroying government property and apparently no action will be taken against him, at least at this stage. Earlier in this session a question was put to the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) about whether the Government proposed to proceed with the proposed Bill of Rights. The Attorney-General indicated that because of circumstances beyond the control of the Government the Government proposed no to do so. He indicated that the Australian Bill of Rights Bill was passed by this House last year but when it reached the Senate the Senate, after debating the Bill for 36 1/2 hours-the longest debate in the history of Federation-got only to clause 3. In light of those circumstances it simply would not have been possible for the Government to proceed. The Attorney-General indicated quite clearly what lay behind that filibuster. The proposed Bill of Rights was to give expression to Australia's responsibilities under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Part of the political rights of people is the right to equal representation in electing their representatives. It was clear that the adoption of that Bill of Rights would cause embarrassment in Queensland. Up to the present time Queenslanders have allowed themselves to tolerate a situation in which a government can govern in its own right with about 36 per cent of the vote and in which the Australian Labor Party Opposition in Queensland would require, in order to be elected, a percentage of how much? Mr Lamb —Fifty-five per cent. Mr ROBERT BROWN —Fifty-five per cent of the electors of Queensland would be required to vote for the ALP Opposition before government would change. I appeal, as all democrats in Australia would appeal, to the people of Queensland to bring an end to this situation now that they have the opportunity to do so. The solution is in the hands of the Queensland electors. If they are prepared to continue to tolerate a situation where a government can govern in its own right with less than 40 per cent of the vote and bring discredit on themselves and on this nation in the eyes of the democratic world, they may re-elect the Bjelke-Petersen Government when the election is held. I do not believe for a moment that they will do so. I have tremendous faith in the political and democratic integrity of the people of Queensland, I have tremendous faith in their judgment, and I have tremendous faith in their perception of the issues that lie behind the situation in Queensland. I have no doubt at all that given the opportunity now to reverse this situation, to correct it, to restore to themselves self-respect, democratic dignity and democratic integrity, they will take the opportunity to cast from office this Government which has shown itself to be so adept at bringing discredit not only on itself as a government but on all democratic institutions in Queensland and within the Commonwealth as well as on Queenslanders as citizens, as members of this great democratic nation. The people of Queensland have a responsibility to correct this situation. I appeal to those Queenslanders who are listening now: Whatever political decision they may wish freely to make after this next election, I ask them on behalf of all of us to take the opportunity to cast out from government people who have brought discredit, embarrassment and damage to Australia's important institutions. Those people in government are tarnished with very strong evidence to the effect that corruption is running rife in Queensland. The Queensland people now have the opportunity to take action. If they grasp that opportunity they can restore their own dignity, they can restore their own self-respect, and they can give to all Australians the opportunity in the forums of the world to stand tall again. We have not been able to while the Bjelke-Petersen Government has been in office. Mr SHARP(Gilmore)(9.43) —Today I wish to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) on one aspect of the portfolio of the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen). I refer to legislation that helps to capture and penalise those people involved in the drug trade. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I do not like raising this matter but I am genuinely concerned about the state of mind of the honourable member opposite who for 45 minutes has been tearing up paper. I ask whether one of the attendants or somebody else could have a talk to him. It is very distracting, and also I am quite worried about his mental state. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr SHARP —I wish to talk about the Attorney-General's responsibilities in introducing legislation into this Parliament that will help to capture and penalise properly those involved in the drug trade. In April this year the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) launched the Government's drug offensive. It was done at great expense to the taxpayer. Television advertisements were shown right across the nation, featuring, of course, none other than the Prime Minister. During the launching of the drug offensive, the Prime Minister promised the people of Australia that he would introduce legislation that would improve the Government's ability to capture and penalise people involved in drugs and would also give our law enforcement agencies the ability and powers to help to capture those people. What has happened to that promise? What has happened to that commitment that was made by the Prime Minister during the launching of the drug offensive? I will tell honourable members what has happened to it: Absolutely and utterly nothing. What we have seen is a whole series of words and absolutely and utterly no action. A promise was made 12 or 15 months ago that the Crimes Act would be reviewed. That was to be done urgently. What has happened to that promise? We have heard absolutely nothing about it since then. There was an announcement that the Government would introduce new powers in the telephone tapping area. That commitment came after the Drug Summit in April 1985. Mr Lloyd —What happened to that? Mr SHARP —What has happened to that? Nothing. If one knows anything about the Parliament, one knows that if one wants to bury a promise, one refers it to a parliamentary committee. That is what this Government has done. The telephone tapping powers will disappear because they have been referred to a parliamentary committee and we will hear nothing more about it. There have been promises that the Government will introduce legislation to give our law enforcement agencies access to tax records so that they can get to the Mr Bigs of the drug problem. What has happened to that? It is all words and no action. There was a promise that there would be legislation to tighten up on drugs being sent through the mail system. That came about as a result of a question asked in the House in May 1985. What has happened to that? It has been all words and no action. There has been absolutely no action. Speaking of no action, the matter of the Taillon case has already been raised today. The Attorney-General would be well aware of my interest in this matter, which came about as a result of an article on the front page of the Sun-Herald of 4 November 1985. The people of Australia were promised that this anomaly in our drug laws, which enabled a drug trafficker to get away free from this country without any penalty, would be tightened up. The promise was made that it would be done urgently. That was in November 1985. The initial incident took place in about June or July 1985. On 3 November the Australian Federal Police Association wrote to the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) and asked him what he was doing about this anomaly in our drug trafficking laws. That occurred on 3 November. On 7 November the Special Minister of State replied that he had got the letter and he would do something about it. That was in November, but nothing happened until about June this year. On 3 June there were a couple of articles in the Australian newspaper. On 4 June I asked the Attorney-General what is happening to the Taillon case, this huge loophole in our drug trafficking laws. The Attorney-General said that he treated the matter seriously, but it must be remembered that nothing had been done by the previous Government; therefore, the lack of action on his behalf was nothing to worry about. I point out that nothing had been brought to the attention of the previous Government to highlight this anomaly in drug laws. To justify lack of action over the last six or eight months because the previous Government had done nothing about it is not fair and not right. On 15 July this year the Special Minister of State finally replied to the letter written by the Australian Federal Police Association on 3 November last year. The letter from the office of the Special Minister of State reads: The Attorney-General has advised the Special Minister of State that he is of the view that we need a specific new offence to cover situations where a person travels through Australia carrying drugs to some other destination. It took the Special Minister of State eight months to reply that the Attorney-General was looking at it. The Australian Federal Police Association wrote back to the Special Minister of State and said what all reasonable Australians would feel. It stated: . . . whilst I realise that the wheels of justice move slowly, surely such a lengthy delay in considering a matter which impacts significantly on one of the Government's highest priorities, illegal narcotics, is unacceptable. An eight-month delay in replying to the letter is unacceptable. Eight or nine months passed by. On 24 September this year Senator Sheil asked the Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) a question about the Taillon matter. Senator Button stated: I am aware of the circumstances of the case in question. The matter is in the hands of the Attorney-General . . . That occurred on 24 September. On 9 October in this House I asked the Attorney-General what had happened to the Taillon case. The Attorney-General said: Because the importation aspect is not a matter within my portfolio but one for the Australian Customs Service, that opinion and advice has been forwarded to my ministerial colleague the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, Senator Button. I understand that arrangements are now in place to amend the Act to ensure that, whether a case relates to importation and/or possession, prosecutions can be launched. There is obviously confusion among the ranks of the Ministers in Cabinet. As a result, nothing is happening. That is what has happened with the Taillon case, which has highlighted one of the most serious anomalies in our drug laws in recent years. It has taken a year so far and nothing has happened. It has been all words and no action. It highlights the insincerity of this Government in dealing with the drug problem. I am glad that the Minister for Health (Dr Blewett) is in the chamber today because he will be pleased to hear what I have to say. The fact that the Minister for Health has been a long time advocate of legalising marihuana use, and has even advocated that people should be able to grow marihuana in their backyards, is an indication of how insincere he is as the man in charge of the drug offensive, of trying to get rid of the drug problem in Australia. The man who is supposed to be discouraging Australians from using drugs has been for a long time an advocate of legalising drugs such as marihuana, and has even advocated the growing of it in peoples' backyards. In spite of the fact that the Minister will probably say that he has changed his views, I do not believe that a leopard can change its spots so quickly. He has certainly espoused those views since he has been the Minister for Health. The Attorney-General has a great responsibility to meet the challenge that the drug problem presents. It requires imagination, energy, determination and, most of all, a very sincere desire to reduce the problem with more than just words. We have to see the introduction of legislation that enables law enforcement agencies to do such things as x-ray passengers who come through our ports. We do not have laws that give our law enforcement agencies sufficient power to send a person for an x-ray if they have reasonable suspicion that that person has drugs hidden inside his body. We have to do something about that. We have to be prepared to give the Australian Federal Police more powers to stop, search and detain. With the way that the laws are at present, a great deal of police work is required in order to carry out a normal drug operation. We have to be prepared to consider reintroducing the general search warrants that were available in the late 1970s to the Narcotics Bureau. They have been taken away. That general search warrant enabled certain authorised personnel of the Narcotics Bureau to search people who they had reason to suspect were in possession of drugs. At present the Americans are looking at allowing illegally obtained evidence to be considered admissible if obtained in good faith. The other day I heard the Special Minister of State laugh off all these suggestions as being totally not worth consideration. These suggestions ought not to be dismissed so lightly, because they are reasonable proposals. They are what other people are doing or what we have done in the past. More importantly, they certainly do not cost the Australian taxpayer any more money. What we have to have is more action, not words. There is an old saying: When it is all said and done, there is more said than done. That old saying applies to this Government, it applies to this Attorney-General-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr SHARP —And it applies to the drug offensive. The CHAIRMAN —I just mention that it seems to be becoming a habit in the House for honourable members to continue their speeches when they have been called to order by whoever is in the Chair because their time has expired. I hope that Hansard does not continue to take down the remarks of honourable members after their time has expired. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr McGauran —I take a point of order, Mr Chairman. On behalf of members I seek clarification of your last remark. I understood that the duty and role of Hansard is to record every word spoken in this place. If a speaker-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McGauran —Mr Chairman, I seek to finish my point of order. If a speaker exceeds the time limit, that is obviously a matter for the Chair-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. I have called the honourable member for McEwen. Mr Peacock —Why is there no point of order? Mr Chairman, I take a point of order on your rejection of that point of order. It appears to me that you have made a ruling and that the Committee has to accept that ruling without any reasoning put to it. You simply said that Hansard is not to report words spoken after your determination. I suggest to you that there is no head of power and no power contained within the Standing Orders for you to so rule. Therefore, I believe that at the very least you have to indicate to the honourable member why he has no point of order. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. I suggest to the honourable member for Kooyong that he should not attempt to put words into my mouth. He should read properly the Hansard tomorrow to see what I have said rather than attempt to put words into my mouth. Mr McGauran —Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In recent days there has been some division in this chamber between members and occupants of the chair. We seek only clarification and reasons for a judgment. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no point of order. Mr McVeigh —Mr Chairman, I seek to try to get the matter clarified. I suggest that the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs quite legitimately sought an explanation from you but you were not quite precise enough or accurate enough. I offer this suggestion to you. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Groom-- Mr McVeigh —Mr Chairman, I am seeking clarification to help you. I am on your side. The CHAIRMAN —If the honourable member for Groom will resume his seat, I might give him some clarification. Mr McVeigh —What you should have said was that Hansard has the responsibility for recording what was said but it does not have the responsibility for printing it, and that is where you made the error. I say that with respect. You are in difficulty and I am just trying to help you. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Groom, as usual, is most helpful. The honourable member for Groom would also be aware, as I am and no doubt the honourable member for Kooyong is aware-I think the honourable member for Gippsland, being a new member, may not be aware-that an honourable member has a right to intervene in a debate only when he has the call from the Chair. When his time has expired and the Chair has called him to order he no longer has the call of the Chair, as the honourable member for Groom is quite rightly pointing out. I would have been quite willing to tell that privately to the honourable member for Gippsland later rather than pursue this inane discussion. Mr McVeigh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Groom has run out of the indulgence of the Chair. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr McVeigh —Mr Chairman, I raise a point or order. With the greatest of personal respect and, at times, admiration for you-I am quite precise-I point out to you that at all times in this place I have the right to raise a point of order and it is wrong for you to say that I have run out of the opportunity-- The CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable member about to get to his point of order? Mr McVeigh —You said to me that I have run out of my opportunity of raising a point of order. I debate that point. You are wrong in fact and you are wrong in law. I am just trying to help you. You are in a mess; you are in a muddle; you do not know what you are talking about. I am just trying to help you. The CHAIRMAN —I can do without the help of the honourable member for Groom. I call the honourable member for McEwen. Mr CLEELAND(McEwen)(9.59) —I rise with some trepidation, waiting for the next point of order. However, this is an example of the way the Committee is being conducted by the Opposition. We have had the absolutely disarming spectacle of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) still sitting like a child tearing up little pieces of paper. He is an absolute disgrace to this place. (Quorum formed) I am pleased that all the honourable members have come into the chamber, because they can look at the spectacle taking place on the other side-the spectacle of a member of this place, in an infantile manner, sitting in his seat tearing up very tiny pieces of paper. We may well question the sanity or the mental condition of that honourable member and wonder-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for McEwen will withdraw that remark. He cannot make reflections on honourable members. Mr CLEELAND —If it is offensive, I will withdraw that remark. But we may well suggest that it is therapy of some kind for the honourable member-- Mr McVeigh —I rise on a point of order. Mr Chairman, I draw your attention to the matter we are debating. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the excellent mental condition of the honourable member for Denison. I ask the honourable member for McEwen to stick to the debate. The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. Mr CLEELAND —Like my colleague the honourable member for Charlton (Mr Robert Brown), I wish to draw attention to the fact that we seem to have lost the initiative in respect of the Australian Bill of Rights. I find that very sad because, like the honourable member for Charlton, I believe an Australian Bill of Rights is important in terms of achieving for the Australian people the rights which they have long been denied. The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is far too much noise in the chamber. The honourable member for McEwen is attempting to make a contribution to the debate and cannot be heard by the Committee. Mr CLEELAND —Thank you, Mr Chairman. Of course, the Australian people listening should be well aware that the noise level, the behaviour, the disastrous vision we all have in front of us today, is caused by the Opposition. The people listening may well wonder about the behaviour of the Opposition in this chamber today, as they may about the Opposition's behaviour in terms of the Australian Bill of Rights. I have some doubt about whether the honourable member opposite is in fact in full mental health and I have doubts about whether he is in full medical fitness. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for McEwen will withdraw that imputation. Mr CLEELAND —I will withdraw if people find it offensive, but all I would do is ask everyone sitting in this chamber and every member of the Press Gallery to look down, observe what is happening and draw his own conclusions. That is all anyone has to do. Of course, everyone should realise that the honourable member concerned is a member of the legal profession and is called a Queen's Counsel. The CHAIRMAN —Order! I asked the honourable member for McEwen a few moments ago to withdraw an imputation. Mr CLEELAND —Yes, I withdraw anything which the honourable member finds offensive, Mr Chairman. The CHAIRMAN —No, the procedure is that you withdraw unreservedly. Mr CLEELAND —Yes, I do, indeed, Mr Chairman. I am just pointing out that anyone sitting in the galleries who looks down and sees what is happening here can draw his own conclusions. No one needs to state it; it is obvious. This has been going on for 45 minutes. The honourable gentleman opposite is said to be a QC, a learned gentleman of the law. One must wonder at the Opposition when it presents arguments against the Bill of Rights through people such as the honourable member opposite. One must really question the veracity of those arguments-whether they are fair dinkum or genuine. It is people such as these opposite who have imposed the gerrymander upon Queensland. They are the people who would refuse to recognise in the Australian Constitution or in an Australian Bill of Rights the rights of Queenslanders to have a free and proper election. They are the people who, through the actions of the honourable member for Denison-one must question this-oppose the Australian Bill of Rights. What has happened in Queensland is indeed a disaster. It was only yesterday in my Melbourne office that I received advice by a telephone call from a member of the public in Queensland-and the person wishes to remain anonymous-who informed me that the pay-out to the Queensland Premier was more than $400,000. The advice I received yesterday and the allegation which has been put to me is that the Queensland Premier received in his own bank account $400,000, but in addition the Bond Corporation paid to the Queensland Bjelke- Petersen Foundation as a part of that deal the sum of $600,000, and in fact that the total payment by Bond as a result of that libel action was $1m. The allegation has been put. I cannot verify or swear that to be the case. Mr Peacock —Then why raise it? It was an anonymous phone call. Mr CLEELAND —He was quite prepared to ring my office and put that to me. A quorum having been called for and the bells being rung- Mr Peacock —It has been put to me that you are corrupt. I cannot substantiate it but it has been put to me. Mr Holding —The honourable member for Kooyong has described the honourable member for McEwen as corrupt. He should withdraw that. Mr Peacock —In no circumstances did I do that. I simply-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! There is no need for the honourable member for Kooyong to make any further explanation. (Quorum formed) Mr CLEELAND —I am referring the allegation to the appropriate officer because I believe that it should be reported and investigated. We already know that there has been a pay-out of $400,000 to the Queensland Premier. We know why that payment was made, because the Bond Corporation has clearly said so. It said that it was to keep the political flavour of the Queensland Government. I would like to know whether the truth of the allegation is that an additional $600,000 has been paid to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(10.08) —At about this time last year I drew attention to the pitifully small amount of money allocated by the Government in its 1985 Budget for the marriage education program. I argued that, if greater attention were to be given to preventing marital breakdown, substantial savings could arise from the subsequent drop in demand on the Family Law courts and social welfare connected with the collapse of families. Earlier this year in a grievance debate I deplored the Parliament's neglect of the family and our criminal betrayal of the children who will suffer as a result of family breakdown. Last year in a similar debate I drew attention to the fact that $1.6 billion was being allocated by the Government in support of families which had broken down as a result of marriage failure. It grieves me to find that this year's appropriation for family assistance within the Attorney-General's portfolio has seen only a small overall increase, with outlays for the funding of marital education and counselling organisations actually frozen at last year's level, if that can be believed. These appropriations are shameful and totally unacceptable. They reflect a complete lack of understanding of the social crisis this community is facing as a result of marital and family breakdown. Let me just point out the madness of the Government's taking the cure approach, rather than the prevention approach. The Institute of Family Studies last week pointed out to us all that divorce costs each of Australia's four million families $475 each year. Dr Harry Edwards —How much? Mr WEBSTER —Divorce costs this country $475 per family per year. How much is the Government allocating to prevent divorce? Does anyone know? This year's appropriation represents only 58c per family per year for the Institute of Family Studies, a body that has been brought into being to look at the problems facing our families today, and on top of that only $1.25 per family per year for marriage education counselling-that is, the education that takes place after family breakdowns have started. More specifically, the Budget allocation for marriage education-this is the education that is supposed to take place in our community before any breakdown; in other words, closing the stable door before the horse has bolted-amounts to only 2 1/2c per family per year. Mr Hodgman —How much? Mr WEBSTER —Only 2 1/2c per family per year for marriage education. As I noted last year, and I must note it again this year, as a result of the Government's lack of insight and wisdom, most marriages fail out of benign neglect-and this is subject to a vast amount of empirical research-rather than malicious intent, which is what most people would think. What is recognised by all thinking Australians, even if not by the Government, is that adequate resources for marriage education and counselling would be one of the most cost effective instruments a government could use in its efforts to deal with the crisis in our Family Court and our social security system as a result of marriage breakdown. I am quite sure that I do not have to convince the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) of the need to support our families. He is recognised as, and is indeed, a man who supports families and sets a great example. I beg this Government to rethink its priorities in the area of assistance to families and to develop the resources of our marriage education and counselling organisations to an adequate level. There was no increase this year over the $100,000 allocated in last year's Budget to marriage education before the failures occur. Just as the Government has had to face up to the rural and current account crises, I suggest that it face up to the crisis facing Australian families and take urgent measures to redirect resources towards the prevention of marriage failure. I believe that the controversy over fringe benefits tax, taxation generally and all the other things that are gaining a lot of attention lately, pales into insignificance when we look at the great problems facing Australia today as a result of the lack of activity, the lack of measures being taken and, indeed in this Budget, the lack of financial resources allocated to trying to do something about saving the marriages of this great country. I urge this again, not merely for its long term cost effectiveness but also because the Parliament has a duty to protect and nurture the institution of marriage and the family unit. We must pay much more attention to that than we have in the past. As I argued in May this year, most of us who have any idea as to what constitutes a sound basis for the future wellbeing of our individual citizens and our nation are increasingly dismayed by what we see as apathy, even cowardice, based on short term political consideration or ideological confusion and hostility to marriage and the family. A great deal of attention and a lot more thought must be given to this appropriation for the Attorney-General's Department. There is an old saying that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, and we need to pay considerable attention to this very difficult problem, which will have dire consequences for the nation. The consequences will be greater than any that could be attributed to taxation problems, such as the fringe benefits tax, and other measures which are getting a great deal of media attention in our society today. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General)(10.15) —I thank honourable members for their contributions to what is called the debate on the Attorney-General's estimates. I thought I might advert to that because there has been a fair amount of discussion on matters which do not seem to be in the estimates. I congratulate the honourable member for Macquarie (Mr Webster) for at least adverting to this most important issue. I remind the honourable member that we would welcome sums of money which would be beneficial in any areas, but I must make the point that when we talk about marriage breakdown it is worth while looking at the people who make a success of marriage, at how they do it and the reasons why they make a success of it. Many people do not have to have a lot of money spent on them to educate them; they seem to have the ability to understand what marriage means, the seriousness of the contract, whether they regard it in a religious or civil form, and their responsibilities to their family. I pay tribute to the many thousands of people who are making a success of their marriage and rearing their family. I pay tribute also to the fact that they pay the taxes to help others who are in need. We recognise the deplorable results, particularly for children, of which the honourable member is aware, when the family breaks up. There are problems of incompatibility, alcoholism, crime and other problems which lead to family breakdown, and unfortunately it is increasing. Perhaps education in that sense can correct it; perhaps it cannot. I admit that it would help, as does marriage counselling, but how much of other people's income can we give to those areas when there are so many other claims on those resources for things such as pensions and other areas of welfare? The average counselling cost is about $25 a conference. We are having a study made now as to what would be the effective result of spending this sort of money. We are spending about $4.7m on counselling. Mr Webster —That is after. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —No, it is before. It comes at the time of crisis. One would hope that education would be able to correct it, but I make the point that people often have difficulties after marriage for reasons which relate to a number of matters that were not obvious before marriage. Certainly what the honourable member was saying is valuable, but what I am trying to say to him is that we should look at why people are so successful without having to have a lot of money spent on them. The problem of the amount of the supporting mother's benefit was mentioned by the honourable member. I do not think that that helps to keep the family out of poverty. Once the family breaks up, both elements are likely to be in poverty-that is the position. Again, I emphasise the value of keeping together the family, which is paying the taxes to help others who are in misfortune. The Family Court of Australia is costing $80m to $90m to run. It is the divorce court. It cannot do much for the family because by the time the family reaches it it is a question of how it might be able to separate the parties and adjudicate on their responsibilities. That is done at enormous cost. We are looking at breakdown of society in that area, the same as in other areas which have been mentioned today, such as crime. The honourable member for Gilmore (Mr Sharp) and the honourable member for North Sydney (Mr Spender) said the same things, but they were not here to listen to each other. They were anxious to emphasise the Taillon case. The Taillon case related to the question of whether a person should be prosecuted for having a quantity of narcotics in his or her luggage when the luggage is not in the possession of the person. A prosecution was launched and the Director of Public Prosecutions decided not to proceed with it on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant the prosecution. That can happen in a number of cases, but in this case the police expressed concern that there was a loophole in the law. I asked for the law to be examined and the report I got from Mr Porter Chester, QC, was that there was no loophole in the law as it relates to importation but there may be some weakness in the law as it relates to what is deemed to be possession. When that opinion was put to the authorities-not in my Department-they raised the issue, with which I did not agree, that perhaps it might be appropriate not to seize the narcotics in the possession at the time but to let them go to their destination, which in this case was Canada, where they would have been able, without any weakness in the law, to get a conviction on the basis that the person Taillon would have been able to be convicted not only for importing but also for possessing. I regarded that as being far too weak because, whilst the luggage might have gone to Canada, it did not follow that Mr Taillon would have gone to Canada. What would happen if he went somewhere else in the interim? So that has been the issue of discussion. There has been no weakness or hesitation on the Attorney-General's part. I want to tell honourable members now that, if the weakness is deemed to be there, it will be altered, I think next week, when an amendment to the legislation will be introduced into the House. It is not a matter which I have had the carriage of. A suggestion has been put by what one might call the law enforcement agencies as to whether, using their intelligence, it might have been better to allow the luggage to go to Canada together with the passenger and get a conviction there. But I think that would be a weakness because it would amount to allowing the narcotics to continue their journey and we would not know what their destiny would be or whether the passenger himself would go to his alleged destination. I am happy that that matter has now been solved on the basis of people agreeing with what I thought. Mr Peacock —But what about Trimbole? Mr LIONEL BOWEN —What about Trimbole? I know that the honourable member for Kooyong, a very distinguished member of the House, would know that Mr Trimbole left when the honourable member was a member of the previous Government. Mr Peacock —But you let him escape and you have done nothing to get him. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I do not have enough time to debate with my honourable friend all the efforts that have been made, but let me make the point- Mr Peacock —Where is he? You don't know. The CHAIRMAN —Order! Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Mr Chairman. I know that the honourable gentleman is full of curiosity today but let me get on with the matters that have been raised. The issue is this: What is the Government's position generally in respect of organised crime? Let me comment on the matters that were raised by the honourable member for North Sydney and, to a lesser extent, by the honourable member for Gilmore. All those criminals that they were talking about really committed those crimes when the previous Government was in power. We have had to go round the world getting extradition treaties which were not in existence. In fact, honourable members opposite would know that the one with Ireland was lost in a drawer for a period of four years when honourable members opposite were in government. There were no extradition treaties until I got the 16 extradition treaties. The fact that we now have mutual assistance treaties for the first time must make honourable members opposite ask: `Why did we take so long to get to that position?' We are now in the position of being able to get people extradited and returned to this country. In recent days we have had substantial successes in bringing two major criminals back to this country. The sad part is that they would have been able to get an enormous amount of assets, through criminal conduct, in the period when honourable members opposite were in government. We have been able to do this by bringing effective extradition laws into play. It has cost us a lot of money. On that score it is important that we, in this Parliament, treat the matter seriously. Today's deliberations have been somewhat of a misadventure when we look at them from the point of view of what we are about here today. We are talking about a co-operative effort with the States in pursuing organised crime. We need a co-operative effort from the banks and all the financial institutions in regard to the money trail. I hope that the banks give us all the co-operation we need now to establish where the money is and where it goes to-that is, following the money flow, whether it be cash or cheques. There is a suggestion that the banks will find that a little hard and that they do not want to be put to the trouble of doing it. It is obligatory in the United States of America and we want the same co-operation from financial institutions in Australia. We have legislation that will be able to bring this measure in if we have an undertaking not only from the banks but also from all financial institutions that they will be able to help us in that regard. We want to talk about cash transactions of $10,000 or more and we want to talk about the money flow and where it goes to, because that is the most effective weapon against crime. In addition, we want to talk about the forfeiture of assets-not assets that are directly related perhaps to the actual crime but any assets that can be related to conduct that might have encouraged their building up and accumulation. We also want to talk about the reversal of the onus of proof where people have substantial assets and cannot justify how they got them. There has to be some interference with what we could call the normal rights of privacy when there is a question of our dealing with this dreadful escalation which is bringing so much death and desolation to so many people in the world. I welcome debate on this issue. Let me make the point-we recognise the fact and talk about it-that basically we are chasing now a large number of criminals throughout the world. All governments are co-operating, and I welcome the co-operation of, for example, the United States of America, other Commonwealth countries, Switzerland and others with which we are able to talk about mutual assistance and entitling them to get the same access to bank accounts and accounts of other financial institutions as we would want in their countries. By this co-operative effort we will be able to make, I think, an impact on the criminal who has been able to escape attention and detention. It is interesting that it was alleged that there is not enough action in relation to telephone interception. Let me make the point that that power was offered to the State governments, but not every State government feels that it wants that power. We have set up a joint committee of this Parliament to take evidence as to what is the most effective method of legislation and to invite the State governments or their representatives to make submissions. Some of them want the power; some of them do not; and some of them want us to do it for them. I am waiting for the committee's report. When it comes to hand I am sure the House will debate it and will be able to come to the right result from the point of view of determining whether we will have to do it for the States or whether they want to do it. It can be done. It is a valuable tool and a weapon that I think State law enforcement agencies need. These are the matters that have been of concern this morning. I reject the suggestion that something has suddenly happened in the sense of criminal conduct in the last two-and-a-half years. The issues of the Costigan, Gyles and McCabe-Lafranchi reports all happened prior to 1982 when we saw this enormous escalation, particularly through the Nugan-Hand operations and other matters, and the ability to accumulate large amounts of assets, particularly through tax evasion and avoidance, narcotic dealings and money laundering. All those matters became obvious to this Parliament when they were highlighted in those reports. As the Treasurer (Mr Keating) has been saying here, the Australian Taxation Office was the first to know about them, particularly in the period from 1978 to 1981 when there was a massive avoidance of tax by straw companies. The people basically associated with that sort of operation were, in the main, of a criminal mind, and that is well known. These are factors that could have been brought to attention a long while ago. Fortunately, by accident the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union seized the issue. It was set up to look at the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union, and it did that. In the process of looking at the union, Costigan discovered that it was a criminal front for a lot of other criminals who had an air of respectability about them because they held the title of company director or something of that nature. The conduct was atrocious; the damage to this country was severe; the damage to the economy was permanent-- Mr Tuckey —It started while you were in office. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —It did not, and that is the point-- Mr Tuckey —In 1972, according to Costigan. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I know that the honourable member for O'Connor was not in this Parliament in 1972, but if he looks at the McCabe-Lafranchi report he will see that there was a recommendation for the prosecutions which was not followed up. Particularly in Western Australia, it was not followed up at all after 1975. The recommendations were made before 1975. Mr Tuckey —They were made in 1973. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I invite the honourable member to look at the record. He will see that there is no justification for failure to prosecute in the period from 1975 to 1983 when the evidence was there. We have been doing the prosecutions since then. Does the honourable member understand that? We have had to take on those prosecutions since then. The honourable member must look at what happened in that period. I am trying to explain the reasoning behind all this. It is not a matter of point scoring here today; the issue was the negligence in that period and the failure of the people in government, who understood the situation through tax advice, to do something about what had gone wrong with their tax revenue collections. We had the crude oil levy to make up for not getting sufficient revenue from the tax base. Mr Tuckey —Oh no. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Oh yes. That was the reason. There was a $3 billion gap in that period. The honourable member should not shake his head about it. That is why those opposite lost government. They lost it because they needed to get that revenue. Having lost the revenue, they had to get it through parity pricing. That was the idea. They lost the revenue through the corporate area. That is what Commissioner O'Reilly's report is about. Honourable members opposite should look at it. It was tabled in this place in 1982. This Government beat the previous Government in 1983 after it could not call an early election in 1982 because of the problems raised in the report of the Costigan Royal Commission on the Activities of the Federated Ship Painters and Dockers Union. We moved 14 motions of no confidence in the previous Government in the last period of 1982 for its failure to deal with the Costigan report. We are in government because of those matters. It is not much good sending in the unfortunate honourable member for North Sydney to talk about matters to which he obviously does not want to advert or which he knows little about. The problems of this country relate to the period of the former Government, not just the last two years. The Trimboles and the others we are chasing all committed their crimes in that period. It is an indictment that we are still trying to find them across the world and deal with them. Recent announcements have made it very clear that we are getting co-operation from other countries in dealing with organised crime. It will be dealt with through the detection and confiscation of assets, the exchange of information, the identification of bank accounts, and the co-operation of the banks in ascertaining what money movements have taken place. In that way we will help the law enforcement agencies and guarantee that when we find accumulated assets they will be confiscated and when we can catch the criminals they will be imprisoned. This is the only way we can attack organised crime. We need a co-operative effort between the State governments, the banking institutions and particularly the law enforcement agencies. Let me pay a tribute to the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright), who has taken a very keen interest in the area of consumer affairs. Mr Hodgman —Are you going to table those advisings on the fringe benefits tax? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr Hodgman —Mr Chairman, I take a point of order. I ask: Is the Attorney going to table the advisings on the unconstitutionality of the fringe benefits tax? The CHAIRMAN —There is no point of order. The honourable member for Denison will resume his seat. Mr Hodgman —Why is there no point of order? The CHAIRMAN —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr Hodgman —Why is there no point of order? The CHAIRMAN —You cannot use a point of order to ask an honourable member a question. You attempted to use a point of order to ask the Attorney-General to do something. You cannot use a point of order to do that. I have called upon you to resume your seat. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was discussing the question of the remarks by- Mr Hodgman —I do have a point of order. The CHAIRMAN —If you do not resume your seat I will deal with you. Mr Hodgman —Do I have the right to put a point of order to you or not? The CHAIRMAN —If you have a further point of order. Mr Hodgman —The point of order is that I was not asking a question. I was specifically calling on the Attorney to table the advisings on section 114. The CHAIRMAN —Order! You cannot use a point of order to do that. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —I was talking about consumer affairs matters, which were legitimately raised by the honourable member for Capricornia. I pay tribute to him for identifying a number of issues which are of concern, particularly the unsafe products which have been on the market and the damage done to children and families who have not been protected from the sale of these products. The consumer movement plays a very important role in our society and we welcome the advice of that movement. I welcome the contribution of the honourable member for Capricornia and all other honourable members who have spoken about how we should be able to prevent people from being damaged by unsafe products. I think we are now leading the world in legislation dealing with the recall of those products. Recent amendments to the Trade Practices Act are a tribute to the efforts of everybody and particularly the consumer movement. Finally, the honourable member for Denison is anxious that I notice him. I will do that is a very brief fashion. The fringe benefits tax matters to which he referred relate to the taxation laws. As a Queen's Counsel, he would know that taxation matters are a Federal responsibility and that there is no question of the State governments being exempt because of the Constitution. Mr Hodgman —Are you going to table those advisings on the fringe benefits tax? The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Denison will cease interjecting. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —As he knows, the issue is a matter of law that has already been passed- Mr Hodgman —Oh, Mr McLeay! The CHAIRMAN —I warn the honourable member for Denison. Mr LIONEL BOWEN —Thank you, Mr McLeay. You have been very tolerant with the honourable member. Apparently we started too early this morning, at 9 a.m. We ought to start a little later for some. That law has already passed this Parliament and if there are any challenges to it I am sure they will be made. I think the honourable member became a bit upset about the fact that he has not been noticed. I think he has made better contributions than he has made today. He should watch out. I cannot see his getting back on the front bench if he keeps up this conduct. Mr HODGMAN(Denison)(10.35) —I will delay the Committee for only one minute. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) stands condemned for having failed to table in this Parliament advisings his Government has received that the fringe benefits tax contravenes section 114 of the Constitution. Section 114 states: A State shall not, without the consent of the Parliament of the Commonwealth, raise or maintain any naval or military force, or impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to the Commonwealth, nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State. I repeat: . . . nor shall the Commonwealth impose any tax on property of any kind belonging to a State. The fringe benefits tax will impact on every house owned by every State government and occupied by every policeman in Australia. It will impact on every motor vehicle owned by State governments and driven by officers of any department, be it the Department of Health, the Department of Education or whatever. The Attorney-General has run from the chamber. He is not prepared to table the advisings he has had. Let me tell him that the States of Tasmania and Queensland may well see him in the High Court of Australia on the basis of the authority of D'Emden v. Pedder. It is a scandalous day in the history of this Parliament when the Attorney-General will not even defend in this chamber the fringe benefits tax legislation which this iniquitous Government has imposed on 15 million Australians. It will tax the housekeepers of paraplegics. It tells a 93-year old pensioner in Melbourne that the only way he can get out of paying $1,500 FBT on his live-in housekeeper is to declare that she is his de facto spouse. That man was affronted and offended by that advice. Mr Cohen —Mr Chairman, I raise a point of order. I understand that we are discussing the estimates for the Attorney-General's Department. Is that correct? The honourable member is straying a long way from those estimates. The CHAIRMAN —My understanding is that the honourable member was saying that the Act was somehow contrary to the Constitution and was making a point about that. Mr HODGMAN —Thank you, Mr McLeay. I will conclude my remarks, if I am not interrupted by inane points of order. The Attorney-General, at the conclusion of his last remarks, seemed to imply that the FBT was not under his jurisdiction and control. As such, he joins the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), who will no longer defend this iniquitous legislation, and the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who refuses to answer questions in this chamber on the capital gains tax and the FBT or who, when he does answer such questions, gets his answers wrong. The Attorney-General is hiding behind the skirts of the Australian Taxation Office, saying: `It has nothing to do with me; I am not directly involved'. The people of Australia now see a gutless government not prepared to defend a law which it knows is unjust, unenforceable and unconstitutional. They see an Attorney-General who has run from the chamber rather than debate the issue. The honourable course for him now is to tender his resignation. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Defence Proposed expenditure, $7,174,096,000. Department of Foreign Affairs Proposed expenditure, $1,111,670,000. Mr SINCLAIR(New England-Leader of the National Party of Australia)(10.40) —I want to address the estimates for the Department of Defence and to express our increasing concern at the disparity between the policies being pursued by this Government and the reality of the defence situation we face. We on this side of the chamber are increasingly concerned that Australia should be able to play a wider role in the region than either the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities or the defence policy of the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) permit. There is therefore every reason for the people of Australia to understand that in defence there is an increasing division between the approach that would be taken by an incoming Liberal-National Party government and that being pursued by the present Labor Administration. I want briefly to address some of the elements of our concern about the strategic situation we face and then come back to the way in which funds are being spent. We need to remember that in the aftermath of Reykjavik there is a real concern in the world about the degree to which it is possible for an Australian Government properly to play its role within its defence obligations; that is, its alliances, which I shall now briefly outline. I refer to our obligations within ANZUS and within the five-power defence arrangements-which involves New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Singapore, Malaysia and Australia-and to our wider obligations as a member of the United Nations. Certainly our United Nations obligations and the fact that the Government has withdrawn from the Multinational Force and Observers group in the Sinai reflects a narrowness of view and the degree to which the Government is not prepared to play a wider role in the defence of the world. It is quite apparent that the decisions being taken by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-in particular with respect to MX missile testing, with respect to the strategic defence initiative, with respect to his virtual benign neglect of trying to persuade New Zealand to adopt a more responsible course within ANZUS, with respect to the Government's attendance at the non-aligned conference, with respect to the negotiation of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty which places very real restraints on the ability of our American allies to play their full role in the Pacific and with respect to our opposition in the United Nations to the United States disarmament stand-all reflect a contracting of our defence responsibilities by the Australian Labor Administration. It is reflected in the way in which funds are being spent on defence. It is important that we understand that the principal contrast in defence stratagem lies in what we see as the fallacy of the denial stratagem. Whatever the Minister might say about a White Paper that is yet to be produced, at this stage the actual process of spending on defence is very much part of a denial stratagem. We need to recognise that the allocation of funds and the direction of that expenditure are more and more a product of the acceptance by the Government of a strategy of denial. I put it to this chamber and to the people of Australia that a strategy of denial is likely to develop a threat against Australia, is likely to make Australia more vulnerable and to put it in a situation where, if a threat should develop, we are likely to be more dependent upon the United Nations than we should be. Of course, as I have emphasised in a number of other contributions in the House, particularly in my response to the Minister's statement on Tuesday, that has been aggravated by the fact that, instead of becoming self-sufficient, we are becoming very dependent in relation to procurements. The design and development of a succession of new procurements for the armed forces are all being passed abroad. Sure, we are manufacturing them-we have an offsets program-but we are not designing that equipment in Australia. Be it the new generation of light weapons, the new trainer for the Royal Australian Air Force, or even the new boat required by the Special Air Service; instead of trying to design these things here we are allowing them to be designed overseas and then taking some satisfaction from the fact that part of the work is being undertaken in Australian defence factories. The basis of my concern, however, is the difference in approach towards what should be the fundamental strategy of our Defence Force. I do not accept denial as I believe it places us under difficulties in relation to both our treaty obligations and our defence security. The ANZUS treaty imposes two principal obligations on Australia: To practise continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid: and to consider an armed attack on a treaty partner in the Pacific area an attack on Australia and to meet that common danger by action in accordance with our constitutional process. It is worth while recognising that under the Guam or Nixon Doctrine a number of new responsibilities were placed on Australia. If I quote from a statement issued by the then Secretary of Defense in the United States, Melvin R. Laird, before a joint session of the Senate Armed Services Committee on 20 February 1970 honourable members will recognise the extent to which this Government has moved away from an ability on our part to meet the responsibilities that we have accepted under ANZUS. That is part of our concern in this area within the general embrace of preserving Australia's national security. Mr Laird said: Henceforth, we will look increasingly to the pursuit of peace through partnership with our allies. This new policy requires that we place more emphasis on furnishing our allies with appropriate military and economic assistance. The President emphasized that we will provide a shield for any of our allies whose freedom is threatened by a nuclear power; we will provide a shield for any other nation whose survival we judge to be vital to our own security. Thus we shall remain faithful to our treaty obligations, while at the same time looking to our allies to share more of the overall defence burden in a more fruitful partnership with us. There is little doubt that, in terms of denial, our ability to meet that obligation is being restricted. I am concerned that the Government, in the development of its defence spending, will not be able to meet the general obligations of the Guam Doctrine or of our ANZUS or Australia, New Zealand and Malaysia treaty commitments. It is worth while thinking in particular of what our major obligations under our treaties are. As I see them, they are: Firstly, to practise effective self-help; secondly, to be prepared and capable of rendering mutual aid to our ANZUS partners-even though ANZUS might not now exist in its full tripartite sense as a treaty which is in full process, Australia under this Government has preserved its obligations to New Zealand so we do need to be able to render mutual aid to New Zealand in any climate within our overall ANZUS obligation; thirdly, to be prepared and capable of providing assistance to Malaysia and Singapore under the five-power defence arrangements; and, fourthly, to be capable of contributing to regional security and stability under the self-help provisions of both ANZUS and the FPDA. In my view the strategy of denial, which is the basis of this Government's defence program, denies us the ability to operate in that way. I am concerned, because I believe it is necessary for us to put forward a different strategy of force control or force projection. Firstly, such a strategy would enable us to project power beyond Australian territory in strength sufficient to establish control and to have logistic supply to a limited degree in the South Pacific and South East Asia which would give Australia an independent ability to meet both our alliance responsibilities and the obligations of defending Australia and Australia's national interests, a capacity to project our foreign policy in this region and a capability to meet our wider obligations within the overall embrace of the United Nations in trying to preserve the peace of the world. Secondly, the strategy would include ground, maritime and Air Force elements capable of long range deployment and independent operations up to a point of reasonable self-sufficiency; and, thirdly, it would include support elements capable of sustaining deployed forces with minimal external aid, supporting reinforcement or withdrawal of forward-deployed elements and maintaining secure lines of communications between the Australian base and forward elements. That is a far more practical stratagem for use to follow than force denial. I am concerned at the elements of change that the Minister's budget and his subsequent statement on it reflect. I refer to the withdrawal of the defence attaches and to the fact that our tank squadron has already been cut by one-third. I refer also to the fact that there are now steps under way to implement the Dibb recommendations on the 2,000 tonne corvettes, which I believe will be inadequate for the task. I suggested the other day that utilising the FFG hull would be a far better way to go. I refer also to the failure to upgrade fully the F111s, which are by far the most capable deterrent Air Force asset we hold. Not only should the F111s be upgraded but also we should proceed towards aerial refuelling capability for those aircraft as well as for the F18s. I refer also to the failure to acquire an airborne early warning and control aircraft. In the Minister's statement he said he would advance the Jindalee project by three establishments. We believe it would be better to develop one only at this stage and to proceed to disburse those other assets on investing as soon as possible in an AEWC aircraft capability. Having airborne early warning would enable this nation to give better cover to our fleet. While we totally support the development of the Seahawk, we do not believe it is possible, without AEW aircraft, to be able to cover the fleet. We do not accept his fortress Australia denial policy. We are concerned about changes that affect the Butterworth establishment. We believe that the basic attitude that the Minister is adopting will not place Australia in the position of self-reliance that is absolutely essential at this time of changing strategic threats within the Pacific and within Asia. The Soviet build-up is something that we cannot deny. It is necessary also to look at political instability in the island nations that surround us. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The right honourable member's time has expired. Mr CROSS(Brisbane)(10.50) —We have listened with interest to a speech by the right honourable member for New England (Mr Sinclair) in which he has said that he supports a strategy that will project power beyond Australian territory. He focused his attention on the denial strategy suggested by the Dibb report on the Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. He outlined the commitments that Australia has through ANZUS to New Zealand, which unhappily has withdrawn from ANZUS at this point, through the five power arrangements and through the United Nations. For the benefit of the Committee, and I am sure the Australian community, I would have been interested if in his time he had addressed himself to the recent pledge by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) to freeze government Budget expenditure for three years and to what that would mean to the Australian Defence Force and, indeed, to other areas of Australia. On the one hand, the right honourable member suggested that we need equipment to project ourselves to all parts of the world, to take up United Nations commitments and the like. This would have to be done against not only a very tight Budget situation this year but also the pledge of the Leader of the Opposition to fix Budget expenditure for a period of three years. We are aware of the implications of that pledge to pensioners, to social security recipients and to all of the Commonwealth expenditure programs that are so important to the Australian economy and the like. But it is necessary to focus parti-cularly on what that pledge could mean for defence. I congratulate the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) on the success that he has had in obtaining the defence allocation in the 1986-87 Budget. If one looks at the table in the Budget Papers entitled `Budget Outlays by Function', one notices that, in this very difficult Budget, defence expenditure has risen by 11.1 per cent, and to 9.9 per cent as a proportion of total Budget outlays. I am not suggesting that there have not been some cutbacks in defence expen-diture against the Forward Estimates that we would like to see in place, but the Hawke Labor Government's expenditure on defence in this Budget shows that defence has been singled out as a high priority area for national expenditure. One of the reasons for that is the substantial neglect of defence expenditure under previous governments. When we came into office in 1983, it was pointed out that, for the Department of Defence to budget properly in order to develop its capacities and to purchase the highly expensive capital equipment that modern defence forces require, some stability in budget commitment was needed. We all understand that de-fence equipment-Australia by and large tries to buy state of the art defence equipment-takes a long lead time before it rolls off the assembly line and that the equipment is in place for possibly 20 years or a quarter of a century. Indeed, when governments change, it is quite a long time before a government can make signifi-cant changes, if desired, in the capital equipment program inherited from its predecessor. The dominant expenditure line in the defence budget this year is over $1 billion to continue the FA18 fighter program. Members of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence had an opportunity fairly recently to go to Williamtown, near Newcastle, to inspect the magnificent new facilities being built at that very important Royal Australian Air Force base and to see the FA18 in action. I want to address my remarks to just a few of the directions in which the Labor Government is taking Australia as far as defence is concerned. The first thing that I would like to say in res-ponse to the previous speaker is that the Go-vernment is bringing down a White Paper, perhaps towards the end of this year but, if not, certainly early next year, which will be its considered response to the Dibb report. No previous government has done anything like this Minister has done in appointing a consultant to ensure that a broadly based and carefully researched report is available to lift the level of debate in the Australian community on Australia's defence prior to the White Paper coming down when, of course, the Parliament and the people of Australia will be able to debate it. The last White Paper was in 1976. In fact, that was substantially drafted in the days of the Whitlam Government. I remember some discussion on elements of that White Paper before the Labor Government went out of office in 1975. White Papers do not happen very often. They are worth doing well and this one is being done very well. There are a number of significant elements in the Labor Party's Budget apart from those things that are set out in the Budget Statements about capital equipment. First of all, we have set in place a new arrangement for determining De-fence Force pay and conditions. I am sure that honourable members will know that in the history of this country a review of Defence Force pay has been carried out only at the discretion of the Minister, and by and large it did not happen very often. When the Whitlam Government was elected in 1972 we directed a review of Defence Force pay which took effect in 1973. It was seven years before the Fraser-Howard coalition Government, with Sir James Killen as Minister for Defence, ordered a further review of Defence Force pay. That review was ordered in 1980. It came down in 1981 but, because that Government had not provided in its Budget for the new pay rates to come into effect, the pay increases did not take place until 1982. That means that for nine years there was no review of Defence Force pay. We have set up a Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal which on a continuing basis, buil-ding up its expertise and with the assistance of a Defence Force advocate, over a period will address the problems that exist in the very complex area of Defence Force pay and conditions. There was dissatisfaction in the Defence Force over the 5.9 per cent increase. The Tribunal was required to take into account the Government's wage fixing principles so that the same principles that applied for the community generally would apply for the Defence Force. The Tribunal is now looking at service allowances and other important areas of Defence Force pay. In time I am sure that those people in the Defence Force who are still apprehensive about how they have been treated by governments over the years will realise that the new system is an extremely useful one. Another area on which I would like to congratulate the Minister is the provision in the Budget of $67m towards a new program for defence housing. This is a $750m program, in 1985 dollars, over a decade. I am sure that honourable members who have an interest in the Defence Force or who have defence houses in their electorates will be as concerned as I am that about two-thirds of defence housing is pre-sently below standard. This new program is an imaginative one which, together with the review of pay and conditions, will provide a much more contented and happy Defence Force, and I am sure in the long term a higher retention rate. We are criticised for deficiencies that exist. I noticed recently in an article by David Barnett that he said that we had some trucks that are 30 years old. I do not know whether we have trucks that are 30 years old. I have certainly seem some very new vehicles at Enoggera that are just off the production line. But, if there are trucks that are 30 years old, they were 27 years old when the coalition Government went out of office. What I am really saying is that this Budget, this Minister and this Government are seeking to address the long term problems of the Australian Defence Force in a sensible and planned way. I congratulate the Minister for Defence, who is at the table, on the direction that he has given to the Australian Defence Force since he became Minister. In carrying out my responsibility in going around Australian defence establishments I find that there is a sense of new direction in the Australian Defence Force. While there will always be some people who complain about their individual circumstance, there is a realisation that we have a government on the treasury bench in Canberra that is using the resources available to it in fairly difficult budgetary times to advance the Australian Defence Force and those people who serve within it. Mr PEACOCK(Kooyong)(11.00) —The sum effect of nearly four years of the Australian Labor Party in office is a foreign policy adrift. The Labor Government has failed our friends, alienated our regional partners and ignored our alliance responsibilities. It courts those whose direct bearing on us is at best peripheral. This week's failure of the Reagan-Gorbachev talks in Reykjavik has pushed the two super-powers further apart. It is now all the more imperative for Australia to fulfil its alliance responsibilities in clear and unambiguous terms. But what we have seen under this Government is Labor creating such a pattern of policy differences that much of the legitimacy of the alliance is now eroded. The repeated affirmations of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) of the importance of the alliance are revealed as empty platitudes, particularly when seen with our disassociation of one specific issue after another. We have a Prime Minister who fails to understand the realities of global politics and who refuses to support the possibility of a better, more stable deterrence based on defences that are survivable. We have a Foreign Minister who only two weeks ago said he actually welcomed increased Soviet involvement in the South Pacific. We have a Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) whose Party State branch this month voted to remove the joint defence facilities, sweeping him aside. It shows the strength he commands in his division of his Party when in his portfolio area he cannot carry his members with him. It shows how abject is the performance of a Defence Minister who admits that Australia has drifted apart from Western strategic thinking. We have a Leader of the Government in the Senate (Senator Button) who calls the United States of America strategic defence initiative provocative-that is his word-while completely ignoring Soviet research of an identical nature. We therefore have a litany of indecision, intemperance and illogic. ANZUS, as we have known it for 30 years, is dead. As a consequence, the South Pacific has been increasingly targeted by the Soviet Union as an area of influence. Our relationship with Indonesia-our largest regional neighbour-is, in the Prime Minister's own words, a `shambles' and `in tatters'. Our relationship with Papua New Guinea is strained and volatile. An isolationist defence policy has been formulated. We have had nothing on how to strengthen the Western alliance and our participation in it, nothing on how to prevent growing Soviet influence in the region, nothing on how to put our relationship with Indonesia on a mature footing and nothing on terrorism or how to counter it. The Government's ineptitude, however, is nowhere more obvious than in its neglect of the South Pacific. We are all aware that the Soviet Union has sought access for some time. Its overtures go back beyond 10 years. In government we worked hard to prevent that access, and we succeeded. But we are now seeing that work fall apart. Soviet aspirations towards the region have been made clear by Secretary-General Gorbachev in his Vladivostok speech of 28 July. It was an extraordinarily significant statement. Nowhere could one find a more unequivocal statement of the Soviet Union's determination to play an activist role in the whole of the Pacific. I read just one quotation from that speech: The Pacific direction and the Soviet Union's foreign policy is an integral part of the overall platform of the Communist Party's international activity, worked out by the April plenary meeting and the twenty-seventh Party Conference. We are euphemistically told by Mr Gorbachev that the Soviet Union `seeks to lend dynamism' to its relationship with countries in the South Pacific. We are promised that it will `act with still greater energy' to pursue its goals. Yet our Foreign Minister could not even bring himself to visit the region until May this year. It took 26 overseas trips before the Foreign Minister discovered the South Pacific. Only this month in New York the Foreign Minister was reported to have made the extraordinary comment that the Government welcomed Gorbachev's Vladivostok speech. He said it was `highly desirable' for the Soviets to play a more productive and constructive role in the Asia-Pacific region. If we are to fulfil our alliance responsibilities, we must meet our responsibilities to our immediate region. This Government has not done that. Crystallising the Government's attitudes to a country with which we do have, in the real sense of the word, a special relationship, Papua New Guinea, is the extraordinary indictment that the Deputy Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea, after indicating that he preferred working with the Fraser Government to working with this Government, said of the Australian Government: I don't like ad hoc aid arrangements. Ad hoc aid makes for ad hoc planning and that's as bad as no planning at all . . . A stable and economically secure Papua New Guinea is vital to the security of the Pacific region . . . I am not making veiled threats-I am talking plain common sense. Indeed, he was. Plain common sense, however, is what this Government lacks. It has undermined our regional credibility, reneged on aid arrangements and agreements already in place-has reneged not once but twice, after only last year entering into a five-year agreement-and seeks to make friends the scapegoats for its own economic illiteracy. In a speech made at Armidale last month the Prime Minister said: We want to deal with the world as it really is, not as we might prefer or want it to be. His Government's foreign policy makes nonsense of this otherwise wise dictum. The remarks I have just made are made not just in the global sense, but are directed more particularly at the region. I would now like to give an overview of what I see this Government doing in the aftermath of the breakdown of the Reagan- Gorbachev talks at the weekend. All of us in the world community would hope for productive conclusions on arms control. We on this side of the chamber, for the first time, got Australia elected to the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations. We hope for forward movement on the intermediate-range nuclear force talks, on medium range missiles, on testing, et cetera. It is important that the contact between the United States and the Soviet Union continue apace at Geneva. I do not believe it is all bad. I do believe that in fact we could see some productive movement forward, provided the amount of work behind the scenes exceeds that which was done in preparation for last weekend's talks. Bearing in mind what I said about Mr Gorbachev's interest in the South Pacific and the Pacific generally now, I have to say that, considering the fascinating interview that Deng Xiaoping gave to Mike Wallace on American television only three or four weeks ago in which he said directly to an American audience that he would be prepared to withdraw two of his three preconditions for a fuller and normal relationship with the Soviet Union, we could well see over the next 15 to 18 months significant movement in relations between the Soviet Union and China beyond that which has already occurred. We have a great relationship with the Chinese, but such an accord, if reached, together with the impetus that the Soviet Union is showing in this area, is something this Government ought to be watching carefully. It should be performing as a full member of the Western alliance. Tragically, it is not doing that. For example, Labor has denied assistance on MX testing, it has denied the United States strategic defence initiative and modernisation plans, and Labor has attended the non-aligned summit. So much for being firmly entrenched within the Western alliance! Labor has neglected our allies, our responsibilities, and our people as a consequence, and is thereby neglecting our nation. Unless Labor views our foreign policy as starting from within the Western alliance, it is delinquent. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CHARLES(Isaacs)(11.11) —Great minds think alike because the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) rose to speak on exactly the same subject as that to which I shall address my remarks this morning. In April I was fortunate enough to lead a delegation of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and Defence to Papua New Guinea. I do not wish to discuss all aspects of that very important trip as I shall be presenting a report to the Parliament in the next few weeks. I and the honourable member for Kennedy (Mr Katter), who was my deputy leader, will wish to speak when our report is tabled. Papua New Guinea is very important to Australia, as the honourable member for Kooyong has rightly pointed out, for a whole host of reasons, a number of which are traditional and flow from our great friendship over a number of years. In the last few years there has been a gradual change in the Papua New Guinea leadership as new people have come into that Government. I had the pleasure of meeting the present Prime Minister, Paias Wingti, and had numerous discussions with him. He is a man who is only in his mid-thirties, and a number of his Ministers also are very young. Thus we are seeing a different generation in the Papua New Guinea leadership. This leads us to reflect on our relations with Papua New Guinea. Our good relationship must not be taken for granted just because that has always been the case. We have to work at it; we have to take note of the changes in the aspirations of the people of Papua New Guinea and to work with them. One of the reasons for the trip of the Joint Committee was to ascertain what was happening in Papua New Guinea and to meet people such as the Prime Minister, who was gracious enough to spend some time with us, as were a number of Ministers in the new Government. We sought to renew the relationship between our countries. It was a most important exercise and I found it most productive. I am a little concerned about the reduction in aid, but I understand the Government's problem. One could probably nitpick at a number of things in the Budget, not least the delay in the payment of pension entitlements, but I regard the Government's overall Budget as being extremely good. Unfortunately, one of the issues that had to be examined was a reduction in aid to Papua New Guinea. More fundamentally, in looking at aid to Papua New Guinea we have to go back to the report of the Jackson Committee to Review the Australian Overseas Aid Program and the debate that flowed from it. The report recommended a reduction in direct budgetary assistance aid to Papua New Guinea and a slow phasing in of tied aid. That proposal was not well received by Papua New Guinea to start with, but we are now seeing an acceptance of the position. It was interesting on our tour to learn that a number of provincial governments were getting projects together and putting them up to the national government. In one of the numerous discussions in Papua New Guinea with our excellent High Commissioner, Michael Wilson, he made the point that while the project aid had been slow in starting, it was now gathering momentum and the program was starting to take shape. This is more important than merely looking at expenditure of a few million dollars here or there. We are looking overall at aid of around $300m. It is not just a matter of this country pouring money into the Papua New Guinea budget every year, but gets back to the fundamental argument in the Jackson report that Papua New Guinea, slowly but surely over the next decade, should go more to specific projects that we will fund for them. It is to be hoped that over the next few years that aid will continue to come from Australia, as it has for many years. I believe that the process is working. Mr Wilson has been in Australia recently and I am sure he will confirm that the process is continuing. The honourable member for Herbert (Mr Lindsay) had significant discussions with the High Commissioner when he was in Australia last week. I seek to underline the importance of Papua New Guinea to Australia and to our region. Looking at the broader aspects of the South Pacific region, I believe that the present Australian Government has paid a great amount of attention to that area. The Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), who is present for this debate, has looked at the region from a strategic aspect as well as in a general foreign affairs context as being of significance to Australia and to the globe. We are looking not just at our own backyard but at how we fit into the overall jigsaw puzzle of our world. I gathered from my discussions with a number of American congressmen and American officials that the region is not as well known or appreciated by many people in the United States of America as it should be. That has been recognised in a number of high quarters, and over the next few years we hope to rectify that position. Indeed, a number of congressmen are now busily upgrading their knowledge of the area, knowledge which in some quarters was very low. Significant people, such as Congressman Solarz, have been in Australia, and Mr Solarz will be visiting Australia again next month. He takes a keen interest in the region. The United States should take an interest in the area because the position in the South Pacific is not all coffee and cream. As the honourable member for Kooyong pointed out, the Soviet Union's interest has increased quite dramatically, although I still do not believe it is as significant as some people make out at this point; but there is certainly potential. We cannot beat the Pacific Islanders or those in Papua New Guinea and in the region over the head and say: `This is what you will do'. It does not work that way. They are sovereign states, as are Australia, the United States of America, New Zealand, Fiji, Vanuatu and so on. They are all different and think differently. Countries in the region have a mixture of Melanesians, Polynesians and so on. They all have their own thoughts on how their countries should slot into the region. That raises the question of tuna fishing, which generally the United States Administration has not understood. It has let the Tuna Boat Association run the gauntlet for too long. It was ridiculous that a State Department official said some time ago that the United States had to fund fishing deals on a commercial basis and that the United States could not offer any more money over what was commercially acceptable. The fact is that the Soviet Union was paying over and above commercial rates to a great extent. For a pittance in the overall budget of the United States, and indeed the Budget of Australia, the United States had to face reality a lot earlier; it had to come to the table and pay over and above commercial rates. Even if the United States believed that it was being ripped off, that is beside the point. The sum overall is a drop in the ocean. Because of one silly issue, the whole region is now aflame. The last thing we want to see is an anti-American, anti-Australian or anti-West outlook, because the situation can change quite rapidly. I am sure that the great minds in the United States and Australia will be seeking to rectify the position. If I have one criticism of Australia it is probably that over the years we have not paid quite as much attention as we should have to the Pacific. Indeed, on this issue we could have taken a more interventionist role on behalf of the island states and put their case much more positively. Those points about Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific are very important. From Australia's point of view it is a very important area and we must consider how the region fits into our global aspect. I believe that it will become even more important as we venture towards the twenty-first century. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(11.21) —This morning we are discussing the 1986 defence appropriations in the context of the widely held belief that we face unprecedented levels of despair and disillusionment and unequalled rates of resignation within the Australian defence forces. We are also considering the defence budget in the context of a record of overall management of the defence forces by this Government, which has produced a situation in which there is real reason to doubt the ability of our serving members to maintain the operational capacity of our forces. In those contexts I wish to raise a number of points about these appropriations. First, we see a one per cent real increase in allocations, most of which will be absorbed by fringe benefits obligations. Mr Beazley —No it is not. It is on top of that. Mr WEBSTER —Well, there will be quite an erosion of this allocation-some commentators in the media have said that there could be even a negative growth rate. That is the case notwithstanding the fact that the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) came to the House in June and accepted the approach and principles of the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. The report's proposals had been costed responsibly, the Minister told us, and they required real increases of 3 per cent. Obviously the Minister failed to persuade his Cabinet colleagues of the logic of Australia's defence environment and needs. I might point out that there are three essential ingredients in the promotion of a healthy economy in Australia. The first is that we must stabilise and establish strong family units; secondly, we must encourage flourishing free enterprise; and, thirdly, we must have strong defence. The second point has to do with allocations to tackle the woeful situation of the working and living conditions of servicemen. For the first time in three years the Minister has taken this crucial aspect of defence morale and commitment seriously enough to increase funds for housing and facilities, to review management practices and to instigate an examination of wage comparisons with the private sector. This is good. I urge the Minister to ensure that these various undertakings are expedited and involve regular consultation, not only with the Chiefs of Staff, but also with the ordinary non-commissioned servicemen around the country. This very week the Minister told the House: Management is being improved and new work practices are being negotiated. From my own experience I must tell him of the frustrations of airmen and officers at Richmond, which is probably Australia's largest Royal Australian Air Force base, that improvement and those negotiations to which the Minister referred have not yet reached the shop floor at this major base. Morale is being eroded by excessively bureaucratised management structures, an inadequate information system involving a plethora of interrelated regulations and instructions, insensitive personnel practices, manning levels inappropriate to modern conditions and technology and the use of downward reclassification of positions to save money by lowering the rank deemed appropriate for certain functions and responsibilities. Let me give an example of this frustration. A particular airman enlisted more than 20 years ago, completing his training with distinction in 1967. His work on an internal RAAF procedures committee earned him a certificate of outstanding service. His work on management procedures in his unit produced drastic improvements in efficiency and this year, in recognition of his contributions, he was made a member of the Order of Australia. A couple of months ago this airman applied for discharge from the RAAF and has only extended his service until the end of this year in the hope of assisting in bringing about change in the conditions affecting RAAF servicemen. An airman with an outstanding record of service, recognised by this Government in its recommendation of him for the Order of Australia award, has come to the point where he sees no future for himself and his family in continued service. My third point concerns the inadequacy of allocations for family support for service families. I commend the Minister for his initiatives in this area but I also advise him to balance his concern for bricks and mortar with concern for education and marriage counselling for service men and women, their spouses and their children. My next point relates to appropriations for the retirement and death benefits for servicemen. This Budget saw another nail in the coffin of service morale with the 2 per cent discounting of these benefits. It damaged morale and it broke the trust which should always be nurtured between the Government and our servicemen. On this matter, I also draw the Minister's attention to the fact that, under the current requirements and implementation of the benefit scheme, servicemen having more than 20 years service have their entitlement to retirement pay secured only by their continued good health. I am referring to the lump sum payment which they receive. Both the legislation and its implementation need review. I wish to present a couple of scenarios to the Minister which illustrate this point. The first applies to two members who are identical in all respects except that the second member has had a serious accident during his holidays and has lost his leg. The first member is discharged at his own request after 23 years service and the second member is discharged after the same period of service because he is medically unfit and entitled to an invalidity benefit class B as a result of his car accident. His life expectancy is unchanged because he has only lost a leg. The first member is entitled to retirement pay and he has the option of commutation of retirement pay to purchase a house. The second member is entitled to invalidity pay that is equal to the retirement pay of the first member. He is not entitled to commutation because he qualified for an invalidity benefit class B, with the consequential loss of entitlement to commutation. The second scenario applies to a member who develops an illness whilst in the service. He retires at his own request after 23 years service and receives retirement pay and commutation. He buys a house, using his commutation. He becomes ill and is given six months to live. It can be shown that the illness developed while he was in service and that, had the true extent of his illness been known, he could have been discharged on medical grounds. He can be required, under the provisions of section 37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973, to repay the commutation that he has received. In order to repay that commutation, he could well be required to sell his house. I refer the Minister to these cases; I could cite many more. I also refer him to the detailed proposals that I have submitted to him through the Minister for Communications and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence (Mr Duffy). They are well worth looking at and considering. Mr LINDSAY(Herbert)(11.29) —Just 3 1/2 years ago, the Hawke Government, an authentic Australian government, came to office with the promise of a new direction for Australia and for the Australian people. Honourable members will recall that this was a tumultuous period in our history. At that time Australia was a nation swamped in economic chaos. It was a nation of dispirited people. Australia had a high taxing Liberal-National Party government, paralysed and devoid of inspiration and utterly incapable of serving the nation. The Hawke Government accepted the challenge of the Australian people to restore vitality, growth and vigour to our nation. In the face of one of the most difficult economic times in Australia's history, the Hawke Government has succeeded in giving Australia economic security. These sound economic principles have permitted the Hawke Government to sustain increasing levels of defence spending. Over the four Budgets of this Government defence spending has grown at an average rate of 2.7 per cent. The Hawke Government's performance so far has thus been above what is required to achieve the expansion of the Australian Defence Force recommended in the report of the Dibb Review of Australia's Defence Capabilities. By contrast, defence budgets over the seven years of the Fraser Government averaged only 2.5 per cent growth. More importantly, the commitment of the Liberal and National parties to freezing government spending overall is a guarantee that, should they ever get into office, their policies will be devastating for Australia's defence equipment acquisition programs and for the pay levels and conditions of service of defence personnel. Under the Hawke Government defence spending has reached record peacetime levels. This year's defence budget is $7,415m, an increase of $743m, or 11.1 per cent in actual terms, over last year's outlay. Defence spending this year represents 9.9 per cent of Commonwealth Budget outlays and 2.9 per cent of gross domestic product, sustaining the highest GDP share on defence spending since the days of the Vietnam war. The Hawke Government's overall strategy for the allocation of defence expenditure continues to put emphasis on long term investment in weapons, equipment and facilities. Over $2.5 billion, or 33.2 per cent, of planned defence expenditure is allocated to new and ongoing capital equipment and facilities. That constitutes the highest expenditure on defence equipment and facilities over the past 15 years and is almost double the rate of 17 per cent achieved by the Liberal-National Party Government in 1981-82. Significant new major equipment acquisitions include additional secure voice equipment to provide speech security for tactical communication between ships, aircraft and Army units; a further stock of standard surface to air missiles for practice firings from the guided missile frigates and destroyers; 105-millimetre field guns and additional stocks of training ammunition for the Army Reserve; more medium trucks to continue the replacement of the Army's aging fleet of 2 1/2-tonne trucks; and modification of the four Boeing 707 aircraft for in-flight refuelling of the FA18s. The defence budget for 1986-87 includes provision for continuing payments against projects earlier approved by the Hawke Government; for example, $182m for the construction of two FFG7-class guided missile frigates at Williamstown dockyard, $156m for the acquisition of 16 Seahawk helicopters for operation from the guided missile frigates and $79m for the purchase of 14 Blackhawk helicopters. Of particular significance is the approval of $21m to provide facilities for the new Blackhawks at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Townsville. The new helicopters will provide a much needed and significant air mobile capability for the Operational Deployment Force based at Lavarack Barracks, Townsville. The manpower strength of the Australian Defence Force was 70,049 at 30 June 1986. Wastage during 1985-86 was higher than it had been for some time. Recruitment targets were raised during the year as higher than expected wastage was experienced but, given the lead times for recruitment action, the intakes could not be adjusted sufficiently to match wastage. In some cases, particularly in the case of officer cadets, recruitment intakes are necessarily at fixed times during the year and any increase has to wait until the next year. The Hawke Government is concerned at the current level of retention rates. Wastage of manpower strength in the Australian Defence Force for 1985-86 was 12.3 per cent compared with the 10-year average of 11.1 per cent. Some of the reasons contributing to this increase in wastage have been identified. It is evident that there is greater job mobility among young soldiers than just 10 years ago, but overall it is evident that there is a complicated combination of reasons which will require considerable investigation. The Chief of Defence Force Staff, General Sir Phillip Bennett, has initiated a study into retention rates to identify problem areas and to seek solutions. Some action has already been implemented to improve retention rates. For example, this Government is committed to substantially improving defence housing, an area which suffered from 30 years of neglect by coalition governments. In this financial year more than $66m has been allocated for this purpose. Mr Bilney —And badly needed too. Mr LINDSAY —It is badly needed, too. In the next 10 years the Government intends to spend in the order of $750m on new and improved housing for the defence force. By way of contrast, the policy of the Liberal and National parties is to privatise defence force housing. This will scare witless every serving officer and soldier in the Australian Defence Force on housing security. Action has been taken to set up the Hamilton Report Implementation Team, a tri-service team to co-ordinate action on the recommendations of the Hawke Government-sponsored inquiry on supporting service families. I urge the team to investigate whether there should be increased time between postings and whether the minimum period of a posting should be about four years, which would help reduce turmoil in children's education sometimes caused by frequent postings. Consideration should be given to earlier identification of careers in specialties such as procurement, logistics and project management. Where postings are unavoidable, consideration should be given to providing allowances for older children to board pending completion of senior secondary education. Australian Defence Force agencies, probably as a function of local care personnel sections, should be established to assist wives of transferred service personnel to quickly gain suitable employment. Of particular concern to many members is the decision contained in the Budget to reduce the percentage by which Commonwealth superannuation and Defence Force retirement and death benefits were updated in July. Since 1976 Commonwealth and Defence Force superannuation pensions have been updated in July each year by the full amount of the increase in the consumer price index. In July 1986 pensions were increased under this arrangement by 9.2 per cent. Pensions are now to be reassessed as if that increase had been 7.2 per cent. This will mean that a pension of $200 per week before tax at June 1986, which was increased by the automatic application of the CPI movement on 3 July 1986 to $218.40 per week before tax, will be adjusted to $214.40 per week before tax with effect from 23 October 1986-a reduction of $4.40 per week before tax. The reduction will apply on and from pension pay day 23 October 1986 and there will be no retrospective adjustment to July this year. Legislation has been passed in the present session of Parliament to make the adjustments concurrently to both Commonwealth superannuation and DFRDB-DFRB pensions. The legislation applies only to the 1986 pension adjustment. The annual updating arrangements that apply to Commonwealth superannuation schemes are second to none. The Government has not-I repeat, not-undermined these arrangements. The Government is conscious of the central place of the DFRBD scheme for service members in their plans for returning to civilian life. The Government has not lightly taken the decision to make this reduction, but honourable members will be well aware of the serious economic situation in which the Budget was framed and the necessity for all sectors of the community to share the burden of restraint. In the national interest the Government decided that the 2 per cent discount which was applied to wages in the July national wage case decision should be extended to government superannuation pensions. Conditions of service do impact on the morale of the members of the Defence Force and their families. The Hawke Government is acutely aware of this and has initiated action to improve conditions in a number of important areas. For example, on 2 September 1985 the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal granted service personnel a pay rise of 5.9 per cent. Many service members were aghast at this pay increase. They felt shortchanged. However, apart from the national wage increases under national wage principles, this was the first pay increase for defence personnel since 1981. As part of an earlier reference to the Tribunal, it will soon be required to determine an application for an increase in service allowance payments. I suggest that the options available to the Tribunal include the introduction of overtime for specified tasks, for example, base maintenance and clerical work; review of the service allowance to reflect the amount of overtime; annual adjustments on the basis of the amount of overtime required for the previous year; and a review of staffing levels and allocated tasks to reduce the requirement for overtime hours. I urge the Tribunal to deal expeditiously and favourably with this important aspect of wage justice. No government in Australia's history has a prouder record of faithful fulfilment of its mandate to rebuild Australia's Defence Force than this Australian Government. We now have an unparalleled opportunity to build an even better and stronger Australian Defence Force. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(11.39) —Total spending budgeted for the Department of Foreign Affairs in 1986-87 is $1,205.8m. When we add to that another $95.4m which other departments spend in this area, this makes a total foreign aid package of $928m and a non-aid allocation of $373.2m, which is a grand total of just over $1,300m. However, it is the detail of and the priorities on how this aid is apportioned that concern me. The funding for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation has more than doubled from $2.1m to $4.8m this year. International Labour Organisation funding is up $346,000 to $3.1m. The working group on the South Pacific nuclear free zone, would you believe, has received $141,000 from the Budget in the last two years. International Year of Peace activities have attracted $2.9m in the last couple of years, and much of this money has gone to the left wing groups to paint murals on walls, to the movement for toys against violence, to put peace logos on plastic shopping bags, and other nonsense like that. Mr Webster —Has there been any increase to Papua New Guinea? Mr COBB —No, there has not. While we are doing this we have cut our refugee funding, given through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, from $4.7m last year to $4m this year. Mr Coleman —What, they have cut it? Mr COBB —It has been cut, yes. I want to address my comments mainly to the refugee funding problem. There are about 10 million refugees in the world today and it is remarkable that half of them come from Afghanistan. They are located mainly in Pakistan, Iran, India and Turkey and are increasing at the rate of up to 10,000 a month. In 1979, when Russia invaded Afghanistan, it had a population of about 14 million people-very similar to the population of Australia. Today Australia's population exceeds 15 million but the population of Afghanistan is of the order of 8 million people. Six million people are either in exile or are dead. Half a million to one million have been killed outright and two million have been driven from their place of livelihood in the country to the cities. The Russians have levelled villages, they have brought food production to a standstill in the country, they have burnt crops, destroyed irrigation projects, and killed stock by poisoning the water and gassing and shooting them. The famine that has resulted in the countryside is horrific. For example, last winter in the Panshir Valley, 85 per cent of the babies died because their mothers could not produce enough milk to breastfeed them. To support my belief that aid should be directed to the Afghan refugee problem I would now like to give some examples from the reports of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Special Rapporteur, Felix Ermacora, and from reports of Amnesty International and Helsinki Watch. At present there are anything between 115,000 and 200,000 Russian troops in Afghanistan. They are using sophisticated weapons to prop up an unpopular and otherwise unsustainable communist government in the capital of Kabul. They are doing this by terrorising and slaughtering not only the mujahiedeen resistance but also the ordinary people of Afghanistan. I will give some examples of what has gone on in the prisons because it is there that the Russians specialise in the degrading and humiliating treatment of these people. Mr McVeigh —They are Gerry Hand's mates, the Russians. Mr COBB —Yes. They rape women in the presence of their families. They force men to watch their wives being sexually molested in torture chambers. Mothers are made to watch their children being given electric shocks. They stick pieces of wood up the anuses of old and highly respected men. They apply pressure to prisoners' throats so that their mouths are forced open while guards urinate into them. They pluck out the beards particularly of elderly or religious and respected men. Apart from the pain that this would cause, think what it does to the dignity of these people. They tie up women, rape them and force various objects into the vagina. They apply electric shocks to the genitals and breasts. They pull out fingernails, apply burns, put police dogs on to people, hang others by their feet for long periods, deprive others of sleep, and shoot prisoners, sometimes in their hundreds, in the presence of others. Mr McGauran —And there is proof for all this? Mr COBB —There is; it is well documented. The Poli Charki prison, 10 kilometres east of Kabul, has acquired particular notoriety because 27,000 people were executed there in one short period. A leading expert in these matters, Michael Barry, said: This is not an estimate. This is the simple addition of the names of the victims posted in public places to discourage the families from crowding the gates of the prison with packages of clothing and food. It is particularly in the villages where the Russians have been most uncaring and gruesome in their approach. Butchery has become a by-word for their behaviour. In one village they tied up their victims, piled them up like wood, and burnt them alive. Forty men, women and children went in that episode. In another village, while they were interrogating the adults a child was held over the fire like a pig over a spit. In another village where the villagers fled when they saw the Russians coming, two old and highly respected men stayed behind. One was 90 years old and the other 95. They were both blind. The Russians strapped dynamite to their backs and blew them up. They have shot unarmed school girls in a demonstration. In another village where the villagers had fled and hidden in an underground irrigation channel the Russians found them, poured a whitish liquid mixture into the entrances and set it on fire. After the Russians had gone the charred bodies of 105 men, women and children were pulled out. Men have been bound and forced to lie down on roads and have been crushed as Russian tanks have driven over them. Women and children in villages have been told to wait in rooms and then grenades have been lobbed in. In Kulchubat 360 people, including 20 girls and 20 old people, were executed in a village square. Juergen Todenhoefer, a West German parliamentarian, said: Every day you have a My Lai, an Oradour, a Lidice. In other villages the Russians have decapitated their prisoners and they have actually switched the heads. They have put the men's heads on the women's bodies and women's heads on the men's bodies-a charming sight for the relatives when they return to the village. Mr Webster —It is a holocaust. Mr COBB —It is a holocaust. In April 1985 in the Laghman Valley, the Russians slaughtered 800 people, which included pregnant women, the newborn and aged people. They did this by shooting them, burning them alive, hanging them, bayoneting them, torturing them, beating them to death, killing them with grenades, decapitating them and mutilating them-whatever took their fancy. They raided the northern village of Issa Khel one day in search of men to draft into the army. While they were there, even though they did not get any men they raped the women and lobbed a grenade into one of the houses as they were going. The Mujahideen ambushed them and blew up seven of their tanks. Five days later, 400 Russian soldiers returned to five nearby villages, entered every house in every village and killed 600 men, women and children, mainly by shooting them in the head; but they lined up three pregnant women and disembowelled them. They set torches to the houses, which burnt for five days. They even destroy needlessly places of worship. The 700-year-old minaret at Herat, a monument to Muslim faith, has been destroyed. It is particularly with children that maiming and mutilation has become an art form. The Russians use booby trapped toys. Their intention is to disfigure the children instead of killing them so that they have a visual record to remind the population of what happens if they resist the Russians. They drop these booby trapped toys over villages from helicopters, especially in zones occupied by the resistance. The traps are made to look like butterflies, pens, animals and rolls of money which are irresistible to children. The children pick them up and they blow off their hands and legs and mutilate their faces. There are tens of thousands of these children in the refugee camps in Pakistan alone. Afghan children aged between nine and 10 years old have been taught to inform on their parents. Ten thousand children between four and 14 years of age have been sent to Russia for five to 10 years to be `educated' and then to return. At the refugee camps in Pakistan one can see children with multiple fractures to their jaws, et cetera, from rifle butt wounds. Others have burns on their bodies from liquid plastic bombs which go off and adhere to the skin and burn them. Where are the protesters with their banners in Australia today marching up and down the streets? We do not see them any more. General Najidullah has taken over the leadership. I have no faith in him because he was a former member of the KHAD-the secret police. It is time we redirected some of our Budget money to help these people instead of spending it on Mickey Mouse projects. We should seriously consider giving direct aid to the Mujahideen themselves. In many ways their fight is our fight. In the name of compassion and freedom we owe these quiet, peace-loving, tough, beautiful Muslim people much more than the pitiful amount we are now giving-0.3 per cent of our $1,300m Budget. Surely this is one issue where Australia must stir from its apathy. While we sit idly by and ignore it, Afghanistan is fast becoming a charnel house. The killing continues every day. Mr HAND(Melbourne)(11.49) —I want to make a point concerning an earlier interjection by an honourable member opposite. Killing by anybody is wrong. If the super-powers want to play their war games, they do it with no support from me, and that applies to both the super-powers. I have never been one to condone the slaughter of innocent men, women and children. I have been consistent in my view on that, unlike honourable members who come into this place and make speeches and then sit down with people from embassies whose countries are doing exactly that. I find that somewhat hypocritical. The killing of life is wrong, no matter who does it. In addressing this section of Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, I want to make a brief comment on defence and foreign affairs. It is worth referring to the Government's statement on the failure of the recent meeting between the leaders of the super-powers, namely, that we hope that the meeting of the leaders will be reconvened. I support the plea made by the Indian Prime Minister when he was here yesterday and the night before. He and, I think, the rest of the world are anxious to see the leaders of the super-powers come together again at the table. Perhaps we ought to say to them: `Do not leave the table until you solve it'. I think that would be a view shared by most members of the House, if not all, and certainly by the community at large. The super-powers have a responsibility to us to fix up the mess that they have created. Some of us have blindly followed one side or another. I make that statement in support of the Government. There are signs in the media today that perhaps both of the super-powers are rethinking their positions. Hopefully, there will be a meeting of the leaders of the super-powers again this year. In terms of the Government's performance, I want to refer to a couple of points. The South Pacific region was referred to by the shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock). I think our record in relation to that region is worth mentioning in terms of the South Pacific Treaty that has been signed by the member nations. It was an initiative of this Government-a worthwhile one, I suggest. The honourable member suggested that the Treaty is anti-American, but I think it is aimed at protecting the region from anybody outside that region and protecting the welfare of the people of the region, no matter which power it is that wants to enter it and cause some damage to it or have unnecessary influence in it. I refute the honourable member's claim that it is an anti-American treaty; it is an anti-war treaty and one that tries to set up a better community within that region. Hopefully, we can take up the Indian Prime Minister's suggestion that we could consider the Indian Ocean area as one of peace. It would be good if more of these zones of peace were established because it would mean that the super-powers would become more and more restricted in where they could go. Perhaps it would be a way of assisting the super-powers to come to their senses. I applaud the Government's decision in terms of the zone of peace. Likewise, I refer to the Government's foreign affairs role in terms of South Africa. When that matter was referred to by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), I took part in that debate. I was proud to take part in it, I point out to honourable members. It was historic, and again it showed that this Government led the world. The other night the Indian Prime Minister referred to the fact that the Australian Government was a leader in applying those pressures to South Africa and, hopefully, bringing an end to the cruel, rotten and corrupt regime that exists there. Again we members of the Government can stand up in this place and say that it is a job well done. I think the general community supports the stance of the Government in this area. I do not have much time to speak in this debate in which one could raise a lot of issues. I am constantly amazed at the Opposition speakers who have preceded me. They are great people for defence. It seems to me that they have two contradictions in their position. They talk about defence as long as that defence is supported by somebody else or somebody else defends us. The loudest callers for arms and defence mechanisms are normally people who either have the ability to avoid being put in that situation themselves or have the ability to make sure that someone else goes away and does their fighting. Over the years I have been amazed that the loudest voices in terms of defence and sending people off to fight wars have been those of people who have never picked up a rifle or put on a uniform. That is a cause for concern. Mr Webster —You are being a bit too general. Mr HAND —Not everybody, but the loudest voices in terms of defence in this country historically have been those of people who have never put themselves in the firing line. That is always the way, and people ought to reflect on that. I am not having a go at anybody in particular, but honourable members ought to reflect on the fact that the people who cry the loudest have never themselves gone off and fought. They have conscripted people to go away and do it for them. A peace vigil was held in my electorate on 2 and 3 October. It was conducted by the Catholics for Peace and was held in Collingwood. It co-incided with the Feast of Francis of Assisi and was well attended by a wide range of Catholic communities throughout the metropolitan area of Melbourne. The theme for the vigil was `Peace-our choice for life'. We could all reflect on that theme. In my electorate office on the Saturday morning I saw a delegation of the people engaged in that vigil, and the following letter was presented to me: Dear Mr Hand, We present to you this Scroll highlighting the hopes and dreams of many people who have taken part in a 24 hours Peace Vigil at St Joseph's, Collingwood. Through prayer, silence, letter writing, song and various activities, we have explored our dreams of a world without the menace of the Arms Race. We believe in a world where all people live in peace, free from the violence and destruction that the nuclear threat presents. We join hands with all men, women and children around the globe who share this common vision. ``Peace-is our choice for Life'' and we ask you to present our petition to our elected representatives in Canberra. Respectfully yours, 24 Hour Peace Vigil 1986 This scroll was presented to me by a young schoolboy by the name of Michael Noone. I was proud to receive it from the Catholics for Peace of Melbourne. I ask you, Mr Deputy Chairman, whether it is possible to have this scroll incorporated in Hansard. It is very delightful and I am proud to bring it forward for not only the people from my electorate but also the many hundreds of people throughout Melbourne who signed it and inscribed on it messages to their elected representatives. If it is not possible for the scroll to be incorporated in Hansard, I ask Madam Speaker through you, Mr Deputy Chairman, whether it might be displayed in some place in the Parliament for 24 hours so that people might read the messages that are inscribed on it. It is a delightful piece of work, and I ask you to reflect on that. Peace is something for which I hope and I think we all are striving. The difference is in emphasis, I guess. We cannot be one-sided in our thrust for peace. The problem today is that there is an arms race, and in any race there is more than one competitor. We have to get all the competitors to stop the arms race; if they do not, when most of us are gone the problems of the arms race will go on for the people we leave behind. As I said earlier, this Government is making a valuable contribution to peace through the Department of Defence and the Department of Foreign Affairs, the appropriations for which we are discussing. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Admirable as the honourable member's request to incorporate the scroll in Hansard is, I do not believe that that is possible. I will certainly take up with Madam Speaker his other request. Mr ALDRED(Bruce)(12.00) —My remarks on the Defence appropriations will especially concern the new submarine project, for which $10m is allocated in this Budget for development and evaluation purposes. The total project cost, as announced by the Government last year, is expected to be $2.6 billion. That makes it Australia's largest peace-time defence project. The final construction contract for the six conventionally-powered submarines is to be awarded to one of two short-listed European firms-the German HDW-IKL group, which has offered the IKL 2000 submarine and the Swedish Kockums group, which has offered the type 471. Over the last year or so concern has been expressed by the Opposition and others over a number of aspects of the project. My particular concern, as honourable members will be aware, has been over the security of the new submarine project. Since January of this year there have been continuing allegations that poor security at Kockums and the Government ordnance factory, FFV, in Sweden, has enabled the Soviet Union to acquire design details of Australia's new submarine project. In essence, these allegations arise from two factors: First, the heavy influence communist and other left-wing unions have over the running of Kockums' wharves and the easy access union members have to key projects; and secondly, the intensive dealings Kockums have with Soviet satellite states such as Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and others, and the frequency with which representatives of these nations pass through Kockums' facilities. Regrettably, these problems in Sweden are not confined to Kockums. East bloc theft of Swedish high technology has been extensive for some years now and is well documented. The vulnerability of Sweden in this regard lies in its proximity to the Soviet Union, the low priority it has generally given to industrial and military security and the grovelling attitude its stumbling Social Democrat Government has taken to the Soviet Union. In fact, the Swedish Foreign Ministry has become notorious for its orchestrated vilification and persecution of anyone of consequence who raises the possibility that all is not well in the enlightened socialist state of Sweden. Mr Hand —On a point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman: I am a bit concerned about the direction the speaker is taking. It seems to me that he is getting very close to implying that our Navy in under-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) — That is not a point of order. Mr Hand —I think that is a serious question that the Chair ought to reflect on. He seems to me to be implying that the Australian Navy is under some form of influence. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Chair does not require reflection. There is no point of order. Mr ALDRED —This venom has been systematically directed against Mr Roy Carson, the experienced Swedish based journalist who originally raised the allegations relating to the security of the Australian submarine project. The Swedish Foreign Ministry, in conjunction with Kockums, has accused Mr Carson of being an agent of the British Vickers company and of being offered a sponsored trip to Australia by the Liberal Party, and in addition has circulated world wide a dossier of correspondence allegedly sent by Mr Carson to Swedish Government departments, together with other disinformation material. It should be clearly said in response that Vickers' representatives in Australia have categorically denied in writing any association with Mr Carson, and the Liberal Party has certainly not offered him a sponsored trip to Australia. On the matter of disinformation, it is regrettable that our Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley) saw fit on 24 September to read out in this Parliament a telex message supposedly sent by Mr Carson to the Swedish tax office. Such a telex message was never sent by Mr Carson. It is a fake. The Minister, through his incompetence and naivete, has thus misled this Parliament in presenting this document. It is an appalling situation for one of the senior Ministers of the Crown. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) — Order! I ask the honourable member for Bruce not to cast reflections upon Ministers of this place. I ask him to withdraw that reflection and to continue. Mr ALDRED —Madam Deputy Chairman, I do not withdraw the reflection in which I said that the Minister has misled the Parliament, because he misled it with a fake document. I have not used unparliamentary language and I will not withdraw. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The honourable member for Bruce used unparliamentary language in referring to the Minister, not by saying that the Minister misled the Parliament. He used unparliamentary language. Mr ALDRED —I did not use any unparliamentary language, Madam Deputy Chairman, but I withdraw any reflection on the Minister in that regard. It may now interest the Minister to know that the matter of the Swedish Foreign Ministry dossier on Mr Carson, and the fact that a significant part of its contents are fabricated documents, has been taken up by the major Swedish civil rights group, Freedom in Sweden, through the group's Secretary, Mrs Katarina Runske. The matter is also being pursued by a very angry, Swedish Foreign Press Association. Furthermore, Mr Carson has retained one of Sweden's leading civil rights lawyers, Mr Lennart Hane, to sue the Swedish Government for damages in relation to the dossier, the telex and other disinformation. Mr Carson is not the only senior journalist to be subjected to this form of victimisation in Sweden in recent times. Captain Hans Harboe-Hansen, a retired Danish naval officer, well-versed in submarine hardware and technology, who now writes for the prestigious United Kingdom journal Maritime Defence, has been similarly attacked for raising awkward questions about Kockums. Just prior to the Kockums submarine launch Press conference on 17 September, Captain Harboe-Hansen provoked the wrath of Kockums management by questioning its deficit financing of projects and the overall weakness of its financial position. These concerns have implications for the capacity of Kockums to carry out our submarine project. Running parallel throughout this year to the allegations about poor security at Kockums and FFV has been the progressive exposure of a Czech spy-ring in Sweden. At every stage of exposure the Swedish Social Democrat Government, nervous as always of its East bloc and Soviet ties, has attempted to suppress relevant details by all means available, and also to continually reassure the Labor Government here in Australia that the submarine project is unaffected by the activities of the Czech spy-ring. Incredibly, this Government seems unquestion- ably to believe the assurances of its ideological brothers in Sweden. After all, who wants a cosy political partnership mucked up by reality? Let us look at the facts as obtained by my own careful research during this year through several different sources. Investigations by the counter-espionage elements of the Swedish police and secret service into the Czech spy-ring commenced two year ago. These investigations burst into the open earlier this year when the Swedish Government was compelled to expel five Czech officals. They were: The Czech Embassy First Secretary, Jan Kroupa; military attache, Jan Sovjak; Press attache, Lubomir Kopaj and trade attache, Ludvik Vanhara. Also ordered out was Czech Airlines Area Chief, Pavel Scerzl. The five Czech officials were asked to leave Sweden at the end of April and eventually left at the beginning of May. It turned out that this was only the beginning of a saga that has not yet ended. On 13 August the spy-ring's courier in southern Sweden, Mirko Kloverberg, was arrested. Kloverberg, a Czech who upon marriage to a Swedish woman, Henny-Inger Kloverberg, took her surname, was originally reported as being named Klovergard. This arose from confusion by Swedish authorities over his personal identity number. Kloverberg has since been tried in secret and is now awaiting sentence. Not yet widely known overseas is the expulsion in late September of yet another Czech diplomat, Pavel Nemeck, a direct follow-on from the Kloverberg arrest and trial. At the same time the Swedish Government requested a Czech industrialist not to return from Prague. This industrialist, Jozef Hlasny, is normally based at the Czech state-owned company Zetor Sweden AB in Helsingborg, southern Sweden. In addition, all sources I have spoken to agree that significant elements of the Czech spy-ring remain undetected and that investigations by the security authorities are still earnestly in progress. For Australia's new submarine project, two outstanding, questions remain, about the Czech, spy-ring-what were the espionage targets of the spy-ring and for whose ultimate benefit were its actions executed? Henk Ruyssenaars, President of the Swedish Foreign Press Association, has no doubt about the answer to the first question. A respected senior journalist and producer for Dutch television and radio, Mr Ruyssenaars has investigated industrial espionage for the past 10 years and has written extensively about it. In conversation with me he dismissed official Swedish assurances that the spy-ring was largely concerned with espionage against the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, of Norway and Denmark and only partially with Sweden. Mr Ruyssenaars said the heavy concentration of people and activities of the spy-ring in southern Sweden, including its placement of letter-boxes there, logically lead to only one conclusion: it was to spy against the only worthwhile target in southern Sweden-Kockums at Malmo. I turn now to the second question of who ultimately benefited from the activities of the Czech spy-ring. Mr Anders Bjoerk, vice- chairman of the most senior all-party committee in the Swedish Parliament, the Constitutional Standing Committee, has no reservations about the answer to that question. At his instigation the Committee has launched a major investigation into this very question and other related matters, including the behaviour of the Swedish Foreign Minister and Defence Minister throughout this security crisis. Mr Bjoerk told me Czechoslovakia of its own accord would have little reason to spy against Sweden. Given that the spy-ring is said to have a special interest in naval matters that makes sense, for Czechoslovakia is, of course, land-locked and thus has no maritime defence interests. Czechoslovakia is also a fair distance from Sweden. It was firmly asserted by Mr Bjoerk that the widespread expulsion in Western Europe of Soviet KGB and GRU agents, and the accompanying adverse publicity, had compelled the Soviet Union increasingly to fall back on the security services of its satellite states, particularly Czechoslovakia. Mr Bjoerk is convinced, as many others are in Sweden, that the Czech spy-ring, was ultimately directed for the benefit of the Soviet Union. All of this leaves the integrity of Australia's new submarine project very much in doubt. To what extent has the project been compromised? If it has been compromised in Sweden, particularly in relation to the overall design specifications, this too must cast a grave shadow of doubt over the German contender HDW-IKL. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence)(12.10) —I will deal with the unserious contributions to this debate first and then get on to the more serious ones. Included in the unserious contributions is the last one, by the honourable member for Bruce (Mr Aldred). I would have thought that it may have been of some assurance to the honourable member that the Swedish security forces were at least on top of their job as demonstrated by the fact that they could deal with what was obviously an Eastern bloc spy ring. Unquestionably those spy rings operate, probably to the ultimate benefit of the Soviet Union. Nobody has any doubt about that. I would have thought he would also have noted that in recent times there had been cases dealing with espionage in many countries in the West, not just Sweden and the United States of America. These are matters which obviously are addressed by security forces from time to time. We have agreements with the Swedes on the protection of the integrity of the submarine project that we believe are solid. We have no reason to believe that they have been breached, as suggested by the honourable member in the cases he referred to, and we are kept informed on that matter by the Swedish Government. Mr Aldred —I rise on a point of order, Madam Deputy Chairman. Has the Minister taken the trouble to check with any sources other than Swedish sources to verify the allegations? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN — Order! There is no point of order. That is a question and out of order. The honourable member for Bruce will be seated. Mr Aldred —Has the Minister- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I warn the honourable member for Bruce. I call the Minister. Mr BEAZLEY —When we get an opinion on some matter we refer to our own sources of information and our convictions are based on our own sources as well as on what other people tell us. I want to come now to some of the more serious contributions made during this debate. Mr Aldred —Madam Deputy Chairman, I raise another point of order. Would the Minister explain why he tabled a fake document in this Parliament? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Bruce is entirely out of order and I warn him to cease raising trivial and unsubstantiated points of order. I have ruled that a question to the Minister from a member in the chamber in these circumstances is not allowed. Please note that. Mr BEAZLEY —I thank honourable gentlemen on both sides of the chamber for their serious contributions. Some do bear examination by Ministers and on the whole a constructive approach was taken to the matters we are debating. However, perhaps I ought to confine my remarks largely to those contributions made specifically on defence. The contribution by the Opposition spokesman on defence and Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Sinclair) I found more than a little disappointing. The thrust of his attack was directed principally towards the Government's defence strategy and also towards the relationships we have constructed over the years with the United States and with countries in our region. He suggested that there was a degree of deficiency in the way in which the Government was pursuing those matters, perhaps related largely to the defence strategy we had opted for. He also posed his alternative. He did not, however-and one thought that he might have in this debate on the budgetary Estimates-come up with any answers. He did not refer to exactly how he would intend to pay for the force structure based on his strategy or give us any assessment of what force structure might emerge. He was critical of Paul Dibb's report on the Review of Australia's Defence capabilities for positing a strategy of denial, and suggested that instead the strategy should be one of force control or force projection. I have a vague understanding of what he means by force projection; I have very little understanding of what he means by force control. If by that he means that we control the armed forces, I can assure him that by and large we do. If he means that we control the forces of others, it is difficult to work out exactly how a country of our size operating in a region in which there are sophisticated armed forces-as indeed there are in our region-can operate to control such forces. Likewise, a problem emerges when we come to force projection. Force projection where, with what, against whom and at what cost? In the days when we did pursue forward defence strategies we had allies who were prepared to put on mainland Asia something like 500,000 troops. Is it suggested that in projecting force we should assume a similar burden? Indeed, the arguments the Opposition spokesman went into suggested a willingness to engage Australia unilaterally in that type of activity. If that is his view, it would become an extraordinarily expensive operation indeed should this country ever have the misfortune to have him again as Defence Minister. Mr Hand —He won't make it. Mr BEAZLEY —No, I do not think that will happen. But this is an indication of the extent to which there is extreme sloppiness in the thinking of the Opposition on defence matters. It is something like four or five months since the Dibb report was tabled and we have had no substantial response to it from the Opposition. We had a 16-page throwaway produced at a Press conference a couple of weeks ago and we have constant discussion about force projection, but we see no suggestions from the Opposition on precisely what it means, and what it would mean for force structure. I suppose at a minimum we would have to look at a couple of carriers to institute force projection. Nobody has put forward a proposal as to how $4 billion or $5 billion can be eked out of other areas of the Budget in order to pay for them. So we have from the Opposition no sensible strategy at all, and certainly no strategy related to any sensible force structure. It is the Government's view that it ought to pursue a strategy of defence in depth and that it is demeaning for this country, as a sovereign and independent nation, to be unable to guarantee its approaches out to 1,000 nautical miles or the security of its friends within that framework. That is an obligation, we believe, that we ought to be prepared to assume unilaterally, and, whatever alliance relationships we have, a government accepting any other posture would be a government not effectively defending Australia's national interests and a government having no right to call itself an Australian government. If anybody has any other ideas on what policy ought to be pursued, such a proposal ought to be given the litmus test as to who is to protect Australia's national sovereignty. The point we have made repeatedly and consistently-we have said that we will discipline the structure of our Defence Force so it is capable of achieving these sorts of objectives-is that a force so structured, bearing in mind the distances it has to cover, must be capable of being used in other circumstances alongside allies if governments of the day so choose to use them. Indeed, as has been pointed out to me in conversations with the United States, the plans we have for the Australian Army make parts of the Army look very much like the sorts of light infantry divisions that the United States contemplates is the appropriate type of division to be used outside the strict North Atlantic Treaty Organisation framework. The United States has noted that the light patrol frigate, which the Opposition spokesman managed to demean, will affordably give the Royal Australian Navy a larger number of effective decks so that the Navy can perform peacetime functions as well as wartime functions in co-operation with allies-showing the flag, or whatever-in the regions that we consider most important to us. Paul Dibb says in his report that although in approximately 10 per cent of the globe we would wish effectively to operate unilaterally, in military terms, in another area of the globe-some 25 per cent-he says we should be able to operate with friends, although obviously not unilaterally. The suggestion that we could insert ourselves unilaterally into a situation developing in South East Asia, perhaps along the lines of the conflict which emerged in Vietnam 20 years ago, which is what seems to be indicated by the Opposition defence spokesman, is a suggestion so ludicrous that it contains effectively an argument against itself. That is obvious to anybody in this country exercising any common sense. Because the issue of the ANZUS Treaty has been raised in both the foreign policy and defence contexts, I ought to make one or two points about it. Repeatedly in conversations I have had with Caspar Weinberger and in conversations the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden) has had with George Shultz there has been an appreciation on the part of the United States over the last couple of years of the fact that this Government holds up its end in the ANZUS arrangements and in alliance relationships effectively; and the United States believes that it has a close relationship with us. We have never adopted the view that this means that automatically uncritical views are assumed by this Government about aspects of American policy or that we operate under the assumption that we rely upon the United States to do absolutely everything for us. As I said before, both these postures would be demeaning for a country that takes pride in its national sovereignty. This is not an unusual posture. It tends to be the line adopted by those older countries that are members of other alliance relationships with the United States, such as NATO. So there is nothing particularly unusual about the positions we are adopting. We have in this country three United States joint facilities which perform critical functions in the central balance, critical functions in arms control and critical functions in early warning. They are all in place under this Government. We have port visits to this country of American warships. It is probably true to say that there are few countries where United States warships can visit more ports. Perhaps there are few countries with which the United States has relationships that have as many ports. Nevertheless, the point can be made. In addition, independently for our own purposes we engage in an extensive array of surveillance activities in conjunction with our friends in the region and on our own. I cite just one example. The Orion P3Cs operate out of Butterworth surveilling shipping in that region. There is frequent deployment of surface ships to that area in order to conduct surveillance. This was done with one of our frigates surveilling the Soviet battle cruiser Frunze when it was transiting between the Indian and Pacific oceans. As a result of all those activities, we probably have a better understanding of Soviet deployments in this area than has any other country. We provide a substantial amount of information to our friends and allies on that basis. In the defence budget we have an increasing vote going to the islands of the South Pacific. We accept responsibility in that area. We accept responsibility because we see it as being both in Australia's interests to do so and in wider Western interests. We are now effectively constructing a surveillance force for the South Pacific, dealing with those countries at the point at which they feel a need-a need to operate effectively in their areas the fishing arrangements that are so vital to their economies. We are increasing the number of Orion P3C flights to match that requirement. We are providing the Pacific patrol boat program, which will give them an opportunity to exercise sovereignty in their own areas. In all ways we are addressing the needs of the countries of the area in terms of both their economic policy and their foreign policy through things such as the South Pacific nuclear free zone. We do that because of an independent determination by us that it is important for Australia to do so. The force structure that is evolving in the Australian armed forces is amply adequate for that task. Indeed, it will be more effective. Insofar as these activities rely on naval power, if we are able to keep discipline in the new surface combatant program and provide the number of decks for the money available, we will have 16 or 17 ships, instead of 12 or 13, capable of performing that task. Over the next decade in this country, through the implementation of the discipline we have exercised in our budgetary arrangements, through our commitment to increases in capital equipment, which is very much greater than that of our predecessors and which will be sustained through the next decade, forces will emerge which will make defence self-reliance real. We will have forces that will make Australia a nation to be reckoned with in our region. We will have forces that will be entirely appropriate to the relationships we have with countries in the region, which we believe are worth preserving, and are also significant additions to the forces in the region arrayed for Western alliance purposes. This force structure suits the Australian Labor Party ideology of nationalism, but I think it also suits some of the long-held views in the Australian community on what this nation is all about. I am proud to be a Defence Minister associated with it. Mr DOWNER(Mayo)(12.30) —In speaking to Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, I want to concentrate on appropriations for the Department of Foreign Affairs and take this opportunity to say something about Australia's regional policies as pursued not by the Department of Defence, which policies have been elucidated recently by the Minister for Defence (Mr Beazley), but by the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden). For the benefit at least of those people practising on behalf of Australia in diplomacy, it is worth mentioning the obvious-that the Asia-Pacific region is vital to our country. There is a very real concern that we have a lack of clear policy towards that region and that, rather surprisingly, we do not even give the South Pacific sufficient priority in the formulation and execution of our foreign policy. It goes almost without saying that the South Pacific region, and indeed some parts of South East Asia, are going through a period of substantial upheaval. Our relationship with Indonesia, which I will not say much about, frankly has not been going well. That is not entirely the fault of Australia; there is no question of that. Some of the reactions of the Indonesian Government to events in Australia have been rather unnecessary. Nevertheless, the relationship is not progressing particularly well. In the Philippines our relationship with the new government is developing well but that country still has a potential for significant instability. The future of the American bases at Subic Bay and Clark are very much open to question at this time. As the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock) pointed out earlier, there is also a great deal of concern about the growing role of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in the South Pacific. On 28 July the Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, Mr Gorbachev, made a statement in Vladivostok on foreign policy. In that statement he talked about the Soviet commitment to seek to lend dynamism, to use his words, to its relationships in the Pacific. In other words, the Soviet Union has made a clear policy decision to upgrade its role in the South Pacific region. That region has been successful and peaceful simply because global international conflicts have not entered those waters until now. It has enjoyed the protection of the United States, the protection of the ANZUS alliance, the assistance of countries such as Australia and New Zealand, and really has operated as an exclusion zone as far as the Soviet Union is concerned. However, the Soviet Union has now made it clear that it wants to change that. That is borne out by the signing of the well publicised commercial fisheries agreement with Kiribati-an agreement that is undergoing some review at the moment. It has also endeavoured to reach similar agreements with Vanuatu, Tuvalu and even Papua New Guinea. What the Soviet Union is about is-to use a phrase so often used in Soviet history-opening for itself a window in the South Pacific. That should be a matter of very real concern to all those nations involved in the Pacific, not least Australia. It is of great concern to me that our Minister for Foreign Affairs seems entirely relaxed about the growing Soviet role in the region. Indeed, his comments on Gorbachev's speech at Vladivostok were that it was `highly desirable'. I do not think it was highly desirable, and on that point I very strongly disagree with the Australian Foreign Minister. The Soviet Pacific fleet is often publicised. It needs to be remembered when discussing the stability of the Pacific region that, of the four Soviet fleets, its Pacific fleet is its largest. It has some 800 ships and 120 submarines. Obviously, it can be deployed very rapidly; that should be of some concern not just to Australia but to the Western alliance. In a small way we have seen the intrusion of countries such as Cuba into the affairs of Vanuatu and New Caledonia. We have come across examples of New Caledonians being trained by the Libyans. Those things are also a matter of some concern. There is no question that they are small examples, but they are danger signs for the future and they are things of which we in Australia should be well aware. Finally, we have the crisis with ANZUS, with New Zealand's withdrawal from one of the centrepieces of the Western alliance. Again, that is a matter of very real concern to all Australians and should be a matter of very real concern to the Government. It should be doing all it can to try to rebuild ANZUS, hopefully with the inclusion of New Zealand, in the not too distant future. When we look at what the Government has done, particularly in relation to the South Pacific, the record at least in terms of foreign policy is not particularly good. According to the Minister for Defence, we have apparently done some things in the defence field; but in the field of foreign policy the centrepiece of Australian initiative is that notorious South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, a treaty which the Soviet newspaper Izvestiya, said `would contribute to the formulation of a multilateral system of security in the Asia-Pacific region'. In other words, what the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty does, at least in a philosophical sense, is to contradict the thrust of the ANZUS alliance and contradict our commitment to the Western alliance in the region and to the security that that alliance has provided. I think it is a matter of very real concern that the Government boasts that this Treaty is a centrepiece of its Pacific policy when, in effect, it is weakening our role, the role of the United States and even New Zealand's role in the region. The Government has also reneged on some of its aid commitments in the region. The best known of those is its commitment to Papua New Guinea. I do not need to elucidate once more all the comments that have been made by Ministers and Prime Ministers from that country in relation to Australia's quite extraordinary behaviour in its dealings with a country which has traditionally been extremely close to our own. The Government has abandoned Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings. I know that the Minister for Foreign Affairs thinks very little of the Commonwealth, but those meetings allowed a point of contact and discussion and a point of meeting between Australia and that fairly large number of Pacific island states and other countries in our region. That point of contact has now been lost. I come back to aid because I forgot to mention the fact that, in our aid priorities, the South Pacific is being downgraded while commitments to bodies such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation and the International Labour Organisation which come under the Foreign Affairs vote are increasing. We have cut out aid to the South Pacific region by 3 or 4 per cent in real terms this financial year; yet we have increased funding for UNESCO by some 125 per cent. The Government should be formulating a positive policy towards the South Pacific. Indeed, I call on the Minister for Foreign Affairs to make a detailed and substantial statement to this Parliament outlining what the Government's policy on the Pacific will be. It needs to deal with revitalising the ANZUS alliance and working with New Zealand towards bringing that country back into the alliance of common sense. The Government needs to look at building regional trade initiatives and possibly even following up with the suggestion of having a kind of Pacific Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development established. This would include more than just the South Pacific, of course. In respect of aid priorities, the Government needs once more to concentrate on Australia's own region, the South Pacific. There should be less money for UNESCO and the ILO and more for the South Pacific. I mention the Commonwealth Heads of Government regional meetings. I know the Minister will disagree with me on this, but I still think that they were a useful initiative and should be revitalised. As I said, I call on the Government to make a substantial statement on what it proposes to do in the South Pacific region, because what it has so far done is to weaken Australia's position and the position of the Western alliance at a time when that region is enduring very considerable difficulties. In the last 30 seconds available to me I want to move away from our region, but continue on the topic of aid. I point out that the Australian Government has been giving aid to the Nicaraguan regime. This aid has not been in big proportions; it has been a small amount of money. But the Government has been giving aid to the Sandinista regime, which has received in the vicinity of $600m worth of aid from the Soviet Union. The Pacific is our area of priority, not Central America. Nicaragua is the only country in Central America which is receiving aid from Australia. It is a country whose regime is totally opposed to all that ordinary Australians stand for and is totally committed also to undermining the sorts of systems of security we believe in. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs)(12.35) —Madam Chairman-- Mr Ruddock —Is the Minister planning to close the debate? Mr HAYDEN —The debate is finished, I am sorry. The honourable member is not included in the arrangements that have been passed on to me. Mr Ruddock —There are some rather important matters on refugees that I would have liked to address to you. Mr HAYDEN —I am sure there are, but the honourable member should have made arrangements; I am sorry. I found the comments of the honourable member for Mayo (Mr Downer) fascinating. He at least ranged over a fairly broad canvas. That was in notable contrast to the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who kept himself to a very narrow focus and attended to that narrow focus, I thought, quite inadequately. I must, however, disappoint the honourable member for Mao-the honourable member for Mayo. That was a Freudian slip, but not inappropriate, perhaps. I disagree with him. I think the foreign policy of the Government is really quite impressive both in quality and in application and also in the persistent way in which it has been developed. I would like to unfold further the sort of seamless garment of so much attractiveness, but modesty will prevent me, so I will go on to other matters which were raised in the course of the debate. The first thing I want to stress is that this Government is clearly aligned to the United States of America. It is an active and productive member of the Western association of nations. We make no apologies about that; but we are not an uncritical associate. We are prepared to talk with various groups, countries and representatives in the world, even when there are substantial, and quite observably substantial, differences between them and us. These differences may be, for instance, on ideological matters, on the nature of their government or the way in which they treat citizens in their own countries. They can be countries, indeed, which claim to be part of the West, but whose record at home is appalling. We speak with all of these groups to the extent that we believe it may be productive and that it may contribute something to making this world a better world to live in, a world in which there would be more understanding, more stability and, hopefully, more predictability about relationships between countries. We already see the product of this approach in a number of important ways. It was always my impression that conservative coalition governments of the past tended to approach the development of foreign policy in this country on the basis of what our most powerful ally would think most desirable, rather than thinking for ourselves and deciding to go in a particular direction. It is very important to understand what our most powerful ally thinks about matters. It is even more important to understand that we have a national interest and that there will be circumstances in which there can be clear differences between the pursuit of objectives which our most powerful ally sets itself, as a nation with a global strategic strategy, and the pursuit of those objectives which we believe are important as a regional power. It can happen that some of the things that we want to do which are absolutely essential to the foreign policy interests of this country-indeed, even to the commercial interests of this country-require us to differ and, on occasions, to differ firmly with our most powerful ally. I want to register that because I think that one of the deficiencies in foreign policy in the past has been the uncritical approach of conservative coalition governments. On the other hand, as I mentioned, we are quite willing to engage in dialogue with representatives of countries in respect of which a vast gulf exists between them and us on matters of, say, ideology. But one must talk to both of the super-powers if one is to seriously understand the issues that cause tensions between them and if one is to try to make some sort of positive contribution towards a resolution of those differences. It will be a better world if tensions between the super-powers can be reduced. It will be a much happier world to live in if the super-power competitiveness can be reduced, particularly in the region in which we live. I started to say before that we already see the product of this more open, more expansive and more sensible approach to foreign policy. We see that in the way in which now we promptly receive visits from envoys from our most powerful ally after major international conferences have taken place. This happened only yesterday with Mr Kenneth Adelman, the Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency coming to Australia to brief the Government on the Reykjavik talks. We see this in the high level discussion that we now have with envoys who come from the Soviet Union, similarly on matters of arms control and disarmament. The level, the frequency and the proximity to events with which these people come to Australia are in marked contrast to what took place in the past. I move from those rather general statements to some of the things which have been said in the course of debate today. The first issue, which has received probably more attention than any other in the foreign policy discussion which has taken place, is that of the South Pacific and what is taking place there. It seemed to me that the approach of the Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong, was condescending, patronising and that of an unreconstructed neo-colonialist. He talked as though Australia would determine by a click of its fingers what the South Pacific countries should do, that we knew better than they did what was good for them and that, therefore, they would take instructions from us. It is not said as explicitly as that but the implicit message is clear. The implicit message is similarly clear in the same sorts of statements made by other Opposition spokesmen. It is the nature of those statements that is offensive to South Pacific countries and is adding to their irritation towards Australia. They feel that, when Opposition members speak in this way, they speak with some special status on behalf of Australia. The distinction is not always clearly drawn that those people are speaking for the Opposition-they are lost in opposition-and not for the Australian Government. It is very important to understand that, because what we must do as an initial step in understanding the South Pacific and working in that part of the region that is so important to us is to respect the simple fact that the countries of the South Pacific which are independent have sovereign independence and, accordingly, a right to determine their destiny. We have rights to enter into consultation with them and to put points of view to them, to assist them where we can, but finally and essentially the right of determination as a sovereign independent nation rests with them. If we proceed from any other assumption, explicitly or implicitly, we shall get into trouble and cause serious problems for the relationship. The Soviet Union has been active in the South Pacific, but it seems to me there is a sort of staggering lurch back to the rhetoric and chilling fears of the Cold War period of the 1950s, when a number of people in the Opposition in this Parliament and commentators outside discussed this matter. One would think that vast navies of the Soviet Union were sailing around the South Pacific as a clear and impending threat to the security and stability of the region. It is nothing like that, and we should not exaggerate it, because when we exaggerate we create distorted images. When we respond to distorted images, the policies we put in place are neither relevant nor practical. They are likely to take us on to wrong paths and get us into serious trouble. That is what is happening. Countries in the South Pacific, I can tell honourable members, following my recent extended visit there, are increasingly displaying deep offence at the patronising and condescending way in which some Australians are speaking about the way in which they conduct their foreign policy. Let me take Vanuatu as an example. It is true that Vanuatu has made a statement that it will allow certain landing rights in Vanuatu-or at least this has been reported-for fishing purposes for the Soviet Union. Exactly what they are to be is not clear, but it does not follow from this that Vanuatu has been captured by the Soviet Union or that it is some Marxist outpost-very far from it. My impression of Father Lini is that he is very far removed from being a Marxist, that he has been and continues to be a deeply committed Christian with views which would be opposed to certain essential characteristics of Marxist philosophy. What he does do is seek to maintain some sort of balance in the way in which he develops foreign policy. So, having announced that, he has most recently announced formal diplomatic arrangements with the United States. I think that that has to be borne in mind. Kiribati has been mentioned as another case where the Soviet spectre, conjured up by lurid imaginations, at least in the way it was presented, has suddenly materialised to take control. Nothing of the sort has happened. President Tabai of Kiribati is one of the more impressive national leaders I have dealt with. He is sensible, well-informed and disciplined in economic management. He recognises the extraordinary difficulties of managing the economy of his country with its very narrow resource base. It is a small country, with low per capita income and a very limited natural resource base. But one large resource that country has relative to its population is the ocean fisheries. One thing President Tabai wants to achieve is a greater sense of national independence and, with that, national self- respect. I applaud that attitude entirely. It is a view which, as a deeply felt nationalistic Australian, I have always had about this country, and it is why I have been so often embarrassed about servility in foreign policy developments under past conservative coalition governments. That is what President Tabai is about. In the most recent negotiations with the Soviet Union he took a tough line. It is also interesting from reports we have received from that part of the world, limited as they are, that the Soviet Union did not respond with an offer at any price to get in there. That would have been the conclusion one would have arrived at if the politics of being in the region were of such paramount importance. It appears-I cannot give the details since what we have received officially is quite limited-that the Soviet Union has taken a very tough commercial position. This would tend to undermine some of the exaggerated notions that have been put forward. Perhaps it might have been more balanced to have talked about the problems generally of large powers in the South Pacific. Potentially, the Soviet Union can be a problem for us. We have said that, but we do not believe that it should be exaggerated. In particular, if a country hosting those sorts of opportunities is incapable of maintaining the sort of monitoring surveillance that would be appropriate, that could be a problem for that country. It could be a problem for the region. We merely sound that warning. We are not being condescending or patronising. If we warn, we hope that the good intent behind the warning will be heeded. But that is not the only problem there. Some of what is happening is a reaction to the other two problem countries-first France, because of colonialism in New Caledonia and nuclear testing in Mururoa. The deeply felt emotion on these two issues, more particularly the former among Melanesian countries, must not be underestimated. Secondly, the United States of America has been one of our major problem countries in the South Pacific. United States policies protecting its tuna fishermen while operating in exclusive economic zones of island states in the South Pacific have been extraordinarily provocative and have done a very large amount of damage to that country's influence in the region. The United States is moving quickly now-I say now, after an inexcusable delay-to a point where I trust this problem will be resolved. The other matter that I should mention in that connection is that if we have a more realistic rhetoric in respect of this part of the world we will be better understood and respected by the countries of the region. It has been said by the honourable member for Kooyong that I welcomed the Soviet presence in the South Pacific, and by the honourable member for Mayo that I found that presence highly desirable. This is what I said in New York on 26 September at a Press conference: Now, if it's- I was referring to the Soviet Union- going to participate in constructive ways-ways which will be productive in the region-then I think that's highly desirable but it must be ensured that any role is such a positive role. There is nothing wrong with that statement. It is not saying `welcome' unqualifiedly. It is not inciting any role at all. It is a respectable and responsible statement. It is a sensible statement. The Soviet Union is a large nation state with a littoral interest in the Pacific and one must expect that it will seek increasingly to be active in that part of the world. We want it to be participating in constructive ways. So what I said was: Now, if it's going to participate in constructive ways . . . then I think that's highly desirable. The honourable member for Mayo was critical of my saying that that was desirable. Presumably, the honourable member thinks it is highly undesirable for the Soviet Union to participate in constructive ways. This was quite a silly proposition by the honourable member unless, of course, he was determined to misrepresent totally what I had to say. If I could move on to the subject of Papua New Guinea, it is a silly misrepresentation for the honourable member for Kooyong to say that our relationship is strained and volatile. Certainly, we have had to retreat on an aid arrangement. I felt highly embarrassed at having to do that. I have said so publicly-there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, there was a deterioration in the external account of this country. There was a slump in the Australian dollar. These are cumulative products of many years of economic forces and deficiencies in economic management that go back to the days of the Fraser Government. The very narrow export base which we have at the present time is a product of the cumulative effect of some 34 years of conservative government in this country since 1949. No constructive effort was made to broaden the base of our exports. Farm and mineral products-that is all we have largely. Only 10 per cent of our exports come in the form of manufactures. Why were not the many golden years of economic abundance that were available to conservative governments in that period used for industry restructuring and the broadening of our export base? Why were they not used to develop this country as a home site for advanced technology in industry-things that we could export; things that would not be exposed, as are mineral resources and farm products, to the vagaries of economic movements internationally. That is where the problem arose but it is there and we have had to apply certain disciplines. We have applied them to Australia. The regrettable fact is that we have had to do that. No less regrettably, we have had to apply them to other countries in our part of the world which receive aid from us. The reduction in aid to Papua New Guinea amounted to $10m-about one per cent of its budget. It is quite capable of handling that shortfall. It is more than capable of compensating for that. For instance, it has enjoyed a substantial advantage in terms of the devaluation of the Australian dollar which has meant that commodities and manufactures bought from this country are now much cheaper. So, domestically, the money goes further. For instance, the imposition of an additional import levy could have creamed some of that off for national revenue. There are acknowledged serious deficiencies in tax gathering mechanisms and administration. Again, that is an area that could be used to increase the level of revenue to the Government of Papua New Guinea. Also, it was, as we were, a beneficiary of the change in the price of oil. The difference in the amount of aid granted could have been met by way of the imposition of an additional excise levy, or some variation of that mechanism. I do want it to be clear that it is not as though this is a crisis. That is the first thing. Far from it. What we had to do, we did much more severely to ourselves. Secondly, there are revenue measures which are available to Papua New Guinea. Thirdly, that country has been the recipient of a very large amount of aid from this country for a very long time, in particular since it became independent. That aid is given for economic development. The Goodman report points out that economic growth in that country has fallen far short of population growth-by a number of percentage points. That means very simply, in economic terms, that the country is not progressing; it has a negative outcome. Merely to provide aid without making any requirement that there be project related developments would not be of course in the best interests of the bilateral association. That is why we have gone in the direction of project aid, and will do so increasingly. But there is a point there. Very relevantly, we are not going to be uncritical about about the provision of Australian taxpayers' funds to any country. We have raised with Papua New Guinea the point about its having this poor economic performance, with such a high population growth rate. It means, obviously, that there is a reverse there which will not be helpful over time. Let me put it on the record that by international standards the flow of Australian aid to Papua New Guinea is very large-almost $100 per capita per year. By comparison, Indonesia receives about $9 per capita from all sources; India receives about $3 and China receives less than $1. I wish to emphasise what I am saying and to underline those points. Australia's aid to Papua New Guinea is unique also in that it is made up of a package of 90 per cent untied budget support, with the rest going to a training and technical assistance program. Australia still provides 80 per cent of the country's total aid receipts and 26 per cent of its total budget revenues. Since independence, from 1975 to 1986, Australia has, at current prices, provided almost $4,300m in aid to Papua New Guinea, so let us keep it in a proper and balanced context. The relationship with Indonesia is supposed to be in shambles, according to the honourable member for Kooyong. That does not do him any credit or give us any help. The relationship has had difficulties but I am confident that the relationship is in a manageable condition. It is undeniable, however, that the relationship is not and cannot be the same as it used to be since those differences which occurred a little while ago as a result of an article which was published in the Sydney Morning Herald. That was not the fault of the Australian Government. Least of all was it the fault of Australian travellers. That has affected Australian perceptions about the relationship. For all that, it is an important relationship, it is in good working order and we want to keep it in good working order, albeit in a somewhat changed condition. Madam Chair, a number of other things have been mentioned. I do not propose to go over them all. There is a limit to your patience and that of the Committee. For a 15-minute speech it is not going too badly. Mr Porter —I think it is time to wind up. We have been very generous. Mr HAYDEN —I am fearful, given the time that is arriving and the evident impatience that is being displayed, that people might start walking out of the chamber for lunch and I will get the sobriquet of the dinner bell of the Parliament! The Opposition spokesman on foreign affairs, the honourable member for Kooyong, presented his comments on a very narrow focus. He mentioned nothing about South Africa, nothing about apartheid, nothing about South Africa's aggression against its neighbours. The awful war in Iraq was totally neglected. Sri Lanka, which is of considerable importance to a lot of Australians, and a number of members of this Parliament, was not attended to by him. He did not mention non-proliferation, chemical weapons or the situation in Central America. Where is the spokesman on foreign affairs on the Opposition benches? I exclude the honourable member for Mayo. In a short time he ranged very widely and, I must say, quite compellingly, even if one had differences with him on his views. The world-wide famine, particularly in Africa, was ignored. Equally, human rights violations were not mentioned by the honourable member for Kooyong. The Middle East, trade subsidies-none of these things was attended to. India, Pakistan, the potential for horizontal nuclear proliferation-not one of these, or a whole range of other matters, was attended to. The subject of ANZUS was left to the honourable member for Mayo. All that the honourable member for Kooyong could contribute was criticism and pessimism. He reminds me of Hartigan's poem Said Hanrahan: `We'll all be rooned,' said Hanrahan In accents most forlorn Outside the church ere Mass began One frosty Sunday morn' That about sums up the contribution of the honourable member for Kooyong. It was neither constructive nor insightful. It lacked imagination. It had no vision. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(12.59) —Madam Chair- Motion (by Mr Barry Jones) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 48 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 21 —— Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Brown, Robert Lamb, A. H. Brumby, J. M. Langmore, J. V. Campbell, G. Lee, M. Charles, D. E. 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. Dawkins, J. S. Mildren, J. B. Duffy, M. J. Milton, P. Edwards, Ronald Morris, AllanFatin, W. F. Morris, PeterFitzgibbon, E. J. Mountford, J. G. Free, R. V. O'Keefe, N. P. Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S. 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. Hayden, W. G. Theophanous, A. C. Holding, A. C. Tickner, R. E. Hollis, C. Uren, T. Howe, B. L. West, S. J. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Willis, R. Hurford, C. J. Wright, K. W. Jakobsen, C. A. Young, M. J. Jenkins, H. A. Adermann, A. E. Hicks, N. J. (Teller)Aldred, K. J. Hodges, J. C. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) Hodgman, W. M. Beale, J. H. Hunt, R. J. D. Blunt, C. W. Jull, D. F. Brown, N. A. Katter, R. C. Cadman, A. G. Lloyd, B. Cameron, Donald McArthur, F. S. Cameron, Ewen McGauran, P. J. Carlton, J. J. McVeigh, D. T. Cobb, M. R. Macphee, I. M. Connolly, D. M. Miles, C. G. Cowan, D. B. Nehl, G. B. Dobie, J. D. M. Porter, J. R. Downer, A. J. G. Reith, P. K. Drummond, P. H. Robinson, IanEdwards, Harry Ruddock, P. M. Everingham, P. A. E. Sharp, J. Fife, W. C. Shipton, R. F. Fischer, Tim Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Goodluck, B. J. Sullivan, K. J. Hall, Steele Watson, D. J. H. Halverson, R. G. Webster, A. P. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $245,869,000. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $147,129,000. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $220,224,000. Mr HUNT(Gwydir)(1.07) —The rural crisis that has overtaken the farming sector of the Australian community is being exacerbated by the policies which are being adopted by this Government. This Budget is one of wasted opportunities and of new attacks on the primary producers at a time when farm returns are static but costs have leapt 8 per cent in the past financial year. Those figures were released just recently by the Bureau of Agricultural Economics. Australians, whether they live in country towns or work in the mines or on farms, are fighting a rear-guard action to survive until we get some sense back into fiscal policy, get interest rates down and scrap a whole range of Labor Government taxes. They need relief from the savage taxes of this Labor Government which have forced them to borrow money to comply with such stupid laws as the fringe benefits tax. Mr Brumby —You support the tax; you know that. Mr HUNT —I do not support the fringe benefits tax; I am totally opposed to it. It is an outrage. The honourable member should not try to put words in my mouth because if he wants the transcript of what I did say I will give it to him lock, stock and barrel. The fringe benefits tax, as it applies to rural industries, is absolutely crazy. Take Queensland, for instance, where the pastoral award requires the giving of accommodation and provisions, and for the first time in 70 ruddy years the pastoralists of Queensland are now going to have to pay- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member has used unparliamentary language. Mr HUNT —I said `ruddy'. What is unparliamentary about `ruddy'. I am ruddy enough myself. Madam DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I rule that it is unparliamentary. I ask the honourable member to keep on eye on that in future. Mr Hunt —`Ruddy'? Is `ruddy' unparlia- mentary? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Chair has drawn to the attention of the honourable member that she finds that expression unparliamentary. He was just being asked to pay attention to that in future. Mr HUNT —I will withdraw the word. I find it incredible but if that is your ruling, Madam Deputy Chair, I will withdraw it. It is unbelievable that pastoralists in Queensland, who for 70 years have been complying with an award to their employees that covers both accommodation and provisions, are now going to be faced with paying a fringe benefits tax on those aspects of the award. The Government is in serious political trouble about it. Of course it is rushing to a meeting tomorrow to try to iron out what it now calls the unintended circumstances which may arise from the tax. Let us hope it comes to common-sense arrangements to help overcome some of the stupid iniquities that do arise from the tax. In respect to interest rates, I want to cite a particular case in my own electorate. A family borrowed money, not so many years ago, to purchase a property so that their operation could support three grown sons-who had been encouraged to come back to the farm-and their families. The original property was used as collateral for the loan. As well as losing the new property the family could well lose its original holding. These people borrowed money at 12.5 per cent to make the property purchase. Today the interest rate that they are paying is well over 20 per cent. I repeat, as well as losing that original homestead property, the family is facing the prospect of losing every property that it owns. Two sons are now in Sydney seeking full time employment and the third is at home desperately trying to help his mother and father stay afloat in the farm business in the hope that interest rates will fall as the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) forecast at about this time last year. I note that the Minister was honest enough to admit in Narrabri just recently that `interest rates are the farmer's biggest headache'. Of course they are. That is a quote from the Minister for Primary Industry himself. I do not think that interest rates are given enough consideration in the many debates that are taking place in this Parliament. Interest rates are crippling the capacity of people to invest. People who invest with interest rates at such levels take an enormous risk because very few enterprises can repay a sustained profit under such circumstances. Honourable members on this side of the chamber are dealing with these types of predicaments daily-with representations by people who are facing bankruptcy because of the interest rate burden. People who have taken highly responsible investment decisions have been trapped by the savage anti-business policies of this Government, yet now the Government and the Australian Council of Trade Unions are imploring businesses to invest in new enterprises. That shows how out of touch they are with reality. Farmers and small business people have been slugged by near-record interest rates and record fuel excise charges when the cost of these has fallen dramatically overseas. They have been trapped by anti-investment taxes designed to divert resources from country people and country-based productive export industries and businesses to other sections of the community. Australia is running the equivalent of a $17 billion trade deficit-more than half of its gross export earnings, yet the Budget will do virtually nothing to arrest this creeping national disaster, nothing to encourage investment, everything to discourage investment. The Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), in concluding his address earlier, blamed the former coalition Government for the failure to reconstruct our secondary industries. Let us face it-we have had a Labor government on the Treasury benches of this country for over six of the last twelve years. It is no good going back to the 1960s and trying to blame the governments of those times for the difficulties of today. The truth is that we are an uncompetitive nation. Our wages, our on-costs, our work practices are unreal. What other country in the world has holiday loading payments, penalty rates and all of the on-costs that have been loaded on to the cost structure of this country, thus making secondary industry uncompetitive. We are jolly lucky as Australians that primary producers, farmers, graziers, people who are working in the mines, are producing a salable product. If they were not, there is not the slightest doubt that this country would be in an economic crisis of enormous proportions. As badly off as we are today, we would be far worse off if we did not have these people to help us. Many on the land today in particular, are producing a product which, though it is very useful from a balance of trade point of view, is produced at a loss. We were told on 15 April in the rural statement that the original all-consuming laws had been ditched but more closely targeted remedies would be applied in respect of the quarantining of farm losses. I want to focus a bit of attention on this because a letter dated 26 September which I received from the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) suggests very clearly that these targeted remedies in respect of the quarantining of farm losses will range far more widely than anybody was led to believe. The Minister said: To this end the Government has decided that it will review the operation of the relevant legislative provisions as to their current application. This will include the determination of what is a genuine primary production business as opposed to a hobby farm, the distinction between business-related primary production expenditure as opposed to private expenditure, and the question of appropriate rate of write-off of capital expenditures, operating expenses and prepayment of annual expenses. So it is still very vague, and I think that we need to watch out that we do not get another version of that quarantine legislation in this Parliament. I will conclude, because a great number of other speakers will want to speak on these measures. The wine tax, which the Government promised not to introduce and is doubled under this Budget to 20 per cent, will have a very serious effect on the wine industry. The citrus industry is in trouble, yet it has been slugged with a 10 per cent sales tax. They are bad decisions. They are decisions that the Government should be condemned for having made. Unless it realises that there are great problems in the rural sector, we are going to see a very serious depression in rural Australia, one for which the Government will be totally responsible. Mr MILDREN(Ballarat)(1.17) —The Budget that we are debating has been drawn up in a period of rapidly changing economic conditions, which face both Australia and the world at large. Not only has the world undergone major structural changes in industry realignments, it has also been subject to a considerable number of distortions resulting from the protection policies of the major developed groupings such as the European Economic Community, the United States of America and Japan. As a member representing a rural provincial electorate, namely Ballarat, I am particularly conscious of the impact of these influences upon Australia. Not only has it seriously affected the primary industries in my area and across Australia, it has also seriously affected the economic welfare of provincial cities generally. The long-established market for Australian agricultural products has been threatened most seriously by the common agricultural policy of the European Economic Community. Also, Madam Chair, you will be particularly aware that the United States farm Bill has accentuated the plight of Australia and other small agricultural trading nations. I will say more about that later. It is also a matter of great concern that the practices of some of the larger nations in protecting their industries have resulted in major damage to our balance of trade. I instance the relationship that exists between Australia and Japan. We are constantly exhorted to reduce the levels of protection for our manufactured goods, and I guess this is what the Government is proceeding to do. We are constantly exhorted by other nations to do this. However, we have not seen a corresponding willingness on the part of our major trading partners to do the same thing. This has resulted in a growing imbalance in our trading relationships. I give as an example the particularly disturbing trends in the growing imbalance of trade between Australia and Japan. In the period 1973 to 1984 Australia's share of Japan's import market fell from 9.1 per cent to 5.3 per cent. Had our share of the Japanese market been maintained during that period, our current account deficit would be 42 per cent less than it is today. Japan's share of the Australian import market has actually increased during that time from 18 per cent in 1973 to 22 per cent in 1984. This is reflected in the growing imbalance in the pattern of our principal trading goods. Australia's share of Japan's iron ore imports fell from 43.2 per cent to 40.5 per cent, yet Japan's share of Australia's imports of industrial machinery grew from 14.7 per cent to 22.1 per cent. What has been particularly disturbing to our agricultural and pastoral industries has been the decline in our share of the Japanese imported beef market. This has declined from 69.3 per cent to 53.5 per cent, yet at the same time the Japanese share of motor vehicles imported to Australia has risen from 61.4 per cent to 73.9 per cent. There is a similar pattern in respect of most other traded goods. Australian farmers, as we know, are the world's most efficient, most productive and, might I say, least protected, yet the Japanese protect their own highly inefficient agricultural industries. It is not in the interests of the Japanese to continue this grossly distorting area of protection. It certainly has had a particularly serious effect upon Australian agricultural industries, such as wheat and wool-as well as beef-and it is to be hoped that the Japanese will quickly come to recognise the need for restructuring their own agricultural industries and expose them to the world markets. The issue of trade has other problems also for this country. It is now recognised that for far too long Australian industry has paid too little attention to the opportunities that are available to it in the international market-place. We have developed an attitude that is inward-looking so far as markets are concerned and this has resulted in industries that require protection from international competition and better economies of scale. Risk ventures have been unpopular and the success factors for overseas trade have been neglected. We have tended to neglect the most up to date technological developments in mainstream industry and have been lacking in awareness of the need to develop an ethos of efficiency, reliability of delivery time, quality consciousness and the significance of design. These matters have been hammered home throughout Australia by the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button) and the Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones). What is now developing in this country is a recognition of the fact that there is little future for us unless we become internationally competitive in each of these areas. It is pleasing to note that agreement with the Government's position is coming from many parts of industry and the trade unions. The restructuring of industry is, therefore, taking place and the pressure to continue this process cannot be relaxed. But the restructuring of industry is only one facet of the need to bring our thinking up to date and to cast off old attitudes. We need a concerted drive to increase our exports. Australian business needs to be educated to adopt an export-oriented attitude and to develop the appropriate managerial and entrepreneurial skills. The Government is particularly keen to have this happen, and it is to the credit of the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) that the Austrade campaign has been developed. As the Minister has said, the national export drive through Austrade: . . . aims to promote a condition of mind, a community of purpose, wherein the ingenuity, resources, skills, experience and exertions of employer and employee combine in a collaborative effort to increase exports-and thereby ultimately guarantee the standard of living for future Australians. I believe that any Australian business that believes it might have an exportable product ought to make it a high priority to become acquainted with the services that Austrade can offer. It can approach any of the Austrade offices in the State capitals of Australia, or here in Canberra, to ensure that it has the most up to date information available. I am sure that all honourable members are encouraging businesses in their own areas to take a look at their own product to see whether there is a possibility of developing export-oriented trade by using the services of Austrade. I would like now to comment on the work which has been done recently through the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to try to encourage the large trading blocs, in particular Japan, the United States and the European Economic Community, to agree to have agricultural products placed on the GATT agenda. Tribute has to be paid to the work of the Minister for Trade in ensuring that the smaller trading nations, those which believe in fair trade, actually had a voice at that the first round of discussions in Punta del Este. We know that the cost to those nations that are heavily protecting their agricultural industries is in the order of $200 billion, an expenditure which distorts tremendously the agricultural trade throughout the world. Hopefully the next few years will see those nations prepared to agree to restructure their own industries to ensure that those subsidies do not destroy world trade as they are proceeding to do. The small nations of this world, and Australia in some respects falls into that category as a trading nation, cannot afford to have this kind of distorting effect operate upon its agricultural industries. We recognise that 40 per cent of our exports are provided by the agricultural industries and must ensure that they are maintained by every possible device. It is certainly to the credit of the Minister for Trade that he has, with the other fair trader nations, taken the initiative to ensure that this matter is brought to the attention of the United States and the EEC in particular. It is to be hoped that those nations will recognise that they have a responsibility to the world in general to come to terms with the effects of their highly protected agricultural industries upon world trade. I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this Budget item. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr DRUMMOND(Forrest)(1.27) —These estimates for the Department of Trade, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Primary Industry reflect the Budget, which has been a disappointment to say the least. At first blush it appeared reasonable, after the excesses of the last two years. There were sighs of relief-the Government had bitten the bullet and brought down a Budget with a reasonable deficit of $3.5 billion. When it was realised how this deficit was achieved there was great disappointment and some despair was felt throughout the community. People generally had been prepared for a really tough, responsible Budget. They wanted the Government to take the initiative, to set the scene for an economic recovery. They wanted a Budget that would turn the corner, would give the ordinary Australian the capacity to help his nation point in the direction of a prosperous future for him and, more importantly for his children in the long term, and for Australia itself. But what did we get? Just more of the same, and all downhill. It was a fraudulent Budget, led up to by remonstrations of `banana republic' on the part of the `world's greatest' Treasurer (Mr Keating), and warning of a war crisis by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). But what did we get? We got a Budget which will take this country deeper and deeper into economic peril. Day after day the people of Australia are bombarded with frightening economic news. The current account deficit last year was $13.7 billion. It is estimated to be $14.6 billion this year. Our dollar has fallen 17.9 per cent during 1984-85 and a further 13.4 per cent during 1985-86. It is survival stuff for the exporter but bad news for the economic health of the nation. Our international debt, calculated on a gross public base, will reach something like $100 billion by next year. On these Budget Estimates, Australia is going into debt at the rate of $30,000 per minute. Is it any wonder that we have lost our international AAA rating. Most Australians do not understand what that means. They know it is obviously not good for Australia, not good for them and not good for their children. How did the Government arrive at this spectacular Budget with a deficit of only $3.5 billion? We are told that Budget outlays as a proportion of gross domestic product declined from a peak of 30.4 per cent in 1984-85 to 30.1 per cent in 1985-86 and are estimated to fall to 29.4 per cent in 1986-87. I think there has been a bit of fudging going on here. On closer examination we find a few things put off for a month or so and a few things brought forward. Some $1.1 billion is accounted for by deferrals, changes in timing and so-called improved efficiencies. Only $800m to $900m has been carved from Forward Estimates. Some war crisis! With expenditure much the same as it was last year, what of receipts? We have $1.5 billion of new taxes, which strikes at the very heart of the productive sector of our society, the very sector that this Government is urging to get off its knees and fight back, invest, create the wealth for a better society. It is the very sector that the Government has bludgeoned to its knees by introducing a capital gains tax, a fringe benefits tax, asset tests, and a tax on lump sum superannuation. One could go on. The Government says, `Get up and fight; do you not know that you are making record profits?' The Government must think this sector has indeed stood up, in fact is running true and hard down the road to prosperity, if it feels it can give it another blow-$1.5 billion in extra taxes. Fuel is up by another 3c a litre. Excise has gone up from 6c a litre to 24c a litre since this Government has been in power. What will that do to inflation, particularly in the rural areas? The Government doubled the sales tax on wine and cider, from 10 per cent to 20 per cent. How naive that was. It is an industry that is in diabolical trouble, with the grape growers income estimated to be $700 less this year than last. The Government will regret that tax. The $47m extra, or $110m all up that the Government has ripped from this struggling industry will go nowhere near meeting the welfare bill that it will be confronted with as those who leave the industry make claims for vine pull, relocation and social security generally. I believe the position is that serious. As for the 10 per cent tax that has been imposed on flavoured milk and fruit juices, I ask why the Government hates healthy children? No one knows what is in most carbonated soft drinks, but everyone knows that they are not nearly as nutritious as natural products such as milk and fruit juice. Once again, it is an added burden on two primary industries which are going through very difficult times-both subject to horrendous dumping on international markets in which they have to compete. There is no rationale for what the Government is doing. The Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) tells industry representatives that he understands their difficulties but Treasury has insisted. Taxes have been imposed on cars, computer software, swimming pools, hand tools, photographic developing and-wait for it-toilets. The Government really has scraped the bottom of the barrel. Other measures, bring the total for new taxes to $7.069 billion. This figure which includes the $1.5 billion I mentioned earlier has made possible the seemingly reasonable $1.5 billion overall deficit. One other little fudge that has not drawn much attention is the $2.6 billion payment by the Reserve Bank to the Government. The Government cannot rely on this as a regular income because most of that profit was mainly the result of large realised gained on net sales of foreign currency by the bank. The bank profited by the falling dollar. So receipts are up by good luck and increased taxation, there are no real expenditure cuts, and we have a Budget which has no chance of turning Australia around. It is a soft Budget. Interest rates are going through the ceiling again and, as the Deputy Leader of the National Party of Australia (Mr Hunt) has pointed out, high interest rates are the most damaging aspect for rural Australia today. Unemployment is rising and private investment is down. The accord is driving us into a still more difficult international competing position. The forecast 8 per cent inflation rate is well above that of our trading partners. The Government is not doing well. The people of Australia are crying out for a lead. Most are hard working and proud. They do not understand why the Government is by its profligate spending and taxing, hocking future generations. The average Australian, having been bombarded by this frightening economic scenario, wants to do something about it. Most small businessmen, farmers, the self-employed and many others do work hard, do want to do their bit for Australia, but the reward for effort is diminishing. Because of our difficult trading position, they are the ones who have taken a step back through their involvement with the export sector, whether that involvement be direct or at arm's length. It is not reasonable that in a time of war, when we are heading towards being a banana republic, according to our leaders, we should all take a step back? That was what was expected of the Government in this Budget-that it would take a step back, put its house in order, support the productive sector-not tax it out of its mind-curb its spending and balance its books. The overproduction of primary products in the United States of America and the EEC in the short term is not going to go away. No matter how much we plead for them to introduce some sanity to their production methods, we have to compete with them for world markets. All input costs borne by our exporters must be carefully looked at. Such imposts must take a step backwards to allow our exporters the capacity to compete on even the present corrupt world markets. To sum up, I have probably taken the liberty-for which I thank you, Madam Deputy Chair-of making my Budget speech during the consideration of the Estimates but I did not get the opportunity during the other debate. This Government is a dismal failure and the sooner the people of Australia wake up to that fact the sooner we will start to climb out of the morass that we are in. Mr WRIGHT(Capricornia)(1.37) —The honourable member for Forrest (Mr Drummond) was quite critical of the Government's economic policies and mentioned many issues and statistics. I would just take him to task on one in particular. It might give us some indication of the validity of the others. He mentioned fuel. The fact is that, when the Fraser Government took office in 1975, the wholesale price of fuel-and it is only the wholesale price that the Federal Government controls-was 11.69c a litre. When it left office in 1983, the wholesale price had blown out to 39.54c, an increase of almost 28c a litre. If we contrast that with the increases that have taken place under the Hawke Government, which has pursued the same Prices Surveillance Authority rules, the increase has only been 11c a litre so I think that we might put some of the criticisms aside. It must be evident, even to the Government's most scathing critics and opponents, that the Hawke Labor Government is determined to re-establish a strong, internationally competitive, manufacturing and service sector in Australia. This is in sharp contrast to the attitude of our opponents because, unlike the Liberal Party-National Party supporters who held the treasury bench between 1975 and 1983, the Labor Government has backed its determination and its commitment with the provision of $450m in the 1986-87 Budget. This more than doubles the allocation made in the last coalition government Budget of 1982-83. I suppose that it is easy for Opposition members to criticise the performance of governments, just as it is easy for us to criticise the performance of the Liberal Party and the National Party, but we are not alone in our criticism of their performance in government because the Metal Trades Industry Association report of August this year clearly put the blame for the deterioration in our manufacturing base at the fleet of the former Liberal-National Party Government most reasonable economic commentators would agree that it was in the period 1977 to 1982 that Australia's manufacturing base, for what it was, deteriorated and the off-shore exodus of Australian industry really began. It was during that time that we really had a need to raise the competitiveness of Australia's manufacturing sector but, for reasons that were somewhat political, that was ignored. Instead, during a time when we ought to have been grasping at the underlying problems and trying to solve them, the government of the day closed its eyes to them. Instead, it adopted an economic strategy that was based mainly on a phantom resources boom. It was a strategy that that was promoted up and down the country. Regrettably, the same strategy is still being adopted in my home State of Queensland. I have argued against this for some time. For years the Labor Party in Queensland has tried to fight the media stories that have been fed, stories proclaiming multi-million dollar projects that were supposed to be on the drawing board or about to commence in our State of Queensland. We repeatedly tried to expose what was going on but had great difficulty, but I note that now the Liberal Party in the State of Queensland has launched its own campaign to tell what it says is the true story. In the Courier-Mail of 9 October the Liberal Party Deputy Leader, Bill Lickiss, who was the member for Mount Coot-tha-the redistribution has changed his electorate-named 20 projects which he called phantom projects, all of which he said had been announced by the State National Party Government but had never materialised. The report states: The National Party, Mr Lickiss said, had succeeded in creating fantasies about virtually every aspect of the Queensland economy, from transport to primary industry, from tourism to mining-and still none have come to fruition. Some of these are listed in the report. He named the Redcliffe railway line, the hydrogen car manufacturing scheme, the BMW car plant, a new Katies factory at Beenleigh, the Bundaberg coal port and the Bribie Island coal port. He also named a Brisbane steel mill that was supposed to be producing 250,000 tonnes of steel a year by 1987. They are going to have to start pretty soon because we are almost there! Mr Lickiss also named the Quest corporation steel mill and the central Queensland coal port that was to be called Port Petersen. He also talked about the massive new growth area in central Queensland that was going to be called Petersen City. Besides the things that Mr Lickiss has raised, others have been mentioned. I refer to the $150m kenaf fibre pulp project at Bundaberg, the $10m silver, lead and zinc project at Lady Loretta near Mount Isa and the $50m soda ash project in Queensland. Then there was the billion dollar plan to turn the eastern rivers backwards over the Great Dividing Range. There have been dozens of these that have never come to anything. The first prerequisite, I believe, when addressing economic problems is to recognise that a problem exists. That is what the Hawke Labor Government has done in addressing problems domestically and internationally, in restructuring Austrade, in coming to grips with the massive markets that exist in our South East Asian area, in having better relationships with China and India. It certainly has not happened in the State of Queensland. The Queensland Government needs to realise that the downturn in private sector capital expenditure is real and simply cannot be explained away by saying that it is the Federal Government's fault. The Queensland Government also must realise that the problem is related to its phantom projects syndrome. Those in government, such as the Australian Labor Party and the National Party have to recognise the real problems that exist. The Labor Party in Queensland has done that, as has the Liberal Party, and I think it is time that the National Party did likewise. It has to understand that there has been a massive drop in the per capita incomes of people; that we have the highest unemployment rate; that we have a downturn in the building and construction industry; that there is a fall in the private sector investment area and that there is a growing list of cancelled or postponed development projects. Also we have the failure rate of small business to consider. Something like 70 per cent of businesses in Queensland fail within three years. We have the highest bankruptcy rate in the nation and now we have an exodus of businesses to other States. That is linked with a similar exodus or loss of highly skilled employees. Certainly there is a need to understand the problems of small business and I welcome the reference by the Deputy Leader of the National Party, the honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt), to his concern about small business. Madam Deputy Chair, as you would appreciate also, this problem is nationwide. It is a problem that is being confronted by small business for lots of reasons. They are undercapitalised, there is poor management, there is limited purchasing power but, most importantly, it comes back to what they are paying in rent. I suggest that the time has come for the Ministers involved in trade, industry and commerce, the commercial area, contract law, and small business to come together to try to solve some of the problems that exist for it. The statistics show that not only in Queensland, but also across the nation, 70 per cent of small businesses fail within three years of commencing operations. We have seen a change from the old feudal system where the serf fought the lord of the manor. Today it is a case of the small business proprietor fighting the commercial landlord. Firstly, he is subservient to the landlord. Secondly, he is subservient to the banks. Thirdly, he is subservient to government regulations as to costs. I have come across cases where some small business proprietors take home less money than do some of their employees yet they work 80 to 100 hours a week-for $4 or $5 an hour. We need to understand that this is mainly a State matter but unless we come to grips with the problem, as we have with service station problems and franchising problems, we are not going to solve it because it is really a national matter. It involves the nationally based insurance companies that own the shopping centres. It involves the nationally-based superannuation funds that are investing hundreds of millions of dollars in these shopping centres. It also involves nationally-based retail chains. They have great difficulties but their main problem is the increase in rents. I saw a case the other day where the rent had increased by 300 per cent. It had gone from some $1,300 a month to over $4,400 a month. We have other cases of rents jumping from $23,000 a year to $36,000 a year. I am sure that all honourable members realise the problems that exist for the small business person. I believe we can resolve them. If we, at the Federal level understand the national character of this problem, take a bipartisan approach, sit down with those who are involved in the small business sector and work with the States, maybe we can come up with a new approach, new protections, new laws that are going to set the basic principles for determining rents, for determining what lease arrangements shall be. Unless we do this, 7,500 small business people, their families and their employees could go to the wall. We have problems, not only in international trade but also in domestic trade-in the trade of every town, city and capital city of our nation. I believe that the time has come to take a national approach to this issue. Mr EVERINGHAM(Northern Territory)(1.47) —We have just heard a very political speech, a plug for the Labor Opposition in the Queensland State election, from the honourable member for Capricornia (Mr Wright) and his usual tirade of abuse and attack on the Queensland Government. But I must say that I think Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen cannot be all bad because, after all, at 75 years of age he managed to drive the member for Capricornia out as the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland. He was able, at 75 years, to drive the honourable member for Capricornia into the political wilderness, so he certainly has some qualities that the member for Capricornia apparently cannot discern. This is a Budget brought down in the midst of what this Government described as dire economic circumstances. Accordingly, I think we would all agree that Australia has to take every trick. We cannot afford to throw away a single trump in our present economic dilemma, yet that is exactly what this Government is proposing, it is deliberately throwing out a crucial trump card, making all Australia victim of an unforgivable act of economic vandalism to be perpetrated by this Government. I refer, of course, to the recently announced decision to lock up all of stages 1 and 2 of the Kakadu National Park to mineral exploration and development. Let us be quite clear of the facts of this case. We are not talking, as the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Resources and Energy (Senator Gareth Evans) would have us believe, of a fragile economic environment which will be destroyed the moment anyone sinks a spade into it. We are talking of a vast area of land, twice the size of Lebanon, the same size as Israel or El Salvador, an area larger than 37 sovereign independent countries of the world. We are talking about land that has known and predicted reserves of minerals-uranium, gold, silver, platinum and a host of others-in excess of $100 billion; greater, that is, than the massive debt that this Government has inflicted upon the people of Australia. We are talking about, in geological and environmental terms, an area of relatively recent arrival on the face of the earth. The wetlands are just 5,000 years old. A lot of nonsense is spoken and written about this land and it is important to put this park in context. We are not talking about miners invading a park; we are talking about a political park overtaking miners and overtaking the best economic interests of Australia. How dare this Government seek to lock up for all time resources that belong to all Australians. It is an extraordinary act of economic lunacy, an act of huge arrogance, a calculated scheme to inflict on Australians for all time the strange preoccupations of leftist troglodytes, to use the Prime Minister's own words. In 1973, a Minister of the former Labor Government, Dr Rex Patterson, persuaded miners to surrender leases in the Alligator Rivers region on a clear promise that they would be issued with new titles to complete exploration once the park was declared. This they did, given the uncompromising assurance of the then Minister that future governments would honour his word. But today, a government of the same political persuasion has told those miners that those titles will not be reissued, that it has gone back on its word, that Dr Rex Patterson unknowingly lied to them. That amounts to nothing less than expropriation. Seventy-five per cent of the favourable rocks in this area remain untested. We do not even know what riches are being put beyond the reach of the people of this country forever. Mineral resources within Kakadu have the potential of huge earnings for Australia. Firstly, during the development stage of new mines, there would be a need for capital from overseas. Would that not help to make the balance of payments on the current account look a little better? Secondly, once new mines were in operation, Australian resources would be earning export dollars and assisting our balance of trade deficit. No one argues that there should not be a balance of conservation and mineral exploitation and interests preserved at Kakadu. No one argues that the park should not be declared in a limited fashion, because even the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service admits that only about 30 per cent of stages 1 and 2 is environmentally significant, or that stringent environmental rules should not be applied to any future mining project. They already are, and always have been, in the Northern Territory. But all thinking people can see the economic vandalism of denying for all time access to Australian resources, particularly at a time when the Government is desperate for export dollars. This Government's policies-if they can be dignified with such a term-on Kakadu, have become enmeshed in the dual streams of erroneous thought of two areas: Firstly, the extraordinary madness that grips the Labor Party on the uranium issue. Anyone who had done year 1 in psychology could spot the rampant schizophrenia in Labor policy. We have good uranium in South Australia, and I notice that some of that good South Australian uranium to the tune of $212m has just been sold in advance; a contract has been negotiated for uranium to be purchased by that socialist utopia, Sweden, for the generation of nuclear power. Good on the Swedes, but it is strange that their socialist logic has not seeped through to the schizophrenic socialists of Australia. Of course, we have bad uranium in the Northern Territory and other places. We have atomic testing in the Pacific, and on-again, off-again sales to the country that carries it out, although it is provable that Australian uranium cannot end up in French bombs. We have Ministers telling uranium miners that they cannot sell the stuff despite existing contracts for sales. This madness has extended itself into Kakadu, where Labor is using every device it can dream up, from World Heritage listing to traditional land title manipulation, to prevent anyone from embarrassing it further. Kakadu is not about uranium, it is about a whole spectrum of mineral resources-resources that could help save Australia from the path to impoverishment. The banana republic was predicted and designed by its architect, the world's second worst Treasurer, surpassed only by the Egyptian Treasurer. Secondly, Kakadu policies are influenced by the megalomaniacal tendencies of one senior public servant, the head of ANPWS. It is crucial that the concentration of power in the hands of that one man be dispersed, in order that considerations other than his singular ambition to make the park the enclave of past and future publications under this name be taken into account. The director of ANPWS has been given absolute discretion, and it seems that he has the total support of this Government in doing his utmost to ensure not only that miners are kept out of the park but tourists as well. All the great majority of people in Australia are asking for on Kakadu is some rationality. All we ask is that the Government not proceed with action that will harm Australia's future interests and cut off our future options, as a result of the unhealthy mix of leftist idealogues and Public Service empire builders. Is that too much to ask? I have suggested publicly, and will say it again here, that since the Government is clearly unable to reach any kind of rational policy on Kakadu, an independent body should be set up to consider the question of establishing a proper balance between the economic and environmental aspects of Kakadu. It is imperative that this Government's avowed intention to create a political park across 20,000 square kilometres of Australia be stopped. It is imperative that Australian resources be available to Australians for their future prosperity and welfare. The Aboriginal land owners want mining. The Aboriginals want mining to proceed at the Pancontinental mines, where there is approximately $500m worth of gold, as well as copper and uranium. The Aboriginals want those royalties. The Aboriginals want Koongarra to go ahead. The traditional land owners want this mining and they should be allowed to have a say in the future use of their land. After all, what is Labor policy on Aboriginals all about? Is it self determination, or is it not? But whenever the Aboriginals want to do something that does not suit this particular Government, we find that they are muzzled very, very quickly. Most particularly, it is imperative that one government should not, in the short term of office left to it-months only-be allowed to sabotage as it totters to its own destruction Australia's future prospects by placing Australian land under the rule of non-Australians on the World Heritage Committee. That the sort of people on the World Heritage Committee, from Libya and Bulgaria and countries like that, should have some say in the determination of Australia's economic future should be abhorrent to any thinking Australian. This is a Budget drawn up at a time of severe economic difficulty for Australia. The Treasurer (Mr Keating) has told us that we face banana republicanism and it would seem that bananas will be all that will be left to us in Northern Australia, at least under the lunatic land resource policies of this Government. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) -It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 101 I shall report progress. Progress reported. Mr BEALE —I refer the Prime Minister to the great fanfare with which he announced the decision of the Government to send an Australian Hercules aircraft to Ethiopia for famine relief. The Prime Minister will be aware that the Hercules was withdrawn from service in Ethiopia because its crew breached Ethiopian security regulations. Is he aware that the World Food Program has now entered into a contract with Australia to use the Hercules for famine relief in the Sudan? Is he also aware that this aircraft is now registered as being owned by Liberian World Airways, an arm of the Government of Liberia; that it is under contract to Integral Air Aid of Cyprus, a tax haven country, until next year; and that there are various unpaid accounts in the name of the Australian Government for maintenance and engine repairs to the Hercules? What does the Government intend to do to ensure that Australia's contract with the World Food Program for famine relief in the Sudan is actually met and to regain the ownership of a plane which has apparently been given away to Liberia? Will the Prime Minister once again go on Molly Meldrum's Countdown, this time to tell the people of Australia the sad, sorry saga surrounding the Hercules? Mr HAWKE —It never ceases to amaze us on this side of the House how increasingly pathetic the Opposition becomes during Question Time. As I know that the first part of the honourable member's question is unsoundly or incompletely based, I therefore have considerable reluctance in accepting the latter part of the proposition upon which his question is based. He said that the aircraft in question was withdrawn for one particular reason and he referred to the conduct of certain members of the crew. In the information that I had when I last looked at this matter, there certainly was some reference to that point-I do not deny that-but it was not the only or, as I recall, the major consideration involved because there had been substantial changes in the availability of food and the outlook for the people concerned. That was the basic reason, as I was informed, for the decision to withdraw the aircraft. Mr Beale —That is not what the Red Cross said. Mr HAWKE —I do not deny that one element in what transpired at the time was some allegations about the conduct of some members of the crew. As the honourable gentleman does not have in any sense a complete understanding of what transpired in the withdrawal of the Hercules from its originally proposed tasks, I am not prepared to accept without question the latter observations that he makes. However, as the issue he raises is one of some importance, I undertake to acquaint myself with the facts and inform him as soon as I can. Mr SCOTT —Is the Minister for Foreign Affairs aware that the South African Government recently restricted the operations of the United Democratic Front-the largest anti-apartheid movement in that country-by a declaration under the Affected Organisations Act 1974? What is the effect of such a restriction and on what basis was it applied? What is the attitude of the Australian Government to such actions by the South African Government? Mr HAYDEN —As the honourable member points out, it is correct that the South African Government last week restricted the operations of the United Democratic Front, the UDF-that country's largest anti-apartheid movement-by a declaration under the Affected Organisations Act 1974. Under the Act, the state President can prohibit an organisation from seeking or obtaining funds from abroad if he regards the organisation's political activities as being aided or conducted in co-operation, or consultation with or under the influence of organisations or persons abroad. The basis on which President Botha made his decision has not been made public. It is alleged that the UDF receives about half its annual funding of several million rand from external sources. The organisation has to finance a broad and expensive program out of its resources, including heavy legal expenses for defending UDF activists and bringing court applications to test measures such as the emergency regulations. The South African Government has moved against the UDF in an attempt to quash legal opposition to the policies of apartheid and white minority rule. This sort of heavy-handed, undemocratic action further limits the peaceful political options for the black majority in South Africa. The Government, through these sorts of actions, is increasing the potential for further violence in South Africa. Naturally the Australian Government views with deep concern any action by the South African Government against the already limited political activity permitted in that country. We condemn that behaviour, as we condemn apart- heid. It was notable today that in the Foreign Affairs and Defence estimates debate not one Opposition member took the opportunity to condemn the South African Government in any way at all. Not one Opposition member took the opportunity to uphold the fundamental rights of the non-white majority in South Africa. It was an appalling display by the Opposition. We have reached the stage now where the United States Congress is giving a lead to the rest of the world and I would have hoped that by now the Opposition would have found enough moral fibre to support that declaration of moral concern by the United States Congress and come onside in support of sanctions. Without sanctions apart- heid will continue to prevail with all its moral squalor in South Africa. Without effective sanctions-and I stress that the sanctions must be effective-supported around the world by people of honourable concern and intent, the black people in particular, that great non-white majority in South Africa, can never expect to achieve the opportunity of being truly free, independent and self-directing individuals in a democratic society. It is to the utter shame of Opposition members that they failed to take this opportunity today to state clearly their support for sanctions and their commitment to upholding the rights of the non-white majority in South Africa today. Mr BLUNT —I refer the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer to the Government's intention to spend $2m or more of taxpayers' money promoting the fringe benefits tax. Is it not a fact that last Friday-the very day the Minister responsible for government advertising described the suggestion of any such advertising campaign as `a flight of fancy' and the day on which the Minister personally said that consideration of any such campaign was `in the very early stages'-the advertising agency Magnus Nankervis and Curl/DDB lodged its successful proposal for this advertising campaign? If the Minister's statement of last Friday were true, will he explain how it was possible for three separate agencies to be approached, briefed and then supplied with the detailed proposal for this massive advertising campaign and subsequently bid-and all in a matter of fewer than three days extending over a weekend? Why were the established procedures for the allocation of government advertising contracts ignored for this campaign? Why did the Government attempt to keep it secret? Who approved the decision on Monday to allocate the contract? Will the Minister now table the documentation relating to this proposed massive misuse of taxpayers' money? Mr KEATING —For some time the Government has been conducting a public information campaign on various aspects of the tax reform package. Consistent with that duty to keep the public informed about changes in the tax system and administration, the Australian Taxation Office has already produced television, radio, newspaper and printed material and other items on the fringe benefits substantiation and other tax reform measures. Of course, honourable members will all be aware of the new tax form S. In conformity with established procedures, three advertising agencies were recently invited to submit ideas about the dissemination of information to the public by the Tax Office and the Government on aspects of tax reform and any changes which might be made as a result of the current review of the fringe benefits tax. At this point no decision has been formally taken by the Government, including on the issue of expenditures, although I expect to see some recommendations considered over the next week. It is interesting that we should get this question when a certain matter of public importance was raised recently by Opposition members. That resolution spoke of: The Government's failure to adequately explain the operation of its new taxing measures, including the Fringe Benefits Tax, and the resulting confusion and disincentives for business-big and small. Need I say any more? Mr SIMMONS —Can the Minister for Health inform the House why, in planning for the Australia Card, the Government rejected the tax file identification option? Dr BLEWETT —The essential reason why the Government has rejected the tax file identification system is that it is the kind of identification system one has when one is not having an identification system. It is a kind of Clayton's option. It is true that it is an identification system, but it is weak, second-rate and inadequate. The reasons for this are fairly obvious. Firstly, as the Opposition knows, the tax files are riddled already with false identities, so that offers no ready or quick solution to that problem. Secondly, the proposals do nothing to bring about a relationship between the tax file number and substantiation of identification. The only thing one can think of is that the majority were thinking that people should run around with their tax files as proof of their identity. Finally, an administrative complex was suggested which would produce a nightmare, sharing responsibility for administration between tax and social security rather than unifying it through one system. What we would get out of such an identification system would be a second-rate system, such as that in the United States of America and Canada, where identification systems were introduced through the back door, which produced all the flaws and problems that exist in those systems. Of course, the tragedy is that the Opposition knows the need for an effective identity system in this country. In fact, the honourable member for Gwydir has made stronger statements about the need for an effective identity card system than I have ever made. The honourable member for Richmond has made very clear statements about the need for an identity system. Further, the honourable member for Dawson, who is not in the House, claimed that he was the father of the Australia Card idea. The whole elite of the National Party of Australia, except for its Leader, is on record as being strongly in favour of the identity card system. Why then has the Opposition taken the kind of position it has taken? It is simply because we have an opposition without principle, without policy, and without honour. What it likes about the tax file number is that it can go round to different audiences and say, for example, to one audience `We will not have an Australia Card; we will not have an identity card system; we will not have that', and it can go to another audience and say: `We will have a system as good as the Australia Card'. That sort of system would turn out to be totally second-rate and totally inadequate. I hope that members of the Opposition, when faced with the measure, will reconsider their position in the light of statements they have made. Mr REITH —I refer the Treasurer to the fact that many families living in Victorian electorates such as McEwen, Bendigo, La Trobe, Streeton, Burke, McMillan, Ballarat and my electorate of Flinders choose to establish their family homes on blocks in excess of two hectares. I also refer the Treasurer to the unqualified statement made yesterday by the Minister for Housing and Construction that the family home is exempt from capital gains tax. I ask the Treasurer: Is the excess of over two hectares of such family properties subject to capital gains tax? Why should such families be discriminated against because they choose to live outside suburbia? Will the Treasurer inform the Minister for Housing and Construction that, in certain circumstances, the family home is subject to capital gains tax? Is this an intended or unintended consequence of the capital gains tax? Mr KEATING —I am sure that the honourable gentleman comprehends the concept of curtilage which applies in respect of this legislation, as it does under the assets test. Let me say again, as I said yesterday, that it is interesting that he should be putting these views when the Opposition rejects the capital gains tax absolutely. The Opposition believes that the Australian tax system ought to work with pay as you earn taxpayers carrying the burden and people who take their income as capital not paying tax. That is not the Government's view. When members of the Opposition come to a view that there is a place for balance and decency in the tax system, where people who take their income as capital ought to pay their fair share of tax alongside those who take it as income, their more detailed concerns could be weighed more appropriately. In the meantime, let me make a more general point. There seems to be an interest on the part of members of the Opposition to draw from me interpretations of the law which, in most cases, are exclusively the statute responsibility of the Taxation Commissioner. It is not my responsibility. The interface between policy and administration is difficult. The honourable member is uncertain about the detail of some of these things he should put the question on notice and it will be dealt with appropriately. Mr ALLAN MORRIS —I ask my question, which is directed to the Minister for Defence, in the context of various comments and speculation in the media in recent weeks, including some in which he figures, relating to the determination of the construction site for the new submarine project. Is the Minister aware of comments reported recently by the Swedish tenderers that the preferred site or sites are secret and are essentially a commercial decision and that, if the Government wishes to use an alternative site, it would need to pay a premium? Can the Minister advise the House whether these reports are true and that neither he nor the Department will know the tenderer's preferred site or sites until after tenders close on 11 November? Can he also indicate the status of the various comments and predictions as to the Government's preference for any particular site? Mr BEAZLEY —I think the status of the various comments and predictions about the various sites stands about where it was on the numerous occasions on which I have been asked this question in the past. We do not know where those sites will be with any form of finality at all until a proposition is put before us by the two submarine tenderers, and they will do that in November. As to the general proposition, I recollect that article in which comments were attributed to the managing director of the Swedish-based consortium about the fact that a preferred site would eventually emerge from the various bidders in the process and that if we were not to go down that road we would be obliged to pay a premium. I must admit that that is something I very much anticipate to be the case and it thoroughly dovetails with the propositions I have been putting forward in this House. In the end, we will make a commercial decision. When one has at least four reasonably good sites being put forward in a number of States, one is on a three to one loser in political terms if one decides to take a political option as opposed to a commercial option. I believe that the only way this Government will be able effectively to defend itself politically when it finally makes a determination on the site is if it can demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Parliament and the people of this country that it has made a decision on that site based on commercial judgment. So I accept the views that are being put forward. I accept the annoyance of the honourable gentleman with the way speculation has proceeded to the contrary, and I again give him an undertaking that, as far as I am concerned, in my recommendations to the Government I will be seeking a commercial statement from my Department as to what ought to be the site. Mr CADMAN —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Are gifts or bequests from dedicated or public-spirited Australians of property, religious objects or traditional artefacts such as icons, chalices or robes, traditional national costumes and manuscripts or rare books made to churches, schools, charities or migrant organisations caught by the capital gains tax? Will the taxing of such items be a disincentive to Australians making gifts or bequests to churches, schools, charities and migrant organisations? Is this an intended or unintended provision of the legislation? Mr KEATING —I must confess that I do not know where to begin. I honestly do not understand the point of the honourable member's question. He understands that a capital gains tax applies to all assets other than those that are exclusively exempted under its provisions. Therefore, whatever he may think to be the impact upon an icon or some other thing is probably entirely right. But so what? Mr LINDSAY —Is the Minister for Defence aware of statements made recently by the President of the Queensland Division of the National Party of Australia which were critical of Australia's defence capability? What initiatives has the Hawke Government taken to improve Australia's defence preparedness in the north of Australia? Mr BEAZLEY —I thank the honourable gentleman for his question, which follows on from his deep concern about these defence matters. Yes, I did see some remarks attributed to the President of the National Party which were made in Townsville and which, to my knowledge, are the first display of interest that he has exhibited in defence policy. Like all newcomers to the field, in that regard he displayed complete ignorance. It is considerably ironic that he should have made his statements at that time when we were making several announcements associated with the Budget which would materially improve our defence capabilities across the north, and that would include north Queensland. Decisions were taken, for example, to upgrade the Jindalee radar system which, when the program is ultimately completed, will give us a very substantial degree of confidence that we will know what movements are taking place in the air and on the sea in our area in a way that will very much enhance our defence capacities in the north. He made those statements in a place where we had decided, in preparing this Budget, to expand the facilities substantially, to put in place the helicopter backup for the operational deployment force there, to the very substantial benefit of the people in that area. He also spoke in a city which I have visited with the honour- able gentleman to meet with the wives of Service personnel in that area and hear their grievances in relation to many aspects of pay and conditions. As a result of that, we decided to set up the inquiry that was conducted by Sue Hamilton. Some of the beneficiaries of the results of that inquiry will be the Service personnel resident in Townsville. He also had something to say, I believe, on what he alleged to be the freezing of pay scales for the regular forces. Only one freeze has ever been implemented on Service pay, and that was done by that mob on the Opposition side of the House in its last year of government when the only contribution made to Defence Force pay by it was to ensure that no reference was placed before the Committee of Reference. Mr Hawke —Who was the Minister? Mr BEAZLEY —Of course it was a National Party Minister at the time, as we all recollect. No reference was placed before that Committee of Reference before that freeze. Since we have been in office there have been regular adjustments to Defence Force pay in line with those of the community. In addition, there has been the establishment of a remuneration tribunal which has recommended one increase in pay, to the tune of about 5.9 per cent. That is over and above the adjustments made in regard to the cost of living. The complaint is made that the regular pay scales have not moved in accordance with Public Service pay. As a result of the decisions that we have taken, in the period 1981-85 Public Service adjustments were in the realm of 17 to 28 per cent; for the Australian defence forces they were 21 to 39 per cent. He also had something to say about the fact that there had been that non-passing on of indexation in regard to Defence Force retirement and death benefits. The point that ought to be made in relation to that is that it is not anything unusual that has been done to the defence forces. That position has applied to the civilian recipients as well. One point which is made to me constantly and which I accept from the defence forces is that they wish to be treated like their civilian counterparts. Nevertheless, there will be an adjustment in the benefit to the tune of some 7.2 per cent this year, which is more than wage adjustments in 1985-86, which have been 3.8 per cent. In all ways we have been addressing the requirements, as best we can in difficult financial circumstances, of the defence forces in the Townsville area. On top of that, of course, we have been implementing policies that are very much to the advantage of the defence of the north of this country. It was a nonsense statement coming from a desperate president of a party that is sinking slowly beneath the waves, if we want any particular defence analogy, associated with his particular political interventions. Mr CARLTON —I refer the Treasurer to the situation of a married couple who started a business in partnership and who each contributed assets to the partnership before 19 September 1985. Will the Treasurer confirm that it is the policy of the Government that, if the married couple bring their child into the partnership, the couple will be subject to capital gains tax on the deemed disposal of their part interest in the original partnership assets to their child, even though such assets were originally purchased prior to 19 September 1985? Is it an intended or unintended consequence of the capital gains tax not to provide rollover relief in these circumstances? Mr KEATING —I make the general point again that this is again a question from the Opposition which opposes the capital gains tax in toto. The second point that I make is that I will not attempt to comprehend the situation of a particular taxpayer in respect of the application of the law. As I said quite clearly to the honourable member earlier-in case he did not comprehend-the interpretation of the law is a statute responsibility of the Commissioner of Taxation. Mr Carlton —Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I asked very clearly whether it was the policy intention of the Government to act in this respect. Madam SPEAKER —I call the Treasurer. Mr KEATING —Therefore, the application of the law and policy which may affect or alter the law or cause rulings under the law by the Commissioner to be altered are best not made more difficult by statements by me as Treasurer in the Parliament when the Commissioner has this responsibility. Such a question should be put on notice. Then I can look at it and the Commissioner can look at it, and we can give the honourable member a reply. There are 2,000 pages of Australian tax law. If the honourable member thinks for one second that in an instant I will comprehend the position of a particular taxpayer in relation to the law and give him rulings at Question Time, he is quite wrong. Mrs DARLING —Is the Minister for Social Security aware that the Queensland Premier continues to claim that most of the unemployed in Queensland are young people on holiday from the south? Will the Minister please give this House the real situation based on fact? Mr HOWE —I thank the honourable member for her question. Of course, one can say by way of introduction that the Queensland economy is just about the worst performer in the country. When we talk about its unemployment we have to look at the record of the Queensland Government. Of course, it is a blatant act of cowardice to go into an election campaign blaming unemployed people for a government's own management mistakes. The Queensland Press has also been quick to adopt in some cases the mythology of the suntanned dole bludger. I want to refer to a report which I have put together and which mentions some of the facts with respect to trends in unemployment in Queensland. First of all, it is true that the fastest growth in unemployment beneficiaries in Queensland has been in metropolitan and rural areas, not in resort areas. Young people on unemployment benefit are not overrepresented at resort areas and have been growing in numbers less rapidly than older beneficiaries. The age composition of unemployment beneficiaries in resort areas shows that since 1983 the growth in the under-25 age group has been less than that of all other age groups. In that period the under-25 group has increased by 2.3 per cent compared with a total increase in unemployment in Queensland of three times that-7.3 per cent. Since 1985, with accelerating unemployment growth across Queensland, the numbers of unemployed in resorts rose at a considerably lower rate than those of other areas. Resort area growth was 3.9 per cent; non-resort area growth was 10.3 per cent; the State-wide average was 8.9 per cent. It is also suggested that young people are flocking into Queensland, presumably to enjoy both unemployment benefit and resort areas. In fact, young people cannot wait to get away from Queensland. The latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures for the year ended June 1985 show a net outflow of young people and a net inflow of older people. Figures relating to permanent migration between Queensland and other States showed a net outflow of 4,000 in the age group of 15 years to 24 years compared with a net inflow of 7,100 for the age of 35 years to 45 years plus. What we see illustrated by these figures are the politics of stereotyping and the politics of scapegoating. A government which has been notably unsuccessful with respect to its unemployment record and its management of the economy looks for a group of people to scapegoat and suggests that they have some responsibility which is simply not there. The image that is presented of Queensland beneficiaries being mostly young people is also wrong. Most social security recipients are families receiving family allowances and old age pensioners. Unemployment beneficiaries and sole parents combined represent less than 20 per cent of clients of the Department of Social Security in Queensland. If we want to understand the problems in terms of unemployment in Queensland we need to look no further than at a report produced by the Queensland Premier's Department in September of this year. The report suggested that the economy in Queensland suffers from a narrow industrial base. If current policies continue there is little-- Mr Tuckey —I raise a point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! I call the honourable member for O'Connor on a point of order. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, standing order 99 requires the Minister to resume his seat. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will get on with his point of order. Mr Tuckey —Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise on the question of the time that Ministers take to answer questions. Madam SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. Mr Tuckey —There is a further point of order. I have evidence of a precedent here to support my argument and I would refer you-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. There is no point of order on the length of time a Minister takes to answer a question. Mr Tuckey —Madam Speaker, I ask you to hear me on the point of order. I think it is fair that I be heard on the point of order. Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for O'Connor will resume his seat. The Chair will not hear the point of order. No time limit is provided in the Standing Orders. Suggestions have been made by previous occupants of the chair but no rulings have been given. I suggest to the honourable member for O'Connor that he put his matter before the Standing Committee on Procedure. Mr HOWE —I was talking about the problems that give rise to unemployment in Queensland, the fact that the levels of unemployment and numbers of people on the unemployment benefit in that State are very much higher than the Australian average and the very rapid increases in unemployment numbers. A report by the Queensland Premier's Department in September of this year said that if current policies continue there is little chance of correcting Queensland's high unemployment. Queensland's real problems are to do with too many scams using taxpayers' money, insufficient productive investment, insufficient private sector support and government for cronies, not people. That is why Queensland accounts for 16 per cent of Australia's population and 19.7 per cent of the country's unemployment beneficiaries. The unemployment rate in Queensland at the end of September 1986 was 9.3 per cent, compared with 8.3 per cent nationally. The numbers on unemployment benefit have grown rapidly in Queensland. They rose by 11 per cent between June 1985 and June 1986, compared with the Australia-wide growth over that period of 1.5 per cent. It is time the Queensland Government stopped blaming out of work young people for its own mistakes. Mr Blunt —I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will the Minister table the report he was obviously reading from? Madam SPEAKER —Was the Minister reading from notes? Mr Howe —I was reading from personal notes. Mr McGAURAN —I seek clarification from the Treasurer of the Government's policy relating to the capital gains tax. I refer him to the situation of a family which operates a part time business out of the home garage. I refer to mechanics' workshops, lawn mower repairers, pottery makers, artists and glaziers. Is it the Government's policy that in these circumstances the capital gains tax should apply to that part of the family home in which the garage is located? Will the Treasurer offer these decent, hard-working Australians more guidance than an arrogant and dismissive `so what'? Mr KEATING —I cannot quite see the point of the honourable gentleman's question. Presumably, if people are working out of their family home workshop they are working out of their family home workshop. What is the position? I say to the honourable gentleman that the capital gains tax is the law of this country. It is a tax law. The administration and application of the tax law is a matter for the Commissioner of Taxation, not for me. If the honourable member wishes to inquire about the application of the law in relation to this example he should put the question on notice. I will let the Commissioner see it and give him a reply. It is very interesting to note that we are getting all these questions about detail, yet the Leader of the Opposition on the Willesee program said in answer to a question: `Look, Mike, I'm not getting into the business of commenting on individual examples.' On the Carleton-Walsh Report he said: Richard, I have indicated that I'm not getting into the area of examples. He also said: Well, I've indicated, my comments about examples last week applied to examples full stop. He went on to say: . . . I will not tolerate arrangements . . . But to ask me to try and give some kind of precise definition on your program to what those arrangements may constitute when in a whole raft of circumstances they could be quite different, I'm simply not going to do. That is right, but he would like to ask me to do it every day at Question Time. Let me just tell him this: He is fudging around the country in what is the most downright example of studied arrogance by any major party, giving no details on fiscal policy, wages policy, tax policy or on any policy. He will not give examples on any program, will not say what a fringe benefit is and will not even acknowledge the example of a commercially provided car driven privately. He will not even acknowledge the most blatant examples of use of fringe benefits for the purpose of fringe benefits taxation. To seek of me judgments about the application of the law in relation to myriad circumstances of certain taxpayers is not only unreasonable; it is foolish. I have indicated that if the Opposition wishes to question the Government about the application of the existing law or where it thinks the existing law might be changed in relation to the position of certain taxpayers, it should put the question on notice and it will be looked at. Mr BRUMBY —Can the Prime Minister inform the House of the effectiveness of the Government's wages policies compared with those of the previous Government? Mr HAWKE —I have to admit that the Leader of the Opposition-I hope that he is listening-is correct in saying that real wages did not rise by 9 per cent in his last year in office. They did not rise by 9 per cent in his last year; they rose by 9 per cent in his last two years. Let met set the record straight on this question. No amount of whining or obfuscation on the part of the Leader of the Opposition can disguise the facts. The facts are shown on page 66 of the most recent issue of the Treasury Round-up for September this year. In 1982 real wages rose by 5 per cent measured against the private consumption deflator and in 1981 they rose by 4 per cent, bringing the total increase over the last two miserable years of the Leader of the Opposition to 9 per cent. In 1980 they rose by 0.8 per cent, so that in their last three years real wages rose by a massive 10 per cent. Compared with that performance-a massive 10 per cent rise in real wages in the last three years of the Howard stewardship-in the last three years under this Government they have fallen by 4 per cent. We have in those simple statistics the key to understanding why there has been a significant fall in real unit labour costs in this country, why there has been in the last three years an increase of 650,000 jobs and, most importantly, why Australia is soundly based to meet the problems imposed upon it by external circumstances. Mr HOWARD —I ask the Prime Minister: Is the Government still totally opposed to the concept of compulsory work for unemployment benefits. Mr HAWKE —The answer to that is quite clear. Mr N.A. Brown —What is it? Mr HAWKE —Madam Speaker, they are bubbling over with so many brilliant questions to put to us that they do not want to hear the answer. I repeat: Our position is quite clear. We are in the process of building up a bank of community jobs. My colleague the Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations has had officials of his Department engage in consultations around the country with relevant organisations, including State government and municipal organisations, which have indicated total support for the Government's position. Consultations have been going on with organisations such as the Salvation Army and the Brotherhood of St Laurence so that there will be built up in this country a bank of community-type jobs which will be offered to the unemployed. In that context, where obviously it would not be possible to build up a bank which would equate with the number of people unemployed, the question of compulsion is irrelevant and this Government is not engaged in applying a process of compulsion. What we are about is bringing down the level of unemployment and remedying the disaster we inherited from the stewardship of the Leader of the Opposition. His inheritance to the people was double digit inflation and double digit unemployment with, in his last year, an increase in the number of unemployed of over a quarter of a million. We have brought that down. We are providing more jobs-we have already provided 650,000 jobs-and we are providing more places in education. The Opposition's legacy in education was a reduction in the number of places in all relevant areas, including a reduction in training opportunities. In every relevant area of education and employment and training we are creating more places, and in addition we will provide community work opportunities. In that way, in all those areas, we are massively remedying the unbelievable chaos which the former Treasurer inflicted upon this country. Dr KLUGMAN —Was the Minister for Foreign Affairs surprised that a complete arms reduction agreement could not be negotiated in Iceland during a two-day meeting between United States and Soviet negotiators? Is it in the interest of realistic negotiations to have excessive expectations built up by a simplistic media whose attention span on any one issue hardly ever exceeds four to five days? Mr HAYDEN —I think the honourable member for Prospect makes that judgment about the attention span of the media on the basis of our experience with the Australian media. The attention span of overseas media is much shorter. Mr Hawke —You have won them. Mr HAYDEN —I trust they understand that that is meant to be flattery. In response to the honourable member, no, I was not surprised. Mr Tuckey —You got your last big surprise when Bob stabbed you. Mr HAYDEN —What was that? I will have to get a hearing aid; it is rather embarrassing asking Bob to tell me what was said. The Prime Minister says to me that I was not as embarrassed as he was. I think there is an old tune-`Haunting Memories'. I will have to condense this answer; it is getting just too good. The short answer to the honourable member-I assure the House that the question was all his own work-is that I was not surprised. I was surprised that so much was achieved in such a short time and I was disappointed that so many public affairs analysts reported that the meeting was a failure. It was not. It was a remarkable achievement. It is a shame that it came to a full stop on the issue of the strategic defence initiative. I need scarcely remind honourable members of the remarkable achievements covered in such a short time. There was a zero-zero agreement for Europe in relation to intermediate nuclear forces; a limit of 100 war heads for the Soviet deployment of intermediate nuclear forces in Asia and a similar number in America by the Americans; a ceiling of 1,600 on ballistic missiles and 6,000 on war heads; and agreements about bombs carried by bombers. These sorts of things have been major obstructions in the past. Before Reykjavik the Soviets raised what had been a major obstacle to progress, namely, their demand that the nuclear capability of France and Britain be counted in. In a sense they have a very strong case. After all, all these weapons are pointed at them. On the other hand, the Americans have a strong case. They are not in command of France or the United Kingdom nor of any nuclear deployment by those countries and can scarcely negotiate on their behalf. So when all these things are put together there were remarkable advances. I think the SDI area is a grey cloud not without a silver lining. What transpired from discussions we had yesterday with Mr Kenneth Adelman, Director of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and with the Soviet Ambassador in Canberra today, Dr Evgeni Samoteikin, when each provided a brief on their respective positions, was just how much coincidence of agreement there was on what had taken place and what had been achieved. It seems to me that the SDI area is still an area to be explored and both sides are to be encouraged to do so positively. I do not think it has been riveted in people's attention yet that the Soviet Union is not ruling out all aspects of and all things related to SDI absolutely. The disagreements, in summary, are these: The Americans, having agreed with the Soviet Union that there be a 10-year period in which the anti-ballistic missile treaty would apply, have proposed that in that period research, testing and development of the SDI concept take place inside the laboratory and outside. The Soviets are not prepared to accept outside laboratory research, testing and development. That means that they are prepared to bear with such arrangements in laboratory, and they made that clear on an earlier occasion. Another area of dispute arises in that at the end of the 10-year period the Soviets want the United States to declare that it will continue to embrace the provisions of the anti-ballistic missile treaty. We do, and I believe that the Opposition has to this point. It has never made a declaration to the contrary. If it does, it is declaring a commitment to a substantial change of direction and a substantial reassessment of its values in the area of arms control and disarmament. We have all been quite deeply committed to the anti-ballistic missile treaty. The Americans are saying that at the end of the 10-year period they will require the right, through a renegotiation of the obligations of the treaty, to deploy. One thing that concerns me about the development of SDI is that, if one country can make advances at a much more rapid rate than the other country-and we are talking about only two super-powers and, parenthetically, one can be anticipated to do that on its record of developments and advances in technology ahead of the other-and if it is accepted, as it is quite explicitly by the Opposition, that SDI can be totally effective, that side will have a total protective defensive barrier against any nuclear attack from the other side. At the same time, it has an offensive capability. Then we get to the critical situation of a first strike capability and all of the destabilisation that could arise. These are genuine worries that have to be sorted out. They do not belong just to one side or the other. They are part of the great debate which is taking place inside the United States as much as it is taking place in this country today. Mr Tim Fischer —Madam Speaker, I take a point of order under standing order 150. In view of the fact that the Treasurer has 14 unanswered questions on the Notice Paper from last year, 1985, and in view of his invitation to place further questions on notice, will you advise the House what action can be taken under standing order 150 to expedite those answers? Madam SPEAKER —The standing order is perfectly plain. I will read it to the House. It states: The reply to a question on notice shall be given by delivering the same to the Clerk. I presume that that is what honourable members do. It continues: A copy thereof shall be supplied to the Member who asked the question, and such question and reply shall be printed in Hansard. What does the honourable member expect the Chair to do? Mr Tim Fischer —I want the Treasurer to answer the 14 questions that he did not answer last year. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member has no point of order, but it was a good try. Mr HOWARD —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I ask whether the Government would be willing to facilitate in this House the passage of a motion in the following terms: That this House warmly commends the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and all others associated with the effort to secure the Olympic Games of 1992 for Brisbane, Australia, and expresses the hope that Brisbane's application will be successful in the final adjudication to be made by the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne tomorrow. Mr HAWKE —Yes is the answer to the question. I point out very briefly that the organising committee was kind enough to ask me whether I would go to Lausanne with the Lord Mayor-a prospect I found interesting and attractive, not only because of the high esteem in which I hold those associated with trying to get the event for Brisbane but also for the obvious value it could have for Australia. Unfortunately, I was not able to go but I instructed the Minister to go and to give to the bid, by his presence, the full support of the Commonwealth Government. For that reason the answer to the question is yes. Motion (by Mr Howard)-by leave-proposed: That this House warmly commends the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Alderman Sallyanne Atkinson, the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Tourism, and all others associated with the efforts to secure the Olympic Games of 1992 for Brisbane, Australia, and expresses the hope that Brisbane's application will be successful in the final adjudication to be made by the International Olympic Committee in Lausanne tomorrow. Mr HAWKE(Wills-Prime Minister)(2.55) —For the reasons I have given, I have pleasure in seconding the motion. Question resolved in the affirmative. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —For the information of honourable members, I present a report by the National Companies and Securities Commission on the cross-investments between the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Elders IXL Ltd. Limited copies of this report are available from the Bills and Papers Office for perusal. Additional copies of the report are expected early next week and will be made available to all honourable members. I have arranged for a copy of the report to be placed in the Parliamentary Library. Motion (by Mr Young)-by leave-agreed to. That this House, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1908, authorises the publication of the report of the National Companies and Securities Commission on the cross-investments between the Broken Hill Proprietary Co. Ltd and Elders IXL Ltd. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to section 171 of the Trade Practices Act 1974, I present the annual report of the Trade Practices Commission for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and section 35 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance 1983, I present the annual report on the operation of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Ordinance for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to sub-section 50 (1) of the Judiciary Act 1903, I present the Judiciary Act annual report for 1985-86. Mr LIONEL BOWEN(Kingsford-Smith-Attorney-General) —Pursuant to the Seat of Government (Administration) Act and sub-section 27A (1) of the Australian Capital Territory Parole Ordinance 1976, I present the annual report of the Parole Board of the Australian Capital Territory for 1985-86. Mr HAYDEN(Oxley-Minister for Foreign Affairs) —For the information of honourable members, I present the annual report of the Australia-New Zealand Foundation for 1985-86. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —For the information of honourable members, I present the text of a statement relating to proposed amendments to the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr BEAZLEY(Swan-Minister for Defence) —Pursuant to section 196A of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, I present the first report of the Judge Advocate General on the operation of the Defence Force Discipline Act for the period 1 July to 31 December 1985, together with the text of a statement relating to the report. Motion (by Mr Young) proposed: That the House take note of the paper. Debate (on motion by Mr N.A. Brown) adjourned. Mr COHEN(Robertson-Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Bicentennial) —Pursuant to sub-section 25 (4) of the Australian Bicentennial Authority Act 1980, I present the annual report of the Australian Bicentennial Authority for 1985-86. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor) —Madam Speaker, I seek leave to make a personal explanation. Madam SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? Mr TUCKEY —I do. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member may proceed. Mr TUCKEY —In today's Sydney Morning Herald article `From the Gallery' by Rod Frail, Mr Frail states: Mr Tuckey said the Treasurer had sold some of his clocks for $300,000 when they were worth only $10,000, to escape capital gains tax. Madam SPEAKER —Order! Mr TUCKEY —I am quoting from the article. Madam SPEAKER —Yes, but you must show where you have been misrepresented. Mr TUCKEY —Yes, but I must read that to you to make my case. The next paragraph of the article, in which I claim to have been misrepresented, states: Obviously not a punter, he likened this to `getting a bet on the last horse at the races after it had gone past the post'. What I did say was: Warren Anderson is a friend of the Treasurer- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will not repeat that. He will understand that I made a statement to the House on 20 February that I will not have any intrusion into the personal lives of members of this House. Mr TUCKEY —Warren Anderson is not a member of this House. Madam SPEAKER —I have read the article and I have also read the Hansard. While I am sitting in this chair, nobody will make personal comments and intrusions into the personal lives of other members of the House. Mr TUCKEY —I am quoting from Hansard. It is a statement already made-- Madam SPEAKER —It is a statement already made. It is a statement in Hansard. It is a statement in the newspaper. While I am in this chair, it will not be repeated. Mr TUCKEY —Then I must draw your attention to the other paragraph in the article, which states: Obviously not a punter-- Madam SPEAKER —Yes, go ahead with that bit. Mr TUCKEY —Madam Speaker, I have raced horses for 25 years, held a trainer's licence for 15 years, and now operate a thoroughbred stud. Contrary to Mr Frail's statement, I am well able to understand the meaning of placing a bet on the last winner after it has gone past the post. It was-that is, until more sophisticated mechanisms arrived, such as selling clocks for 30 times their real value-- Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. Mr TUCKEY —The principal means of laundering bribes. Madam SPEAKER —The honourable member will resume his seat. He will not defy the Chair. Mr Hand —For how long have we got to put up with this thug? Madam SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Melbourne will withdraw that comment. Mr Hand —I will withdraw in deference to you, Madam Speaker. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate Ministers: To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That over 67,000 men, women and students enjoy the pursuit of their sport and recreation every year at the Anzac Rifle Range at Malabar and have done so since 1967. 2. The people of Sydney through their membership of 41 clubs headquartered at the Anzac Rifle Range together with a number of other community, school and commercial groups, the police and armed forces will lose this community facility if the Federal Government proceeds to sell the Range to private developers. 3. The Australian Bicentenary Fullbore Rifle Championships are to be conducted at the Anzac Rifle Range in April 1988 as part of the celebration of Australia's Bicentenary. Your petitioners therefore urge the House of Representatives and the Government of the Commonwealth to retain the Anzac Rifle Range for the continued use and enjoyment of the people of Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Blunt,Mr John Brown,Mr Lionel Bowen,Mr Cobb,Mr Coleman,Mr Connolly,Mr Cowan,Mr Dobie,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Fitzgibbon,Mr Hollis,Mrs Kelly,Mr Kerin,Mr Leo McLeay,Mr Maher,Mr Martin,Mr Mountford,Mr Nehl,Mr Ruddock,Mr Ian Robinson and Mr Simmons. 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 humbly 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 services they offer expanded. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Braithwaite,Mr Ian Cameron,Dr Harry Edwards,Mr Hawker,Mr Nehl,Mr Punch,Mr Rocher,Mr Ruddock,Mr Slipper and Dr Watson. 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 Ms Jakobsen,Mr Kent,Mr Milton 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 respectfully showeth that whereas: They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Give a speedy passage to the Flags Act Amendment Bill which provides that the Australian National Flag can only be changed by a Referendum. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Brumby,Mr Peacock and Mr Scholes. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned, are seriously concerned about the impact of the Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. It is unjust for any person to be liable for tax on benefits received by another person. 2. Compliance with FBT will increase administrative costs for all employers including Local, State and Federal government departments. 3. FBT is an inefficient tax, which will require the Tax Office to employ an army of bureaucrats. 4. FBT is inequitable because liability arises regardless of capacity to pay. 5. The FBT laws are extremely complex. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Connolly. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs it imposes. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. 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. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned at the impact of the new Fringe Benefits Tax on the following grounds: 1. Its severe and damaging effect on business confidence, investment and incentive, especially in the rural, mining and small business sectors. 2. Its capacity to seriously worsen unemployment through the additional costs its imposes. 3. Its extremely negative impact on the competitiveness of export industries at a time when the nation desperately needs to improve its trading performance. 4. In that it may compel many honest and decent citizens to defy the Tax in order to preserve their livelihoods, their businesses and the jobs of their employees, thus causing hardship, the breakdown of respect for the law and discord within the community. We therefore most earnestly petition you to repeal the Fringe Benefits Tax legislation forthwith. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Hicks. 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 Hawke Government's Fringe Benefits Tax is a vicious, punitive tax that unjustly affects employers, will have a major impact on small business and farm profitability, and will result in increased unemployment. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Parliament to: Repeal the legislation establishing the Fringe Benefits tax. 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 a 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 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 petitioners 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 Dr Harry Edwards and Dr Watson. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of citizens of Australia shows: That the people of New Zealand and the New Zealand Government have given an example to the world in their efforts to achieve a nuclear free South Pacific, and such decision being endorsed by the people at a general election. Your petitioners therefore pray that the Australian Government support the principled stand taken by the New Zealand Government and urges it to condemn any efforts by the U.S. Government to impose economic or other sanctions on New Zealand in retaliation for their stand on nuclear vessels. We further urge the Australian Government to urgently implement its policy to promote the development of zones of peace and nuclear free zones in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. by Mr Kent and Mr Scott. 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 Punch and Mr Ruddock. 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: (1) that the phasing down and eventual closure of the services of the Commonwealth Rehabilitation Centre at Glen Waverley will be detrimental to the rehabilitation of disabled Australian citizens; (2) that the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre is ``purpose'' built and its loss would deprive disabled Australian citizens of a unique multi-million dollar facility; (3) that the essential accommodation for disabled Australian citizens will no longer be available. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: (1) that the phasing down of the services of the Glen Waverley Rehabilitation Centre be reversed immediately; (2) that the one-hundred-and-four-bed residential facility be fully utilised immediately; (3) that sufficient funding is provided by the Commonwealth Department of Community Services to operate the Centre at full capacity. And we pray you may be conscious of God's sovereign purpose for our Nation and your petitioners in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Aldred. 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 the undersigned small business people and supporters wish to draw attention to and protest against recent tax changes and the horrific administrative burdens which will be placed upon small businesses by these changes. We request that: Fringe Benefits Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Dividend Imputation, Negative gearing, Foreign tax credits and Substantiation legislation be immediately repealed. We also request that the proposed legislation yet to be tabled in Parliament in respect of self assessment be discontinued. To make up the shortfall in revenue as a result of these request, the promised personal tax cuts should be deferred until such time as they can be funded by pruning government expenditure. Unless the above action is taken immediately the private sector of the economy will contract and Australia will be further down the road to becoming a banana republic. by Mr Beale. To the Honourable Speaker and to the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of we the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: The ever expanding exorbitant interest rates are casting farmers and city dwellers along with their wives and toddlers into dust and mud stricken roads, as they plod along without success, for alternative accommodation, with indignation even prior to increases now before the House of representatives, which we also deplore. Your petitioners therefore pray that your House eliminates this outrageous and unjust castigation of our population which is leading to the downfall of this country. by Dr Blewett. 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: By cutting ESL funding and eliminating funding for community languages and multicultural education you have attacked tens of thousands of Australian children. You have condemned these children with limited English to gross educational inequality and very dim prospects for their future. On behalf of these children we call on you to remove this new discrimination which your budget has guaranteed by immediately restoring ESL and Multicultural education funding. by Mr Coleman. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Bill of Rights is a dangerous piece of legislation which gives us no new legally enforcable 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. 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 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 Hawker. 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 Rocher. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that whereas: 1. They are completely satisfied with the design of the existing Australian National Flag. 2. They are aware it properly reflects immutable characteristics of Australia, namely: (a) The Union Jack, itself the creation of three Christian Crosses, represents the Nation's historical origin and the source of its language and law; (b) The Southern Cross on an azure blue background signifying its geographical location on this planet Earth; (c) The large star depicting the advent of Federation in 1901. 3. They know the Flag has been a source of inspiration to generations of Australians in peace and war. 4. They recall that millions of native-born Australians and newcomers to these shores from other parts of the world have become united under its proud symbolism. 5. They are certain that any change to the Flag will produce division in the Australian community. Your petitioners therefore pray that your honourable House will: Propose and pass a motion that ``the existing Australian National Flag be changed only with the approval of the Nation as expressed in a Referendum''. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the Australian flag symbolises the continuity between Australia's past, its present and the future; That the presence of the Union Jack on the flag represents not a subservience to Britain, but a reminder of our inheritance of the fruits of hundreds of years of struggle for individual liberty against the forces of tyranny and oppression; Nonetheless recognises the rights of Australians should they wish as a people to change the design of their flag. Your petitioners humbly pray that no change be made to the Australian flag except with the consent of the people in a referendum. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Ruddock. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That in the light of the Labor Government's failure to act to correct the many anomalies in the Assets Test on pensions brought to its notice, the Labor Government's legislation should be repealed before it has an unduly unfair impact on pensioners. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled should immediately seek the repeal of the Labor Government's iniquitous and unfair Assets Test. 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. 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. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That the 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 therefore pray that you will oppose the Bill of Rights, support Liberal amendments to improve it in case it is passed, and pledge to repeal it should it become law. by Mr Hawker. To the Honourable, the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia of Albanian background respectfully showeth: We most strongly oppose the use of the ``special broadcasting service'' and the taxpayers funds for nationalist Political purposes. We are deeply concerned that the existing Albanian program on Radio 3EA Melbourne is not meeting the needs of the community. It is being used against its interests, as well as the interests of the broader Australian society. We respectfully believe that such use of public facilities undermines Australian principles of multi-culturalism and has a damaging effect on community relations. Your petitioners therefore, strongly urge the Government to take immediate action to ensure that the present announcers of the Albanian program are removed and replaced with community representatives. by Mr Kent. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled: We the undersigned citizens of Australia, hereby petition the Prime Minister as leader of the Australian Labor Party in Government in Australia and humbly showeth that: The voting public of Australia did in March 1983 and again in December 1984 vote as a majority for the election of a Labor Government who did claim to stand for social justice, equity and redistribution. That the said voters sincerely believed that a contract was entered into in voting for a Labor Government with democratic socialist principles. That there is an erosion of support for the pensioners, the unemployed, the aged, the sick and the working class of Australia, while the lot of the privileged class, the banks, the oil companies, and the money-changers continues to improve. Your Petitioners call on the Australian Labor Government to implement those policies and follow those principles of social justice, equity and redistribution which the majority of Australians voted for in 1983 and in 1984, and to adopt an immediate programme that will transfer the current economic burden to those better able to carry it. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of certain 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 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 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 the 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 Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia 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 Nehl. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully shows that: (a) The film ``Hail Mary'' (i.e. ``Je Vous Salue Marie'') has been registered by the Film Censorship Board for public exhibition with a Restricted Classification; and is due to be screened in the forthcoming Sydney Film Festival; (b) The film is a blasphemous and pornographic attack on Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin Mary, Saint Joseph and the Archangel Gabriel, as such it is extremely offensive to the undersigned; (c) The film therefore breaches regulation 13 (1) of the Customs (Cinematograph Films) Regulations. Your petitioners therefore request that the House of Representatives call upon the Attorney-General, as the Minister responsible, to prevent the exhibition of the film in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Nehl. 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: That we are dissatisfied with the present Federal Government's policy on Community Languages. And request that the Australian Government take urgent steps to formulate and approve a policy for the teaching of Community Languages on a permanent basis, in the day schools, in order to safeguard the linguistic and cultural heritage of all Australians. Moreover, with the present petition, we request that Community Language Resources Centres be instituted, to operate within communities, in order to assist schools in the implementation of Community Languages programs. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Punch. To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned, are deeply concerned that Australia's important horticultural industry is being severely disadvantaged by unnecessarily rising production costs. Many Federal and State Government regulations, excessive taxes and charges are damaging the ability of horticultural growers to maintain supplies of food and plant products to Australian families at a realistic cost. Widespread unemployment will result if horticultural producers are further depressed. The undersigned humbly petition the Parliaments of Australia, its States and Territories, to take all measures within their powers to reduce the burden of imposed costs and regulation, allowing Australian horticultural growers to develop production potential so the nation, as a whole, can share the benefits of the resulting growth and prosperity. Your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Richmond electorate respectfully showeth that: Labor's Capital Gains Tax is standing in the way of economic development on the Far North Coast, a region with great potential for further growth and renowned for the enterprise and initiative of its local community. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Repeal its anti-business anti-farming and anti-individual Capital Gains Tax. 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 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 Free. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the 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 Australia, electors of the Division of Grayndler shows the Thai Government recently announced that Khao-I-Dang refugee camp will be closed on 31st December 1986. More than 25,000 Cambodian refugees who survived the ``Killing Fields'' of the Khmer Rouge and entered Thailand after 1979 are still resident in Khao-I-Dang. We hold grave fears for the future and safety of these refugees who will be relocated to camps along the Thai-Cambodian border when Khao-I-Dang is closed. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Australian Government will uphold its enviable humanitarian record and act with all haste to facilitate the acceptance and resettlement of as many of these refugees as possible, including a proportion of those who have no relatives to sponsor them. by Mr Leo McLeay. To the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned, respectfully showeth that we, the people of Victoria would like to remind you of your moral duty in regard to your decision to sell Uranium to France, against ALP policy. The French are still nuclear testing in the South Pacific, despite world wide protests. We therefore call on you to reverse the decision to sell uranium to France. by Mr Milton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the State of Victoria respectfully request that the Federal Government take responsibility for existing and future funding of child care services and that such funding allocation be at such level to ensure the maintenance of quality child care. We further respectfully request that proper planning of services occur and that the Federal Government enter into formalised agreements with State and Local Governments to achieve this result. by Mr Shipton. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of 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 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 therefore 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 petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the actions of trade unions have gone beyond their traditional goals of protecting workers conditions and rates of pay and have reached the point where they are seriously affecting the economic health of the nation and the people. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray: 1. That all Governments throughout Australia acknowledge and protect the Right to Work on behalf of all Australians. 2. That the total sovereignty of individual governments be recognised as a fundamental requirement of a workable, balanced Federal system of government. 3. That all necessary steps be taken to protect the citizens of Australia from any inducement, compulsion, threat or intimidation to join any trade unions. 4. That there should be no preference in employment for people who are members of trade unions. 5. That the supremacy of elected governments over the sectional interests of trade unions be recognised, and 6. That the provision of essential services be maintained, free from industrial disruption. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The petition of certain citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher in Queensland respectfully showeth: That the Hawke Socialist Government be called upon to remove the unjust and cruel Assets Test; That the Assets Test discriminates grossly against those people living on acreage blocks or in rural areas; That the introduction of the Government's grab for the assets of senior citizens is condemned as un-Australian; That the Government is requested to reconsider the Assets Test. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Mr Slipper. To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Federal Division of Fisher respectfully showeth that: The proposed capital gains tax penalises small business, discourages long-term investment, hinders capital formation and will freeze existing investment patterns and limits the investors' ability to adjust to changed market conditions. Your petitioners humbly pray that the House of Representatives, in Parliament assembled, urge the Government to: Immediately abandon its ill-considered capital gains tax proposal. And your petitioners as in duty bound will 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. Petitions received. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Madam Speaker has received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The sharply increased tax burden for single income families under the Hawke Government. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the Standing Orders having risen in their places- Mr HOWARD(Bennelong-Leader of the Opposition)(3.06) —I commence my remarks on this matter of public importance by observing that the Treasurer (Mr Keating), who has been so anxious to engage in rhetoric on taxation from the sanctuary of the Government side at Question Time, given the first opportunity to face me in debate this week in the Parliament, has cut and run and scuttled out of the House. I remind the House that well may he, because after today's Question Time he has earned himself yet another dubious title; that is, the dubious title of `So What?'. Having been asked a question about such things as religious objects and icons, which are very important to sections of the Australian community, he said: `If the capital gains tax applies so what?'. I tell the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) that I will get the Treasurer's answer translated into Greek and I will circulate it around all the electorates where there are large ethnic communities and the honourable member for Calwell, along with the honourable member for Barton (Mr Punch), the honourable member for Hunter (Mr Fitzgibbon) and the honourable member for Eden-Monaro (Mr Snow) will come to understand what a terrible burden it is-- Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker-- Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition might resume his seat. I think one of his colleagues took the point before that members-- Mr HOWARD —I hope it is uniformly enforced from now on. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —I would hope so, too. Dr Theophanous —Mr Deputy Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made certain provocative comments that reflect on me. I just say that at any time I am ready to debate the record of the Leader of the Opposition in relation to multicultural matters. He has been a disgrace. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The honourable member for Calwell will resume his seat. Mr HOWARD —For the benefit of the House I make the point that I am not reflecting on the honourable member for Calwell; I am reflecting on the Treasurer, because he is the problem that honourable members opposite have. He has become a tax terrorist and the people he is terrorising most are the marginal seat holders on the Australian Labor Party side. What hope do people such as the honourable member for Barton have? The seat of Barton encompasses Barrie Unsworth's seat of Rockdale. What hope does he have with the sort of taxation policies and the sort of tax record that this tax terrorist of a Treasurer has imposed on the Australian community? Before I come to talk about the really important taxation issue before the House, let me remind the Parliament that this matter of public importance is about the economic record of the present Treasurer of Australia, the man who was the runner-up yesterday for the dubious distinction of being the world's worst performing Treasurer; the man who, let it be remembered, lost Australia her AAA credit rating; the man who has given Australia its worst relative inflation rate since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development was formed, an inflation rate 16 times that of Japan, our major trading partner. He is the highest taxing Treasurer this country has ever seen. He is the biggest spending Treasurer Australia has ever seen. He has given us bigger Budget deficits than any other Australian Treasurer since Federation. He has given us the highest interest rates since the Great Depression. He has presided over the sharpest depreciation of the Australian dollar and over an economy that is now careering towards having a total national debt in gross terms of almost $100 billion, which is $4,500 for every man, woman and child in this country. On top of that, and notwithstanding the rhetoric of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the rest of the Government front bench about employment, there are now more Australians on the dole than there were in March 1983 when this Government came to power. So, even on the subject of employment, this Government and this Treasurer have not a skerrick of credibility. The Treasurer is very good on his feet when he has the sanctuary and protection of government members at Question Time, but give him the opportunity of facing a debate in this House and he cuts and runs away from the debate. Once again the Opposition brings before Parliament a matter relating to the high tax burden of the policies of the Hawke Government. No doubt in the coming months we shall be buried with a deluge of taxpayer-funded propaganda about the taxation policies of the Hawke Government. Millions of dollars will be spent by the Hawke Government, not legitimately explaining to the public how the taxation reforms work, but to propagate the policies of the Australian Labor Party. Over the next couple of months we shall witness a spending spree on government advertising the like of which we have not seen before ever undertaken by any government in Australia. Yet in all that advertising the Government will not be telling the people the real facts about the taxation burden. It will not be telling them, for example, that after the great so-called Keating reforms are completed in July next year both the average and marginal rates of taxation for people on average weekly earnings will be higher than they were in March 1983. Many Australians will find it very hard to believe that, so far from tax in March 1983 being higher than it will be in July 1987, the reverse will be the case. The reality is that a single income family with a dependent spouse and two dependent children, which still carries the great brunt of the economic disaster of this Government, in March 1983-that was the month the Hawke Government was elected-had an average tax rate of 17.5 per cent. By July next year, even after all the great Keating reforms, that rate will not fall but will be 20.5 per cent. The reality is that, under the great Keating reforms, that family, even leaving aside interest rates, family allowances, fringe benefits tax and the effect of indirect taxes, will be $15 a week in constant dollar terms worse off than it was in March 1983. No amount of advertising or attempts by the Prime Minister and Treasurer to con the Australian public into believing there has been a great taxation reform undertaken by this Government will be able to hide the fact that, under the Hawke Government, not only has the overall taxation burden risen but particularly the taxation burden on single income families has risen. I mentioned single income families not because they comprise the entire section of the community but because they are yet another significant element of the community who have been brutally damaged by the high taxation policies of the Hawke Government. Under this Government the total taxation burden has risen enormously. For a government that was elected on a commitment of lower rates of taxation, that said it would look after average families and is supposed to represent the battlers in the community, I repeat for the benefit of all those Labor holders of marginal seats around Australia, under the stewardship of Prime Minister Hawke and Treasurer Keating, that the taxation burden on an average family on average weekly earnings will have risen from 17.5 per cent to 20.5 per cent, even after all the great reforms of the Treasurer have been completed. Mr N.A. Brown —How much a week? Mr HOWARD —The figure is $15 a week in constant dollar terms, making no allowance at all. I challenge the Treasurer, the Prime Minister and the Minister Assisting the Treasurer (Mr Hurford) in their advertising to tell the Australian public that the average family will be at least $15 a week worse off. Mr N.A. Brown —Plus interest rates. Mr HOWARD —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition reminds me that that makes no allowance for the additional burden of interest rates. It makes no allowance for the burden of indirect tax rises that have not been compensated for by personal tax cuts; it makes no allowance for the impact of fringe benefits tax or for any other effects of the policies followed by this Government on a household budget or savings. No amount of obfuscation and no amount in millions of dollars will absolve the Government from the odium it will carry on that issue. That additional impost is not restricted to single income families, but goes right across the income scale. For an individual the average tax rates have risen very sharply. In respect of corporations the taxation rate has risen. The Treasurer carries on about his great imputation tax reform. The reality is that the after tax return of Australian companies, after allowing for taxation and interest rates, has fallen very dramatically over the last few years. So, in whatever category one takes, one finds a pattern whereby, under the biggest taxing Treasurer this country has seen-a man who presided over the loss of our AAA credit rating, who has given us the highest real interest rates since the Great Depression, who has given us the highest level of national debt in our history, who is the biggest spending Treasurer this nation has seen-single income families, of all the groups of Australian taxpayers, have been disadvantaged more by the policies of the Hawke Government than they have by any of the Hawke Government's predecessors. In case the Acting Treasurer, or Minister Assisting the Treasurer, or whatever name he wants to parade under in this debate-- Mr Hodgman —Scoop. Mr HOWARD —Scoop will do. In case he wants to indulge in a little ancient history, I remind him and the House of what happened to the dependent spouse rebate under the former Government compared with the position under this Labor Government. As Opposition members will know, adjustment of the dependent spouse rebate is the principal method of providing taxation assistance to single income families in the community. Over the five and a half years that I was Treasurer in the coalition Government the value of the dependent spouse rebate for a family with dependent children went up by just over 100 per cent-in other words, it rose by 16 per cent in real terms. But under the present Government in three short years the dependent spouse rebate has declined by no less than 23 per cent in real terms. I would like the honourable member for Barton to listen to this because he is sitting on about 0.8 per cent and on top of that has the dead weight of Barrie Unsworth as a State colleague. I would like him to explain to all the single income families of Barton why it is that, under the former so-called anti-worker, anti-little bloke Government of which I was Treasurer, the dependent spouse rebate was increased by 100 per cent, or 16 per cent in real terms, yet under the stewardship of the present Treasurer from Bankstown it has fallen by no less than 23 per cent in real terms. That is a measure of the total indifference of this Government to the average middle income, middle class family of this country. If ever there was a demonstration of this, it is the way in which the taxation policies of this Government disadvantage the single income families in the Australian community. Because the Prime Minister, happily as far as we are concerned, has nominated taxation as a great issue in election campaigning over the next 15 months, during the next few weeks we will be talking about many other areas of the Australian community which have been disadvantaged by the tax policies of the Hawke Government. But today our focus is the way in which the security, living standards, tax equity and tax justice of single income families in Australia have been eroded, destroyed and sabotaged by the high taxing policies of this Government. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Minister Assisting the Treasurer)(3.22) —The Treasurer (Mr Keating) regrets that he is not able to be here today. He has some important consultations which could not be avoided. He thoroughly enjoys carving up the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard)-this failed Treasurer-and he would not miss the occasion for worlds, but he must do so today because of consultations that he cannot avoid. It is the height of hypocrisy for the man who has been responsible more than anyone else in this country for the inequity and the injustices of our Australian taxation system, inherited by the Hawke Labor Government, to bring a matter such as this before the Parliament today. The Leader of the Opposition is now scuttling out of the House; he is not prepared to hear the medicine that he will be given. It is hypocritical for anyone in the Liberal and National parties to raise the subject of the levels of personal income tax. Why are these levels high? I do not in any way resile from the fact that the levels have been too high. One reason is that the coalition parties in government allowed evasion and avoidance to run rampant. The Treasurer, who returned from overseas at the beginning of this week, has reminded us during Question Times this week that it took 26 submissions from the then Commissioner of Taxation, Mr O'Reilly, to the then Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition, who has the gall to propose this discussion in the House today, to bring that former Treasurer grudgingly and reluctantly, screaming into this Parliament with some taxation reform legislation. It was too little and it was too late. Mr Donald Cameron —You know that's not true, Chris. It's not like you to tell lies. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Moreton will withdraw that remark. Mr Donald Cameron —I withdraw and I replace it with `untruths'. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member for Moreton should realise that those sorts of comments do him and the House no credit. Mr Donald Cameron —What about the Minister? It does him no credit to tell untruths about John Howard either. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —It would be better if the honourable member, rather than making imputations about other members, just withdrew his remark. Mr HURFORD —It was too little and too late and it took 26 submissions from the then Commissioner of Taxation before this man came grudgingly to the House with some so-called tax avoidance legislation. I repeat that statement. By their reactions to our legislation in the last couple of weeks, Opposition members are seeking to deny the honest taxpayers of this country $900m of the taxes due from the avoiders and evaders. They are doing this by opposing the Taxation Administration Amendment (Recovery of Tax Debts) Bill in the Senate. The Bill, which has passed through this place, makes it clear that the statutes of limitation should not be applied to the $900m of the tax still to be collected from the avoiders and the evaders. That $900m might not be collected if the statute of limitations were to apply because of the delays caused by these Liberal and National Party members. That avoidance and evasion, succoured by this Opposition mob, is not the only reason why the level of income tax has been too high. It has also been high because these people who have governed for 30 of the last 36 years have allowed capital surpluses to escape the taxation net. They were content for wage and salary earners, who could not avoid paying tax-they could not make tax optional like others in the community, those avoiders who got away with so much-to bear the burden of paying the taxes. Still they oppose a modest, sensible, capital gains tax such as the one Labor has introduced as part of the essential tax reform proposals. Still they ignore the fact that every other comparable developed country-even that home of free enterprise, the United States-has a capital gains tax. At the heart of most avoidance is the conversion of what should be taxable income to capital surplus. These tax avoiders have been seeking to avoid tax payment by converting income to capital surpluses. It has been essential for equity and fairness in our taxation system to put a capital gains tax net under the system. Yet these people opposite still oppose it. They still want wage and salary earners-and that includes single income families-to go on paying taxes through the nose. The story does not end there. There are many other reasons why the level of income tax that Labor inherited from the coalition is too high. Let us focus on the avoidance of tax by way of the perks that some people receive. That is what the fringe benefits tax is all about. A total of $700m tax is being avoided by employers paying benefits to employees in the form of benefits in kind, rather than in taxable cash. Of course that must stop. The interest free or low interest loans, the subsidised housing, the cars being used for private as well as business purposes, the school fees being paid and even the hostess allowance-all these perks amount to $700m in tax being avoided. Yet this Opposition opposes this fringe benefits tax. It is nothing short of scandalous that Opposition members should act in this way. No wonder they are responsible for personal income tax rates being too high. But Labor is dealing with these problems and reducing personal income tax rates as well. The Bills are already in this Parliament. Our Hawke Labor Government is making the system fair and square, bringing respect and compliance back to the tax administration. That is the context in which we must debate this issue today. Let us contrast the Government's position with that of the Opposition in relation to the welfare of families in this country. The Opposition has promised to introduce income splitting, which would cost the revenue in excess of $2.7 billion a year. As one would expect, the greatest beneficiaries would be those one-income families with the highest incomes. Two-income families and sole parent families on low incomes would get little or no benefit from that measure. Let us contrast that with the Hawke Labor Government's efforts to help families. The Government has introduced a number of policies which are of great benefit to families. I will mention some of them specifically. First, there is the first home owners assistance scheme which provides a grant of up to $6,000 to persons to buy their own home. Secondly, there is the Medicare system which has been of particular benefit to families because the Medicare levy is based on income alone, unlike the former private system which charged much more for families than for single people. Thirdly, there is the 70 per cent increase in the family income supplement, additional pensions for children and the 100 per cent increase in the mothers-guardians allowance. Fourthly, there are the substantial increases in the rates of benefits and allowances paid to unemployed young people and those undertaking training courses or full time study. The rationalisation of these benefits and allowances under the Hawke Labor Government's Priority One program particularly assists low income families with children and has improved the pattern of incentives as between study or training and unemployment. There is a fifth measure of which the House needs to be reminded, especially in the context of helping low income families. As part of the Priority One program the Government has increased its funding commitments in education to increase the numbers of places in universities and colleges of advanced education. It has boosted the rates of retention in schools and TAFEs. It has introduced the Australian traineeship system to improve employment training and educational opportunities for young people. The Government has continued its commitment to apprenticeships through the Commonwealth rebate for apprentice full-time training scheme-CRAFT. These are all excellent programs. They are programs that are needed basically for the families of this country. The Government's policies, particularly in the difficult budgetary circumstances it took over, when there was such a low level of economic activity in this country, have been directed at those in greatest need. I emphasise that there could be no greater assistance to the family than through the improvement of the overall economy and the job growth that has occurred under the Hawke Labor Government. That will continue to be the highest priority of our Government. At the same time, the tax cuts to be provided from 1 December this year, with further cuts to apply from 1 July 1987, will benefit all Australian families. These tax cuts involve substantial reductions in the top and middle marginal rates which will assist one-income families relative to two-income families with the same total income. The sweeping reforms of the Australian tax- ation system will produce a fairer and more efficient system. Our two rounds of tax cuts, which I have just outlined to the House, will provide tax relief of around $12 a week for the workers on average earnings. Even after the Medicare levy there will be substantial tax cuts in excess of $10 per week for these workers. These are real cuts, not fanciful, imaginary statistics dragged out of the air, as were the figures given by the former failed Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition. The workers will make their own judgment on 1 December this year and on 1 July next year on whether the tax cuts are real. They will see the money in their pockets. The Leader of the Opposition complains about the marginal tax rates we have introduced. In office he did nothing, but now he complains and he goes on with this business of dropping the top marginal rate. We are actually doing it. We will drop the top marginal rate from 60 per cent to 49 per cent and the marginal rate for the worker on average earnings from 46 per cent to 40 per cent. That will be the outline of the two tax cuts to be implemented on 1 December this year and 1 July next year. The Leader of the Opposition's calculation on marginal tax rates faced by the average worker is a furphy. Average earnings in March 1983 were $19,300-just $200 short of the 46 per cent bracket. The Leader of the Opposition is misleading the House when he suggests that people are in tax brackets they are not in. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The Minister cannot make those imputations. Mr HURFORD —Mr Deputy Speaker, I withdraw. The Leader of the Opposition is mistaken, anyway, and his suggestion needs correction. There was nothing in the failed former Treasurer's last Budget, which he put before this Parliament in 1982, that would have prevented average earnings moving into the 46 per cent bracket shortly after the coalition left government. Let us not forget that in five years as Treasurer the honourable member for Bennelong could not get the top marginal rate below 60 per cent. We are doing it. We are bringing it down. The Australian people are being misled when this sort of thing is said on the John Laws program on 30 September: The US tax reform-- which the Leader of the Opposition so warmly embraces-- has a top marginal rate 20 per cent below Australia's. The Leader of the Opposition, in saying that, conveniently ignored the compulsory social security contribution of 7.15 per cent and State taxes which, for California, to take just one State, take the top marginal rate to 47 1/2 per cent, which is virtually no different from our prospective top marginal rate. It is important for us to recognise where credibility lies. The honourable member for Bennelong, the man who now leads the Opposition, in his last disastrous Budget gave a fistful of dollars to Australian voters, financed by a massive $9.6 billion deficit blow-out. These tax cuts were an illusion paid for by the Australian public and the higher interest rates that followed. Labor was elected upon a platform that included fiscal responsibility, which we have displayed with widely acclaimed success. We will not betray the Australian people by emulating the abysmal performance I have just outlined of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Treasurer of this country. We will not finance extra tax cuts in the way he financed them-by massive deficit blow-outs. The fruits of our fiscal responsibility are clear. It will enable our Government to cut to 40 per cent in July the 46 per cent marginal rate inflicted upon workers on average earnings by the previous Treasurer, the present Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition persists in playing the Australian people as mugs with the $6 billion in tax cut promises, several hundred million in spending promises, and the removal of the $3 1/2 billion deficit. These are all things that he has promised at one time or another. The Australian people will see through that because it is dishonest to pretend that that sort of thing can apply. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Minister's time has expired. Mr HICKS(Riverina-Darling)(3.36) —I am a little bewildered because I, like my coalition colleagues, stayed in the House to listen to the speech of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) about the problems facing single income families in particular in Australia today. His speech lasted 15 minutes and I believe that not even five minutes were devoted to dealing with the family. Three members of the Government were in the House, and I think that indicates the thought and the care which this Government has for single income families. It was found in recent surveys that 74 per cent of Australian people believe that a child needs a home with both parents present in order for that child to grow up in a happy family. Unfortunately, we all agree that one of the major things that works against that is financial difficulty. Figures I have indicate that in 1974, some 26,286 single parents were receiving the supporting parent's benefit and in 1986 the figure was 176,730. I wonder how many of those families would still be together if governments had taken on their proper responsibility and given some care and consideration? There appears to be a very real lack of interest by this Government in the welfare of Australian families and, in particular, the welfare of the single income families. We in the coalition believe that the family unit forms the basic unit or, if you like, the basic building block of this nation. Because of its fragility it must be protected from the many pressures that modern living brings if the very fabric of our society is not to be torn asunder. I cannot recall one piece of legislation that has been brought into this Parliament in the last three years that has in any way supported the family unit. I ask honourable members on either side of the House to speak to me after this debate if they can recall one piece of legislation supporting the family unit that has been brought into this House in the last three years. Mr Gear —Medicare. Mr HICKS —I will talk about Medicare a little later. On the contrary, the only legislation I have seen works against the traditional family. I refer to the affirmative action legislation, the attempt to pass the so-called Bill of Rights, the various tax Bills, and so on. In fact governments, both State and Federal, spend millions of dollars on institutions such as the Family Court, which works on family legal matters and decides how the spoils, both material and human, should be divided. But how much do governments spend on keeping families together? I will tell honourable members. In the last Budget the Government allowed only $100,000 for marriage education. That is not even the price of a decent house in Canberra. What a trivial amount, what an insult to the nation that only this amount is spent throughout Australia. The Labor Government has spent almost nothing on marriage guidance. Most funding in that area comes from church and other groups, and I congratulate those groups on the perseverance in the uphill battle it is having. On top of the human engineering legislation I have already mentioned, which the Government is endeavouring to pass, we have the financial discrimination of this Government against Australian families and, in particular, single income families. The Hawke Labor Government is the Government which, despite its rhetoric about having a monopoly on care for the underprivileged, has forgotten where its first priority should lie. I believe that this is because the days of the old Labor Party, which is alleged to represent the largely single income working families of Australia, are gone. We now have a party run by trendy intellectual lefties who see their main purpose as breaking down old family traditions and trying to keep the latest socialist experimentation going. Let us look at the damage this anti-family Labor Party which is now in government has already wreaked on Australia. I add that I speak as a father of four and as the main breadwinner of a single income family who for 20 of 23 year of married life earned only a moderate income, so I speak from personal experience. Let us look at the family allowance. Do honourable members realise that the family allowance has not increased for four years? With the financial policies of this Government, imagine what that has done to the value of it. I know that there are people in this nation who perhaps do not need family allowance, but there are those who look forward to it. Being in a single income family, I looked forward to receiving the family allowance, whether it went towards a pair of shoes, school books for the kids, or whatever. A pair of shoes does not last very long on a growing child. Most people in Australia with families would know that. Last year this Government abolished the family allowance for dependent children aged between 18 and 24 years. Does not the Caucus know that this can be the most costly period for a supporting parent, particularly if the children are undertaking tertiary education? Last week I received a letter from someone in the bush who said that sending his children to the city for tertiary education was costing him $162 a week for the time that his children are there. Mr Cobb —How can they afford that? Mr HICKS —There is no way; most people cannot afford it. A means test now applies to families with 16 and 17-year-olds and with incomes above $39,000 a year. This must be seen in light of the fact that these taxpayers are already in the highest tax bracket and the cut-backs apply irrespective of the number of other dependants and the high costs of maintaining and educating children in higher secondary education. There is no means test for those on unemployment benefit. A means test is applied when people are educating their children, but no means test is applied on the unemployment benefit, and therefore there is definitely no incentive. Let us look at the increases in taxes which have recently been applied. The Medicare levy has increased by 25 per cent. This is despite the fact that I read daily of beds not being available and people lining up for attention at hospitals throughout the nation. Recently I read of a maternity hospital not having enough beds in which to keep the mothers. Anyone who has had children knows how essential it is to have a close and reliable medical and hospital service, not only to treat accident prone children but also for one's own peace of mind. The Medicare levy is being increased by 25 per cent when we do not have a reliable system. Prescription charges are to double, from a maximum of $5 to $10. Again parents will know just how often children need medical attention, not only for their various illnesses but also when they fall out of a tree, trip on the footpath or crash on a skateboard. The cost can be prohibitive, particularly if a person has more than one or two children. The Government has placed a sales tax on flavoured milk drinks and fruit juices. We all know that some children cannot drink milk unless it is flavoured and we more or less get them to drink milk by giving them flavoured milk. I did not do that to my children, but many people do. It is a shame that that tax has been imposed. A tax has been imposed on fruit juice, which is a valuable vitamin C supplement. One of the biggest slugs, of course, is on those families that are trying to get a home together. The first slug is the home loan interest. While this Government, for political reasons, has kept the ceiling on interest on initial home loans, many young people have to take out other loans in order to be able to buy a home. Then they have the hire purchase agreements for furniture and that type of thing. Let us not fool ourselves: Most people in Australia are in that situation. The high inflation rate and high interest rates are making it almost impossible for those young people to buy homes and raise their families. We heard the Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) in the House telling us what a wonderful job the Government is doing with its housing policy. Many people in many parts of Australia cannot find housing, let alone own a house. With an inflation rate of 8 per cent families are going into higher tax brackets, further reducing their spending ability. What about the $250 tertiary education fees? The fees paid by the gentleman next door to me have gone up already by $750 in one hit. It means that some young people will not be able to have tertiary education, unless they borrow to pay that fee. This Government has pledged to spend $1m on an affirmative action agency to supervise the implementation of affirmative action employment principles in the private sector. It is also spending millions of taxpayers' dollars on every trendy Left organisation in the country. On the other hand, we all know that, even after the 1 December tax cut and taking into account the Medicare levy, the dependent spouse rebate, the family allowance and the effects of inflation, families with a single breadwinner and two dependent children will still be $23.50 a week worse off than at the time of the last election, in 1984. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) has said that, and I will repeat it: Families will be $23.50 a week worse off than at the time of the last election, in 1984. When will this Labor Government start spending something on this nation's future by caring for the family unit? The single income family is being stamped out of existence by the policies of this anti-family Government. Family incomes must be sufficient for establishing and maintaining a family with dignity, whether through an appropriate salary, which is often called a family wage, or through other social measures, such as family allowance, tax rebates or the financial recognition of the work performed in the home by one of the parents. Family incomes should be such that both parents are not obliged to work outside the home, to the detriment of family life and especially the emotional stability and education of the children. I am now pleading with the Government: Please do something for these single income families; please look after that very basic building block of this nation. I am sure that the nation will then look after itself. Where is the Australian Labor Party that once said that it cared for single income families in Australia? In fact it built its policy on that. Now it has gone and we have a trendy Left government; and the nation is much worse off for that. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr GEAR(Canning)(3.45) —I have to admit at the outset of my contribution that there is some truth in the matter of public importance that has been brought on today. There are some single income families that will be disadvantaged by our policies; but, to differentiate between those different groups, one has to say that there are different categories of single income families. There are the upper income single income families, such as, I suppose, those of the Robert Holmes a Courts and the Alan Bonds of this world. We could classify them as single income families. There is also the lower single income family of the pay as you earn taxpayer who may be a tradesman or a truck driver-certainly somebody who does not make a lot of money. Also there are single income families of pensioners. So there is a wide range of single income families in this country. In the House with me today is Mr Jim Kelly, who is the Shire Clerk of the Shire of Kalamunda. How do I say to Mr Kelly, who represents all the people of the Shire of Kalamunda, that the matter of public importance that has been brought on today by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) is true? I can say that part of it is true. Let us, first of all, look at the upper income families-the one income families that used to be able to take advantage of the fringe benefits. It is the one income family that used to get a hostess allowance. The wife did not work, but she used to get $4,000 to $10,000 a year, tax free, given to her. Do honourable members reckon that the bottom of the harbour merchants were pensioners or came from the lower income families? No, they came from the upper income families. They are the people who benefited from all those tax avoidance schemes that we have wiped out. They are from single income families. I would venture to say that we have adversely affected them. We have done it by intention. There are also the one income families that used to go along to restaurants for the private meals and book them up to the company. What a great old system it was when we had single income families, such as those of the poor old electrician who took his wife out once a year, on their anniversary, sitting alongside the company director, both possibly eating the same type of meal, with the electrician paying 100c in the dollar and the company director paying, if anything at all, less than 50c in the dollar. Where is the fairness? We have targeted that one income family that has been rorting the system; but who is sticking up for it? The Opposition has been doing that all the way down the line. Whether it is tax avoidance, fringe benefits or entertainment allowances, it wants to keep the whole lot. What it really wants to do is look after that one income family at the upper end, not the lower end. The Opposition has always opposed the anti-tax avoidance measures that this Government has brought in. We will keep bringing them back. Mrs Sullivan —You don't care about the poor people. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member for Moncrieff will cease interjecting. Mr GEAR —The honourable member opposite is getting a little agitated and hot under the collar because she knows that what I am saying is right. Mrs Sullivan —I don't. Mr GEAR —Of course she does. She came from the other House over to this House, and she knows because in that House the Opposition used to throw them all out. All the tax avoidance measures that we brought into this House were stalled over there. Mrs Sullivan —Coward! Mr GEAR —I am a coward? I do not mind sticking up for the one income families at the lower end of the tax scale because they are the ones that we are looking after. What has the Government done? I will tell honourable members opposite what we have done. We have put 650,000 of them back to work. The previous Government, in its last year in office, put 200,000 out of work. Getting people back into jobs must be one of the greatest poverty fighters ever, and it has not finished yet. There will be a lot more back at work by the time the next election comes around. That is why this Government will be returned. We have done other things. We have restructured not only the economy but also the financial system. We have got industry out of the iron lung that honourable members opposite kept it in for 30 years-that great wall of protectionism they built around it until it collapsed. When we talk about one income families in this country we have to look at a wider area than just the taxation issues on which the Opposition has focused. But even on just those issues we would kill those opposite on argument. What we have done with the taxation system makes anything that they did insignificant. We have not only restructured the whole industry but also given some hope for the future. The Minister talked about the education of this country and what we have done for it. We are now starting to look at a much wider industry base, at an industry that will stand on its own feet. That is something that honourable members opposite never did. They can look at any statistics they like relating to their last year in government to see the way industry went. All the figures, whether they related to unemployment or output, went down. The Opposition parties mollycoddled industry for 30 years until it fell apart. What has this Government done since we have been in office? Honourable members opposite want to talk about taxation. Let us look at one or two aspects of taxation. We have talked long and hard about bringing down the top marginal tax rate from the 60c in the dollar, at which the Leader of the Opposition left it when he was kicked out of the Treasurer's office, to 49c. Let us look at the other end of the scale. The lowest tax rate when the leader of the Opposition was kicked out of office was 30c in the dollar, and that will go down to 24c. Is that not helping the single income family at the lower end of the scale? If it is not, I do not know what is. Also, tax cuts are to come in this year. Let us look at the weekly tax reduction as a percentage. I take two extremes. Somebody who gets $100 a week will be 59 per cent better off in terms of his taxation reduction as a result of the tax changes on 1 December 1986; a person on a weekly taxable income of $180 will be 10.6 per cent better off; and for a person on $550 a week the reduction will be 5.4 per cent. We can see that the proposed tax cuts are targeted in percentage terms at the person at the lowest end of the scale. I have mentioned pensioners. We all remember the performance of the then Leader of the Opposition, the honourable member for Kooyong (Mr Peacock), who is in the House now, at the last election. We remember the assets test. He ran an absolutely shameless and gutless campaign on the assets test. When the Fraser Government was elected to office the pension stood at 24.7 per cent of average weekly earnings. When that Government was kicked out that figure was 22.7 per cent. One feature of that Government was the fact that it did not have an assets test. In its first Budget it kicked out the assets test. This Government brought it back in its first Budget, and where is the pension today? It has gone from the 22.7 per cent that we inherited back up to 24 per cent. Honourable members opposite should not say that they are doing the pensioners a favour by saying that the assets test is something that they might want to throw out. All that would do is give the pension to millionaires. Members of the Opposition talk about morality on taxation, but it has absolutely none. They do not tell us what they are going to do because they do not know themselves. The Leader of the Opposition gets on television and looks like a dummy when he is asked questions. He says: `Oh, one of these days we will tell you, if we feel like it'. Under this Government all the tax avoidance schemes and all the rorts in the system were funded by one person-the old sitting duck, the pay as you earn taxpayer. There were not many feathers left on that duck when those opposite were kicked out. He had been plucked until there was not a feather left. He took the brunt of all the measures that the then Government either did or did not do. Let us look at the following for a statistic. I refer to the growth contributed by the PAYE taxpayer in the period of the former Government. The taxes payable by a single taxpayer as a percentage proportion of income rose from 22.8 per cent in 1975-76 to 23.9 per cent in 1981-82. That was a change of almost 5 per cent. The contribution of a taxpayer with a dependent spouse and two children-the person we are talking about today-in a single income family rose from 13.4 per cent of his income to 16.3 per cent. In percentage terms, that is an increase 21.6 per cent. We did not hear the Leader of the Opposition say that, but it is the truth. He was underwriting not only all those tax avoidance schemes but also all the fringe benefits, all the free lunches and the hostess allowance. Let us remember that he was supporting the single income family at the top end, not the bottom end. We have to differentiate between the two if we are to be dinkum in this debate. The poor old PAYE taxpayer copped the lot. The Leader of the Opposition has a credibility gap. Does anyone really think that at the next election, with his $5.9 billion credibility gap on taxation, he will look after single income families? Of course he will not. Not only does he have that $5.9 billion gap, but he will also have a zero deficit-meaning another $3.5 billion. That adds up to about $10,000m. One does not have to be an Einstein to work out that there is not much money left. Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Leo McLeay) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth report for 1986 of the Committee, relating to the redevelopment of the School of Military Engineering, Casula, New South Wales. I seek leave to make a short statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. Mr ANDREW —The Army's School of Military Engineering, located at Casula near Liverpool, New South Wales, is responsible for providing a wide variety of training courses for members of the Royal Australian Engineers and for other Army units. In 1985-86 the school conducted 66 courses of varying duration involving about 1,500 students. The school occupies a 200 hectare site which has been developed by the Army as an outdoor training area in which students undergo practical training in various engineering disciplines, techniques and equipment. The school has a very proud history, as have the Royal Australian Army engineers. The first of the Army engineers were those courageous people who, digging the trenches to reach the arm of the enemy's fortresses, became known as the sappers. These trenches were known as saps, and of course ultimately they became the supply vessels through which the Army was able to breach the enemy's fortress. It could be said, I believe, that these sappers were the first diggers in the Australian Army. The proposal examined at Casula by the Committee is for the redevelopment of the school by providing new buildings for training, administration, accommodation, messing, vehicle and plant maintenance, and stores. The limit of cost estimate for the redevelopment is $29.7m at January 1986 prices. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think it would be fair to say that the reservations held by the Public Works Committee about this proposal were largely, if you will pardon the pun, undermined by the submission that was made to us when we visited Casula. The Committee found that existing facilities for accommodation, administration, indoor training and support activities at the school are below acceptable standard and should be replaced or refurbished. The Committee is satisfied that the scope of the redevelopment of the school effectively utilises available functional areas consistent with the master plan, and that the project provides accommodation and instructional and support facilities on a scale consistent with its role. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield) —by leave-I present an erratum to the fifth report of 1986 of the Joint Committee on Public Works relating to the provision of 50 replacement houses at Woomera. Mr MILTON(La Trobe) —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Environment and Conservation, I present the report of the Committee on Ranger Uranium-Water Management System, together with extracts of the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be printed. Mr MILTON —by leave-I present a statement which is a summary of the Committee's report. I also advise the House that the Leader of the House (Mr Young) has given me an assurance that at a future date, hopefully next week, an opportunity will be made available to debate the report. Motion (by Mr Uren)-by leave-proposed. That the House take note of the papers. Debate (on motion by Mr Peacock) adjourned. Bill presented by Mr Uren, and read a first time. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(4.02) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to give statutory recognition to the Australian Protective Service and its officers and to clarify its powers. This will make the performance of protective security duties much simpler from a legal viewpoint. The Bill will also resolve a number of administrative problems which have been caused to the Service by the lack of a statutory identity. It will not give rise to additional costs to the Government. In October 1984 the Australian Protective Service was created. Most of its members were transferred from the Australian Federal Police into the Public Service where they formed the core of the new body in my Department. They went on operating as uniformed, disciplined and, where necessary, armed officers but they were no longer police and did not have police powers. The Protective Service was a new departure in Commonwealth security arrangements. As a first stage the Government agreed that property protection functions only would be handed over to APS. As the Service has proved its effectiveness it has been given a wider range of responsibilities. Besides its regular property protection work it now provides all the custodial staff for immigration detention centres and performs routine security duties at the official residences of the Prime Minister and the Governor-General. Its services are also available to meet ad hoc requirements for guarding people and property either in conjunction with police or where the risk level does not justify a police presence. Some such tasks have included escorts for art treasures and protection for visiting foreign VIPs. Of course there will continue to be a need for police services in the personal protection area. The Protective Service is not equipped to carry out close personal protection duties but it is now clear that it, too, has an ongoing role to play in personal as well as property protection. Because of these developments, the Government decided it was time to take stock of the Service's legal position. When the Service was set up questions of legal powers and duties were less urgent than the practical problems involved in building a uniformed and disciplined service. In October 1984, speaking for the Opposition on the Australian Federal Police (Amendment) Bill, the honourable member for Boothby (Mr Steele Hall) raised the question of possible legislation for the Service and my colleague the Special Minister of State (Mr Young) indicated that consideration was being given to the question. As the Service's role has grown it has become increasingly clear that relying on existing law is not really satisfactory. Commonwealth law on protective security has been built up on the assumption that the only major government body working in this area will be a police force. Provisions to give appropriate powers to Commonwealth officers outside the police are generally very cumbersome when used for a body of over 600 people, and the law is unclear about just what powers of arrest are available to such officers and how they should exercise them. In the Government's view, that situation is administratively inefficient and unfair to both the officers and to members of the public who may have to deal with such officers, so the Bill I am now presenting is intended to do two things: First, to make sure that officers of the Australian Protective Service have all the powers they genuinely need to perform their full range of duties, and, secondly, to ensure that the private citizen is protected against abuse of those powers. Because of this I have obtained advice from outside the Public Service on the human rights issues involved. I was particularly concerned and in fact hired a person of great repute who for many years had worked with the Attorney-General's Department. I had great respect for his civil libertarian approach and I am pleased to say that he has informed me and the Government that all conditions under the Bill are protected under the civil liberties aspects. I am satisfied that this Bill provides adequate protection to the rights of individuals. The Bill is divided into four Parts, two of which deal with definitions and mechanical matters. Part II provides a legal identity for the Protective Service and its officers, sets out its functions and provides appropriate controls over the way in which it operates. Part III deals with the powers and duties of Protective Service officers. It sets out the circumstances in which a Protective Service officer can make an arrest. It provides a code of conduct and procedure on the way in which an arrest is to be carried out and the arrested person is to be dealt with afterwards. Briefly, the effect is that a Protective Service officer can exercise much the same power of arrest as a police officer can in immediate response to any of the listed offences. However the Protective Service officer must put the arrested person into police custody as soon as possible. The officer has no special power to arrest a suspect some time after the offence has been committed. This is because the Service does not have an independent investigating or prosecuting role. It merely responds to immediate needs associated with its protection role. Part III also provides for proper identification of officers on duty. It releases the Service from State and Territory licensing and registration requirements which are not aimed at the Commonwealth and merely cause inconvenience to both sides. This release concerns such things as firearms and handcuffs, use of which is strictly controlled by the Service. Honourable members may notice that there is no reference in the Bill to custodial powers. I will just note here that my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) is planning regulations under the Migration Act to cater for the needs of immigration detention centres, including a code of custodial powers and duties. As for the present Bill, I believe that it provides a good balance between providing for efficient and reasonable security and protecting the citizen against unreasonable use of government powers. It will give our well trained and hard working officers, whose work and attitude I have been very impressed with since I have taken responsibility for this portfolio, the confidence they need to continue to do a good job for the Commonwealth. I commend the Bill to the House and in so doing present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Cadman) adjourned. Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration in Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting. Consideration resumed. Schedule 3. Department of Trade Proposed expenditure, $245,869,000. Department of Resources and Energy Proposed expenditure, $147,129,000. Department of Primary Industry Proposed expenditure, $220,224,000. Mr STAPLES(Jagajaga)(4.12) —I will address my comments on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 to the appropriations for the Department of Trade. At the outset I want to say that Australia is at last waking up to what a few radical visionaries have been saying for years, that is, that we have to shift our economic reliance from rocks, wheat and wool to value added manufactures and services. Our Minister for Science (Mr Barry Jones)-indeed, we could call him our Minister for the future-published in 1982 what I believe will be seen in Australian history as one of the most significant books of the last half of this twentieth century. As honourable members will know, the book is called Sleepers, Wake! This book, unleashed on to a complacent Australia in the early 1980s, is now being used to exemplify our mistakes and to show us the promise and hope for our future. The impact of the visionary Jones upon current Australian industrial developments is seen from popular magazines through to the highest levels of economic research and decision making. In another sense, I believe the line from the Treasurer (Mr Keating) about a banana republic will be looked upon in the future as an important stimulus to our economic and trade restructuring. There are five main players in the trade game in Australia. Of course, there are our overseas trading partners and markets. There are the Australian Government and the public sector generally, business, unions and the community. I will make a couple of comments about the Government's role in trade, and in particular the fine efforts of the Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Fremantle (Mr Dawkins), and the support given to him in this place only a couple of days ago by the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), the shadow Minister for Trade, after the tabling of the Minister's statement on his General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade talks. I commend that measure of bipartisan support for a very important issue for Australia's future. Our trade development has been recognised in that way by both sides of the chamber. I commend that support and hope it continues in that vein. The Government's restructuring of manufacturing industry has come up against a lot of heavy opposition from many vested interests in this country and a lot of hard decisions have had to be made. That has not stopped the Government from making these decisions, nor has it stopped it from putting hundreds of millions of dollars into industry restructuring. We hear much about high levels of corporate taxation. It is important to note that, as a percentage of gross operating surplus, taxation of the private sector has fallen from 25.5 per cent in 1981-82 to 18 per cent in 1985-86. That needs to be noted by people in the community. The community is now more aware of the need to buy Australian goods through the idea of the buy Australian campaign. I hope that it will continue and that selectivity in purchases by Australians will become more and more evident in our current account. I now turn to the unions and the work force. Under the accord, which I believe has been seen by the community as a very valuable tool in our economic recovery, we have seen average real unit labour costs in the private sector fall. If we take average real unit labour costs from an indice of 100, in 1975-76 the figure was 106.9, and in 1982-83 it was 106.2-a negligible decline. It is now down to an estimated figure in 1985-86 of 96.5. In other words, labour costs, included in which are the wage costs of the working class people of Australia, many of whom are the mothers and fathers of the children in the gallery from the electorate of Greenway, have fallen. Those workers have taken a big cut in their wages and living standards. If we look at Australia's trade pattern in 1984-85 we see that more than 70 per cent of our imports came from countries with a similar or higher wage structure than Australia. It is no longer the case that we can buy cheap goods from other countries with low wage structures. I repeat that over 70 per cent of our imports today come from countries with similar or higher wage structures than Australia. If people want a quick reference, I refer them to the Daily Telegraph of 9 August, which talks about the great Aussie pay packet being not so great after all. I refer them also to speeches of the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce (Senator Button). At the same time, in the first three years of this Government, we have seen the level of industrial disputation fall by 50 per cent from the level during the Fraser years. The union movement, the working class people of this country, have contributed significantly to the high economic growth. They have accepted cuts in their wages. They have accepted cuts in their living standards. They have helped to deliver the record corporate profits that we read about in the newspapers day after day. On top of that, we have had a devaluation in the Australian dollar of approximately 30 per cent. So why are we not proceeding as fast as perhaps we could? Where is the slow-up in turning around the trade situation? We cannot seriously argue for a further cut in real wages. The workers have been doing their bit. The Government has been doing its bit. But there are people on both sides of the House, unfortunately, who consistently call for more and more cuts in real wages. We have to recognise that the accord is a very valuable tool in maintaining economic growth in Australia and in the development of our industry. We have heard a lot about work practices. The unions are determined to work with the Government, and with anyone else who cares to work with them, to ensure that those work practices develop productivity and efficiency in the work place. Australian workers have paid the price for economic growth and have paid the price for economic failures. They have paid the price of tax avoidance and tax evasion and the absence of a fringe benefits tax. It is now up to other sections of the community to do their share. The final factor in the equation that I mentioned earlier is business. We hear a lot about work practices. Let us hear about some work practices of the business world. I put it to the Committee that on an international level the Australian business world is overall very unprofessional and unproductive. We see the advertisement on television for the Overseas Telecommunications Commission which asks: `Why didn't you call?'. I have spoken with our Trade people in Sweden, Japan, the European Economic Community, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. They all say the same thing-that our business people do not want to get over there and sell. They are quite prepared to sit at home. That has been borne out by surveys done by the private sector, but according to a recent international survey by a British business magazine, Australia is now close to the top when it comes to government support for export. Austrade, an initiative of this Government, is one of the best government export support services in the world; it is better than anything done by the Japanese Government. However, I have said, the Australian business sector is unprofessional on an international scale. I refer honourable members to a recent survey `Exploiting Opportunities in the Pacific Basin' by McKinsey and Co. McKinsey and Co. is a well respected Australian company that knows a lot about Australian management practices. Its surveys showed that Australian companies are largely concerned with cost competitiveness, labour costs, the industrial relations climate and the exchange rate. Their customers rate them within the bottom 50 per cent for their willingness to adapt their products to local markets, et cetera. The surveys said that too many Australian companies did not `have the commitment to succeed in a demanding, competitive market place'. Another point it raised is that Australian companies face a productivity problem related to long term disinvestment. I quote again: Unfortunately, there was a strong tendency reflected in the survey's response to rely upon others (especially the Government) to solve problems for management. That is one of the big problems we now have to face, and we all have to address it. The unions have been doing their share. That has been shown and I believe that the Australian population respects it. The Government has been doing its share and I believe the Opposition wants to see that continue. But I believe that the Australian business sector has to look at its own work practices. Australian management must examine its own work practices and attitudes and be prepared to meet with government and unions in a tripartite consensus. Financiers who invest superannuation funds off-shore must be prepared to work here as well. Marketers, designers and financiers-all these people-must now work together with the Government, with unions, with the community and with our overseas marketers to ensure that Australia's development rectifies the problems we face now. Mr McGAURAN(Gippsland)(4.21) —I would like to address firstly one aspect of the Government's Department of Trade budget, namely, the so-called national export drive, which has been allocated $2m. We have been told by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) that the aim of this national export drive is to increase the practical commitment of both shop floor and management to exporting. The Opposition, naturally, supports the concept of a program to alert business and unions as well as the public to the need for an export offensive, with the ultimate aim being to engender an export culture in Australia. In fact, the Opposition, particularly the shadow Minister for Trade, the honourable member for Dawson (Mr Braithwaite), has been calling repeatedly since March for the Government to declare an export emergency. However, there are several things that the public should know about this Government's national export drive, which is being conducted by its new Australian Trade Commission, otherwise known as Austrade. It will be staggering for honourable members of this place to learn that an industrial dispute at the Australian Trade Commission is putting this so-called national export drive into reverse. One of the aims of the export drive is to increase the practical commitment of unions to exporting. But the Minister for Trade cannot even get the support of the Australian Trade Commission's own union, which has imposed-believe it or not-work bans in practically every State office of Austrade. The Minister for Trade has entered the chamber and I look forward, as other members do, to his reply to my comments. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association has imposed work bans which are currently being observed in all State offices except for Canberra and Adelaide. Last Wednesday, the same day as the Minister for Trade was launching the national export drive, the Government was expecting business to ring Austrade with inquiries about this drive, as one would expect. The campaign is launched, offices are opened and one would expect anxious public servants to be waiting by the telephones. But one of the work bans on Austrade means that on Wednesday afternoons there will be no responses to external inquiries. Can you believe it, Mr Chairman? The work bans imposed do not allow for inquiries to be made of Austrade of Wednesday afternoons. One wonders just what exporters would have thought when they rang Austrade offices for information on the national export drive only to be told that no one could or, for that matter, would speak to them. What is the reason for this disputation, which is still going on? The reason is Austrade's recruitment policy; that is, its policy of wanting to employ people, specialists, from the private sector. The Administrative and Clerical Officers Association is demanding that preference be given to existing Austrade and Public Service applicants. The closed shop syndrome once again occurs. Despite the hype being touted by the Minister for Trade about Austrade being a `flexible, commercially oriented and innovative organisation', the Government has stacked strategic parts of it with public servants, unionists and political cronies. These people are now resisting one of Austrade's major objectives; that is, being of use to the private sector. On the day of the launch of the national export drive the Minister for Trade said he would not take sides in this dispute; he would stand aside, not as some Solomon-like figure trying to make a decision, but as one washing his hands in the manner of Pontius Pilate. If this is the case, the Minister can hardly be said to be supporting the export drive's stated aim of achieving increased union commitment to exporting. If the Minister for Trade is really committed to a national export drive he should go on the public record and say that he condemns this disputation. I challenge him to do so at the conclusion of these comments. Another item funded out of the Trade budget under the auspices of the Australian Trade Commission's Trade Development Council was the recent month-long-a month-long, no less-overseas trip by Australian Council of Trade Union officials to Sweden. Here we go again. This trip was exposed in a recent article by Kate Legge of the National Times on Sunday entitled `Qantas finds the tickets for the great ACTU jaunt'. If it is not the Treasurer it is the ACTU fiddling the public purse. Only last week the Minister for Trade issued a five-page Press release which contained the so-called results of this mission. But what were the results of this mission? I quote the words of David Clark, a very respected financial journalist, in the Australian Financial Review of 13 October: Why do our policy makers have such a silly penchant for foreign `models'? Is it because they love gravy trains-and planes-and five-star foreign hotels? At the end of last week a report was released on the recent joint ACTU-Trade Development Council mission to Western Europe. Rather amazingly, it merely recommended further junkets to Sweden. The Trade Development Council is a tripartite body comprising government, business and trade union representatives. But no amount of spouting by the Minister for Trade about tripartism can disguise the fact that business was locked out of this so-called study tour, which amounted to a buy-off-there is no other word for it-of union leaders over wage discounting. If the Minister for Trade were committed to tripartism he would not be fence sitting over the Administrative and Clerical Officers Association's demand that Austrade be staffed only with ex-public servants. The work bans currently being imposed by the Association on Austrade offices around Australia are a contemptuous repayment for providing these unionists with holidays at taxpayers' expense. Looking at other aspects of the Trade budget, I note with dismay that the Government has closed Austrade's offices in Bahrain, Dubai and Kuwait, despite Australia's trade in the Middle East decreasing. No amount of glossy brochures or public relations exercises can hide the fact that this Government, in a whole series of errors of judgment, is allowing opportunities for trade for this country to slip through its fingers. Now, of course, with the Australian retreat from the Middle East, the United States of America will be quite happy to step into our markets. It has just commissioned a $200,000 study into market opportunities for the United States to ship sheep meat into the Middle East. There are many other examples of current instances of the Federal Labor Government putting Australia's export drive not just into neutral but into reverse. Here are just a few. The Government's procrastination over the promised appointment of a livestock consultant, requested-I stress `requested'-by the Philippines has led the Philippines to impose a ban on Australian meat and livestock imports. That is the result of the Government's failure properly to administer the responsibilities of the Department of Trade. Despite some reports to the contrary, this ban by the Philippines is still in place. As a result of the Government's attitude on this issue, Australia is losing a potential $30m to $60m a year export market. Labor's concessions to unions over coal export controls look set to make it harder to export coal than ever before. For instance, if Labor abolished export controls on coal, this would generate an extra $700m to $1 billion in export income. It is upon the Minister to reply to these specific allegations. Labor has failed also to limit Australia's liability for debts incurred by the International Tin Council, which could now cost Australia upwards of $45m. At the same time, Labor's failure to honour its obligation to repay this debt has contributed to substantial job losses in the tin mining industry. A number of other matters concern me about the administration by the Minister for Trade of his Department. We have had that whole series of allegations and concerns regarding the appointment of a replacement Trade Commissioner in Milan. All we know of this situation is that the position is still vacant. The alternative candidate suddenly found his application to be unsuccessful. I understand that Labor has now decided to appoint someone who cannot speak Italian to review the whole Italian situation and report to the Minister. There are a number of inconsistencies and instances of outright maladministration and incompetence by the Minister for Trade. Unless he answers each and every one of these specific examples of maladministration there will continue to be low morale in Austrade and in the exporting community at large. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(4.32) —I am going to spend just a moment to reply to a couple of points raised by the honourable member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran). I will have a lot to say about the whole record in trade, resources development and primary industry of the National Party of Australia. Its record is pathetic. It is responsible for many of the problems of this nation because it controls the State of Queensland, not through a democratic vote but through the worst gerrymander in the Western World. That is the only way in which it controls Queensland. What has happened in Queensland in relation to the three portfolios covered by these estimates-the Department of Trade, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Primary Industry? Let me tell honourable members what has happened. Queensland has had the most appalling record of development of any State of Australia. It has most of the natural resources and most of the potential-(Quorum formed) I was talking about the appalling record of the National Party in Queensland. In relation to resources development, during the resources boom of this nation the National Party had 10 years in which to use the resources of Queensland to help develop an industrial structure, but what did it do? It used all of the resources and put them into the pockets of its friends. Now there is no industrial structure to speak of in Queensland. That is what has happened in Queensland. Anyone who thinks that the National Party ought not to be required to answer for its criminal behaviour in relation to development in Queensland ought to have heard what the Minister for Social Security (Mr Howe) said at Question Time about the unemployment rates in Queensland-the worst unemployment rates in Australia. Queensland has the worst unemployment rates in Australia because, instead of money going from the resources boom into infrastructure and the development of industries, especially the manufacturing industry in Queensland, money was sent to the Bjelke-Petersen Foundation and pocketed in a number of different areas. Money was given to people who, frankly, are very little more than crooks. That is the situation with the National Party. When we look at Queensland, the great State of Queensland, with enormous resources, we see no industrial development. That has happened because of the situation in which the National Party has put it. This is not merely my view or the view of other people on this side of the House; this has been established by independent studies at the University of Queensland. A study was done by Mr Phil Day and it is called `Queensland: Facing the Issues'. Mr Day very clearly makes the point that I have just made; that in fact massive wealth was generated during the resources boom and none of that wealth was distributed into industrial development, infrastructure or any of those things. That is the record of the Bjelke-Petersen Government in Queensland. The honourable member for Gippsland tried to tell us that the National Party is concerned with Australian trade. If it is concerned with Australian trade, why has it done nothing to promote trade from Queensland? The situation in fact is that trade from Queensland is worse than in other States. That is the position. Mr McGauran —Give us proof. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I urge the honourable member to read this report from the University of Queensland. Mr McGauran —That is not a report, it is a newspaper clipping, you clown. Dr THEOPHANOUS —It is not a newspaper clipping. If the honourable member likes, I will incorporate the whole report in Hansard. Mr Cadman —Put it in. Dr THEOPHANOUS —If the honourable member wants me to do that, I will table it. I have another report from the University of Queensland. This one is written by Christine Smith and is titled `Queensland: the Myth of Development'. What is the myth? The myth is that because Queensland had some resources development- Mr Cadman —Mr Deputy Chairman, the Opposition would be happy for the honourable member to table his myths. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! If the honourable member wishes to table the documents, he will make the request. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I will be happy to table these documents. I seek leave to do so. Leave granted. Mr Hand —What does the Liberal Party say about the National Party? Dr THEOPHANOUS —The Liberal Party has different ideas in Queensland. Its problem is that it does not know what side of the fence to get on on the fundamental issue of redistribution. The Liberal Party was offered a deal by the Labor Party for a democratic distribution- Mr Downer —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. The issue of electoral redistribution surely does not fall within the purview of the appropriations for the Department of Trade. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member for Mayo will resume his seat. There is an instruction from the Chair as to how wide one can stray from the estimates, but I remind the honourable member for Calwell that we are debating some estimates here today. Dr THEOPHANOUS —I return to the subject of primary industry. What is the record of the Queensland Government in that regard? It is all rhetoric and talk, but when it comes to support and genuine action that Government has done nothing. It is not prepared to put its money where its mouth is. When it comes to supporting the Australian Government in trying to get agricultural markets abroad, what has Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen done? He has done nothing. We have heard about his great interventions into foreign policy, a subject on which he loves to talk, but why has he said nothing about American subsidisation of sugar, wheat and other primary products? Why has he not sent telegrams to the Americans, or to the Europeans for that matter, about this issue? All he has done is to pretend that he is a friend of primary industry. The only friends of primary industry are the Australian Labor Party and the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin). If it had not been for him and his actions, there would not be any sugar industry left in Queensland. If it had not been for the deal stitched up by the Minister, we would have no support in that area at all. It is about time that people recognised that the golden opportunity for this nation to develop through the great resources of the State of Queensland has been lost by the pathetic actions of the Bjelke-Petersen Government. The people of Queensland should recognise that Government's record in trade, resource development, industrial development and of primary industry. The people of Queensland should kick the Queensland Government out of office and replace it with a government that will look after the people of Queensland and Australia by developing that State's enormous resources. Mrs SULLIVAN(Moncrieff)(4.42) —I hope that somebody will bring to the attention of the Treasurer (Mr Keating) how badly he upset the member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) in Question Time today. I was quite concerned about the honourable member during his speech. He has been very agitated all afternoon. I take issue with him on two points. He said that the Australian Labor Party was the only friend that primary industry had. If that is so, the poor old primary producers are friendless because this is certainly not a friendly Budget to primary producers. The honourable member referred to a deal stitched up by the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) on sugar, an area in which I have a particular interest having a major sugar producing area in my own electorate. I pay tribute to the Minister who worked very hard in trying to do something for the sugar producers, most of whom live in Queensland. It was a great pity that this Minister, in common with all Ministers for primary industry, in Labor governments, has to deal with his own Government. Although some assistance to the sugar industry may be forthcoming from this Government, the Government's overall policies are extremely bad for the primary producer. The tax slug faced by primary producers as a result of this Government's actions more than meets any increased expenditure the Government may seek to direct to primary producers. Budget Paper No. 1, on page 192, contains a table headed `Summary of industry assistance and development outlays', which includes agriculture and pastoral industries. I seek leave to incorporate the table in Hansard. Leave granted. The table read as follows- SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY ASSISTANCE AND DEVELOPMENT OUTLAYS 1984-85 Actual 1985-86 Actual 1986-87 Estimate Change $m $m $m $m % 7B.1 Forestry and Fishing Industries... 11.8 7.7 20.3 12.6 163.8 7B.2 Agriculture and Pastoral Industries... 316.5 402.8 446.4 43.6 10.8 7B.3 Mining Industry... 83.0 132.8 46.9 -85.9 -64.7 7B.4 Manufacturing Industry... 317.8 466.4 368.1 -98.3 -21.1 7B.5 Tourist Industry... 29.7 31.9 38.7 6.8 21.1 7B.6 Assistance to Export Industries... 280.4 300.4 243.4 -56.9 -19.0 7B.7 Other Assistance to Industry... 153.7 55.0 54.7 -0.4 -0.7 TOTAL... 1 192.9 1 397.0 1 218.5 -178.6 -12.8 Mrs SULLIVAN —I thank the Committee. That table shows an increase of 10.8 per cent in money terms for agricultural and pastoral industries. One has to remember that the Budget estimates an 8 per cent inflation factor, so that is not a large increase. However, it is an increase. Unfortunately, it is as nothing when put on one side of the scales as against the increased costs to primary producers that will result from the Budget. Furthermore, Government taxes and charges are compounded by inept economic management which hit rural industries for six. I draw attention to the taxes and charges that affect rural industries. Fuel excise under the Hawke Government has quadrupled. This Budget increases fuel excises to 24c a litre versus a 1983 level of 6c a litre. It was of course in the 1983 election that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) promised to take 3c a litre off excise. Instead of halving the level of excise, he has quadrupled it. There is nothing more anti-farmer than an increase in fuel excise. In regard to on-farm costs 40 per cent of fuel used is petrol, and the fuel tax bill to farmers because of the excise levy is $200m per annum. That is just for fuel excise levy, and takes no account of the additional transportation costs faced by farmers in trying to get their goods to distant markets from farms which frequently are a long way from ports. The sales tax impost of 10 per cent on flavoured milk, fruit juice and wine will be a severe blow to producers of these goods. This year most producers of those products face either an extremely low income or negative income. The Prime Minister in 1983 specifically promised no sales tax on wine. Once again the tax promise made by Mr Hawke and the Australian Labor Party has been proven worthless. Export inspection charges are three times their 1983 level-a direct charge and impost on the primary producer. We almost had another tax, the stud stock tax. Mercifully, the Government decided to scrap this in all industries except for thoroughbreds. The proposal itself showed how little knowledge and understanding the Government has of the stud stock industry. There was great alarm in my electorate and I was given much information as to how it would affect stud breeding in areas other than thoroughbreds. A decision has been taken to transfer to domestic production fertiliser bounties currently payable on imports. Previously the bounty would have been payable on both domestically produced fertiliser and imported fertiliser. The level of competition will be decreased because of this decision, and inevitably prices will rise. Higher domestic prices will automatically mean higher imported prices because of this decision. Either way the farmer will lose. Probably the sugar farmers would like to have seen a more fair dinkum decision in this area if the Government were really serious about attempting to help them in their present trials and tribulations. The effect of the fringe benefits tax on rural producers has been covered many times in this place and is well documented in specific instances such as attributed rent on employee accommodation. I wish to draw attention briefly to an aspect which I do not think has been raised in regard to fringe benefits tax and that is the effect on rural women. One of the notable effects of the tax will be on rural employment. At the moment an average of 125 farmers and employees are walking off farms every week, which necessarily throws a very heavy burden on those who remain in trying to run their farms. In a document entitled `Women's Budget Program 1986-87' under the heading for the Department of Primary Industry, these words appear: The Department's policies have an impact on women as participants in the primary industry sector particularly in farming. Australian agriculture is based firmly on the family farm with about 90 per cent of Australia's 175 000 agricultural enterprises falling into the category of family farms. Most of these are partnerships between spouses . . . Traditionally women have provided domestic and other services including cooking, childcare, education and nursing. They also contribute to farm labour such as milking, fencing, etc. This is particularly the case in periods of rural downturn when farms cannot afford hired labour. The real value of women's contribution also includes bookkeeping, secretarial and other business support services and is now more widely acknowledged. There is no doubt women account for the survival of many farm enterprises. There is also no doubt that in the months ahead women on the land, in partnership with their husbands, will be asked to take on more and more rural labour as farmers find themselves less and less able to afford the cost of employing additional people, particularly where provision of accommodation is involved. This slug on the family farm will quickly make its effects felt on rural women. In my years in Parliament I have seen various rural industries in distress, and always the burden falls very heavily on women as they are called on either to travel away from home to take jobs to maintain some sort of income, or else to take on the role of farm labourer as well as all the other family and business roles I mentioned a minute ago. The capital gains tax has also been dealt with in numerous debates, and unfortunately time does not allow me to detail just what a blow this is to rural industry. On top of this, of course, we have the general mismanagement of the Australian economy under the stewardship of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. It is not good enough for the Treasurer to bleat now about world prices when back in 1983-84-when there was an upturn in world prices, a break in the drought and a major resurgence in the Australian economy directly attributable to the increased contribution of primary producers-he claimed all the credit and said that it was his wonderful whizz bang policies that brought about an economic recovery. He gave absolutely no credit at all to the positive effect that primary production was having on the general state of the economy. Yet now he is bleating that the reverse conditions are causing all Australia's problems and that his economic policies have not contributed. The truth is that the Government cannot escape the fact that in its economic planning it ignored special factors in 1983-84. When those factors reversed on it, its economic planning immediately went off the rails. The Bureau of Agricultural Economics estimates that since 1983 there has been only an 8 per cent increase in returns to farmers, but a 26 per cent increase in costs. In the face of this the Government pursues policies which will lead to high interest rates, 8 per cent inflation this year-in contrast with some negative inflation rates among our trading competitors-and burden this country with a crippling external debt. We depend so heavily on our farmers for relief from this debt. Our trade in primary products has always given us a good external position. Now that farmers are being hurt, now that the Government's policies are making it harder for them to sell their products on world markets at least partly because of increased costs, the external debt brings home to everyone the contribution of the men and women on the land, the dependence of Australia on that contribution, and the foolishness of the Government's economic and budgetary policies in relation to primary industry. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr KERIN(Werriwa-Minister for Primary Industry)(4.53) —I wish to talk in terms of reality and opportunism, because this Government, above all others, is aware of the realities that we face. It is very appropriate that the Department of Trade, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Primary Industry are being discussed together today for the purpose of the Budget estimates. The Government has faced reality, and I compliment the honourable member for Jagajaga (Mr Staples) particularly because he made the very fundamental point that for too long we have depended on primary industries and minerals for our external balance of trade and that up to 85 per cent of our exports are still based on primary industry and minerals. When we say that we cannot rely any longer on primary industry and mineral exports because of the corruption of world markets for basic commodities, the Opposition says very opportunistically that we want to give away primary industry and minerals. We want to take the realistic decisions; we do not want to look backwards. We do not want to be opportunistic, we want to take realistic decisions that will put us in a better position to cope with the years ahead. We will have to broaden this economy and the economy will have to face a lot of reality. That is what the floating of the dollar, the deregulation of the financial markets and the prices and incomes accord and policy are all about. There is a requirement in Australian society that all forces adjust to that reality. As the honourable member for Jagajaga pointed out, the work force has accepted much of that responsibility-it has kept its wages down and allowed profits to soar and investment to take place. The floating of the dollar has enabled us to expand our trade in services, and we see that expansion in the tourist dollars that are coming into this country at present. Before I expand on this theme of reality versus opportunism from some Opposition members, I wish to focus on a couple of matters that were raised in the discussion. I focus first of all on the comments of the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mrs Sullivan), who tried to drag out figures. Let us look at the figures that were presented to the Senate Estimates Committee, where there is a decent debate on the appropriations. There it was pointed out that the charge from the total portfolio expenditure for my Department of Primary Industry is $931.1m, offset by direct industry contribution and further revenue raised from inspection charges and loan repayments. The net charge to Consolidated Revenue in 1986-87 is $298m, an increase of $113m on 1985-86. When I first became Minister I tried to get a table showing the net contribution and the rise and fall in expenditure in my portfolio. It became apparent very quickly that this was almost impossible. This Government paid for most of the money that went out during the drought, even though the previous Government initiated the programs. For example, there was a once and for all payout last year of $100m. Also, my Department's spending is affected by other departments spending large amounts of money. The fertiliser subsidy, together with the section 96 arrangement, probably now involves expenditure of about $75m a year, not the $55m that was quoted. The diesel rebate has been calculated at a value of anything up to $300m. The various bounty assistance measures to be expanded appear under the Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. So it is very hard to get any really accurate measure of the amount of government spending on the rural sector. It is fair enough to say that taxation measures-which, again, are outside my portfolio responsibility-fall upon the Department of Primary Industry or the farmers, as my constituency. There have been some complaints about some specific agricultural taxes in this Budget. I will not have time to respond to all the criticisms. I mention specifically the tax on citrus juices and wine. Currently the citrus industry has protection in three parts: There is an ad valorem duty of 10 per cent and 5 per cent for developing countries; there is a specific duty of 60c a kilogram on total soluble solids; and there is a floor price whereby the value cannot drop below $1.10 a kilogram again of total soluble solids. There is also a sales tax exemption where local content is more than 25 per cent of Australian juice. The nominal rate of protection has been calculated at around 35 to 40 per cent, but the effective rate of protection has been about 72 per cent over the past four years. We have expanded production in this country and juice imports were down by 24 per cent in 1985-86. Opposition members are complaining about the fact that there is a 10 per cent tax on citrus juice and they claim that this will affect producers. By and large it will not; it will affect consumers. We produce a lot more than is necessary to fulfil the 25 per cent local requirement and we have done so since 1984. Thus the sales tax exemption has not been providing assistance to growers. Little or no effect can be expected. Imposing a sales tax on a previously exempt product will have little or no effect on grower prices because growers will continue to receive the farm gate equivalent of the landed duty-paid price, with margins for differences in quality. On the subject of quality of imports, I must point out that virtually all the current imports of juices from Brazil are of high brix-acid ratio of 17 : 1 plus. This product is not produced in Australia. Given that relationship and the fact that sales tax exemption is now of no particular value to Australian producers, the consumers will pay the full amount of the sales tax increase and there will be no effect on the prices paid to the producers. It is expected that imports will decline in response to the reduced quantities demanded by consumers, if that is the effect. Mr Cadman —Where do Australian farmers sell their crops? Mr KERIN —We will take up the extra. The tax will be paid by consumers, and a lot will depend on the elasticity of the market. We have quite a different effect in respect of the wine tax. The problem is that there is massive over production in the wine industry and therefore wine makers have been resorting to massive price-cutting. I am well aware of the way in which that flows back to the grower because it is usually the grower who pays. But the grower will pay whether the sales tax on wine is nil, 10 per cent or 20 per cent as long as there is massive overproduction. The problem in the industry is the marketing policies adopted within that industry. I think it should be remembered that just on 80 per cent of all Australian white table wine is sold in cheap bulk form and is marketed by companies owned by such major Australian and multinational companies as the Adelaide Steamship Co. Ltd, Reckitt and Coleman Australia Ltd, Phillip Morris Ltd, the H. J. Heinz Co. Australia Ltd, et cetera. So one end of the wine industry is dominated by very big companies. Then we have the co-operatives, the middle range of companies, and the smaller premium wine makers, with the growers caught in between, differentially, with respect to the wine maker they relate to. The big problem is overproduction. It will take some time to find out the effects of the wine tax, how it will fall, to what extent it will be passed on to consumers or absorbed by the wine makers, or to what extent it will flow back to the growers. In the meantime, one of the more important things for us to do is to focus on that overproduction. We are doing some restructuring with the vine pull scheme but, more constructively, we are trying to find out what we can do with regard to table grape exports and we are trying to handle better the virtual wine lake in the multipurpose grape growing areas, particularly in the Sunraysia district. So it is not clear. It is easy enough to whip up opportunistic arguments, but the way that the sales tax falls on the growers will be very hard to measure. It will take two or there years to do it. I was talking about reality. The Opposition does not seem to be able to focus on the fact that the reason why this country has such profound economic problems is that the prices for our basic commodities have fallen through the floor. Even with the devaluation of the Australian dollar by 30 per cent, and with respect to some currencies anything up to 50 per cent, we are simply not getting the revenue for our exports. We have been adopting short term, medium term and long term strategies to try to get some rules for the international trade game, to try to be effective and efficient in terms of winning export orders for Australian firms. That is a very hard task in the face of corrupted world markets. The amount of subsidisation by the rich, developed countries in agriculture is probably now well over $200 billion. While subsidisation prevails, while we have the existing United States of America economic policy-the high United States budget deficits held up trade; now the United States has no capacity to expand trade-and while in those circumstances Japan and West Germany resist the expansion of their domestic economies we will not get large rates of world economic growth and we will see these countries resort to protectionism. The United States economy now depends to some degree on Japanese savings. With all these major international forces at work we have very little control over them. The Treasurer (Mr Keating), the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr Hayden), the Minister for Trade (Mr Dawkins) and I have to argue in international fora that we have to get the world economic order into some sort of sensible balance. In the meantime, we have to adapt to that fundamental reality. I have pointed out that we are putting in place measures whereby we can accommodate reality. We all know that fundamental economic restructuring is slow but the economic change that we have had to deal with has been very fast and often, as I have said, beyond our control. In many ways we are trying to overcome what I would describe as a 30-year legacy. Looking back, this country has stuck to the imperial British preference for far too long. In the 1960s we went into high tariff protection for our secondary industries, which meant that many of our industries were bought out by multinational companies. We got into a phase of very low levels of research and development because we were taking the wrong strategy. Then we went into the so-called resources boom-the cargo cult of the National Party of Australia about the resources boom-which was going to get us out of trouble. All the time we should have been concentrating on trying to broaden our economy and trying to find ways and means of adapting to reality rather than putting our faith into something in the future. This Government is taking those decisions. We do not believe that we can achieve much more at a faster rate in respect of wages. We hear a lot of talk of confrontation in this country today, when through the accord and through consultation we have reduced real unit labour costs by up to 7 per cent since we have been in government. Adjustment will take time, but again the trade union movement is certainly adopting a far more responsible position in this society than are some of the people who are represented by honourable members opposite, who basically want us to get back to child labour and the 80-hour week. There is a lot of talk about trade competitiveness. The inflation rate that we have now is a result of our devaluation and the cost of imports, where they are represented as inputs, and where they are direct consumer goods and flow into the consumer price index. But, in terms of competitiveness, as a result of that devaluation we have never been more competitive. There is no sense in the Opposition and the confrontationists in our society saying that the only way that we can become more competitive is to belt down wages. We are super-competitive. If we were to bash down wages we would have to reduce them by something like 50 per cent to get the competitiveness that we have got through devaluation. The next great hype of the Opposition is all about work practices. We have talked about work practices and management practices when what we should be talking about is productivity. The Government is facilitating discussions to see whether we can get better productivity. In my own portfolio I am trying to get better productivity in the meat works, the abattoirs and the meat processing sector. We are trying to facilitate trade. Let me indicate, for example, the measures we are putting into place to set up a horticultural marketing corporation so that we can get some umbrella over horticultural exports, so that we can get more research into those industries and more exports. That is the way to go rather than going backwards and preaching for the status quo. We have a $25m agricultural marketing innovation scheme. We have put money into the horticultural industry and also into the meat industry. We are doing whatever we can to facilitate exports, and we have to concentrate on marketing. This Government, in particular the Minister for Trade and I, will concentrate as never before in getting the message on marketing through, trying to get products diversified and basic products identified with brand names so that we can actually go into the world market and forget the old colonial model that people opposite want to talk about-that is, sending bulk commodities overseas and hoping to God that someone buys them. We want to get into marketing. We want to get the customer contacts and the follow up. We want to do a more sensible job and not just hark back to the past. The Minister for Trade set up Austrade to give that organisation more flexibility. I have been pushing statutory marketing reform to give those big marketing corporations full commercial flexibility so that they can actually do what they need to do in the international market-place and meet the competition. I do not think I should take up any more of the time of the Committee, but I would like to finish on one salutary point. The previous Government did not have even an agricultural trade counsellor in Japan. At least my Department has corrected that imbalance. I think that sums it all up: The largest market for Australian agricultural goods is Japan, yet the previous Government did not bother having even an agricultural counsellor in Tokyo. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(5.09) —We have just heard a plea from the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) for a grasp of what he saw as the reality of the present trading situation facing Australia's farmers. No one pretends that the dilemma facing the Minister for Primary Industry and this Government and Australian Labor Party, National Party of Australia and Liberal Party of Australia governments is other than a complex and difficult matter to resolve. This afternoon we are debating the appropriation of funds to the Department of Primary Industry, the Department of Resources and Energy and the Department of Trade. I want to focus my remarks on the appropriation of funds to the Department of Primary Industry because what has not been picked up in the debate is that these funds are going to some of the most needy people in our nation. These funds will be used to service the export incomes of one of the most disadvantaged sectors of the nation. It has been too easy in the debates on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 and on the Budget to suppose that the poverty that ought to be addressed by this Parliament is that reflected only in the Budget appropriations to such departments as the Department of Community Services. The real poverty that we have to face is the hidden poverty that is currently evident in rural Australia. That is the poverty that people have because they can no longer honour the mortgages that they once negotiated in good faith. That is the poverty that people face because the equipment they bought in order to be Australia's primary producers is now proving to be a burden to them and providing them with a debt they cannot service. That is the poverty they face when they discover that they cannot replace the equipment, whether it is a car, a truck, a tractor or a header, because their current income will not allow them to do so. That is the poverty which is not shown in children on the streets but which is shown in children at home-children who will not have holidays because the family cannot afford them and, as a result, who spend their time on the farm. The honourable member for Gwydir (Mr Hunt) has already very eloquently stated the dilemma that all Australian farmers face-the dilemma of, at the best, static returns while their costs continue to rise by at least 8 per cent; the dilemma of living in a country whose macroeconomic policies are such that our inflation rate is well above those of our major trading partners. This is the grim dilemma that was focused on earlier by the honourable member for Moncrieff (Mr Sullivan) when she referred to rising fuel costs, which are up 2.1c per litre, generating for this Government an additional $17.9m from on-farm petrol and $50.6m from on-farm diesel. What has been overlooked in the debate and in the concluding statements of the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) is that the farmers face this dilemma after what have been relatively good years climatically. Wherever I go in Australia the cry of farmers is: `If this is what it is like in good years climatically, how on earth would we survive any future drought?'. It has been too easy for honourable members opposite and the Minister to blame corrupted world markets for every problem that Australia's farmers face. It has been too easy to suggest that the difficulty arises purely out of our present trading difficulties. That sort of statement escapes the simple truth that the farmers of Australia have had their competitiveness eroded over the last three years and that the macroeconomic policies of this Government have been a part of that erosion. It is too easy simply to say that our balance of payments figures provide the sort of burden that the Government cannot address. The real problem is that our balance of payments figures are pushing up interest rates. If there is one single issue currently crippling Australia's farmers, it is the issue of Australian interest rates. Australian farmers who negotiated loans on properties, which allowed them to expand, at 12.5 per cent two or three years ago now find themselves saddled with interest rates of 22.5 per cent. Mr Webster —They are going to remain high. Mr ANDREW —Of course they are going to remain high. As a result, these farmers find that they risk losing not only the property that they have purchased but also the property that they have mortgaged, the family property. Such is the dilemma these farmers face that we have around Australia right now an increasing number of farm properties coming on to the market. In my area in the last two months the number of properties listed for sale has risen by 10 per cent. These properties are being listed on a market in which no one wants to buy. Worse than that, these listings are likely to accelerate, the Real Estate Institute of South Australia tells me, post-harvest when farmers discover that the banks are no longer prepared to advance them money on next year's crop. An accelerating number of farmers and farm workers are leaving the land-in fact, 125 of them every week. These people are leaving the land not simply because we have to trade in a corrupted trading environment but because the policies of this Government have forced up interest rates to a point at which they cannot survive. The Minister has said-I accept his statement-that if we are talking about the appropriations to the Department of Primary Industry it is hard for him to get an accurate measure of the outlays historically and currently flowing to it. He has acknowledged that that Department already receives a large portion of its budget from the people it seeks to service. But the Minister then, no longer as consistent as he had been earlier in the argument, chose to suggest that there are at least two industries that have been misrepresented by honourable members opposite. The Minister said that the citrus industry, for example, currently bears a tax, out of this Budget, that the consumer can reasonably hope to absorb. What he did not say and what he knows is that the citrus industry is not protesting about that tax; it is protesting about the inconsistency of this Government taxing 100 per cent citrus juice but not taxing any other food product. Why was the Minister so silent on that particular barbed point? The Minister chose to suggest that the wine tax is not the major issue currently facing the wine industry. That is not challenged. But I ask the Minister: In the year of a vine pull scheme, in the year of the problems that he addressed in this place not 10 minutes ago-1986-why did this Government choose to raise the wine tax by 100 per cent? No one on this side has been so dishonest as to suggest that such a rise in wine tax would never occur, but fancy putting on that increase in the year in which this Government has endeavoured to address the dilemmas facing wine grape growers by bringing into place a vine pull scheme. Mr Drummond —He might think it helps the industry. Mr ANDREW —If the Minister believes that it helps the industry, he has seen far less of it than I would have given him credit for seeing. If he believes that it helps the industry, he ought to come with me into my electorate, into the Barossa Valley or the Clare Valley and see the heaps of wine grapes bulldozed up under his vine pull scheme-2,000 hectares of them proposed to be removed by government money-while he takes to that same industry and forces it further to the wall with a 10 per cent increase in the wine tax. The Minister has said that the wine industry can be an export industry. So can any one of our primary industries, properly encouraged. These appropriations would be much more appropriate-if you will pardon me, Madam Deputy Chairman-if the Government had made available more money for export encouragement. The future for Australia still rests with exporting primary products. We export primary products more efficiently than we export almost anything else. We grow our primary products more efficiently than any other grower in the world. The appropriate thing for this Government to do is to make appropriations which recognise that what primary industries need is export development. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! The honourable member's time has elapsed. Mr DAWKINS(Fremantle-Minister for Trade)(5.19) —I want to respond to some of the contributions, thoughtful and otherwise, that have been made to this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87. First of all, I thank those who did make useful contributions to the discussion on my portfolio. However, a couple of issues that were raised by the garrulous member for Gippsland (Mr McGauran) require some kind of response. I thought there was something familiar about some of the issues he raised. I now realise that what he had was a compendium of the unprinted Press statements of the shadow Minister for Trade, which reveals a certain timeless quality about them. The only trouble is that he got all the issues absolutely wrong, and that is why he was never printed. I want to refer quickly to the criticism of the Australian Trade Commission. It ill becomes any member of the Opposition to criticise that organisation. It was established to bring under one roof the sorts of services that we provide to Australian exporters, to provide them in a more cost effective way and, most importantly, to provide the flexibility it needs to properly marshal and use the resources that the Government and the taxpayers are able to provide. It is an autonomous body, a statutory authority, which is governed not by me but by a board of directors who are drawn almost completely from the business sector with one representative from the trade union movement and one government member. Those men and women, very distinguished and successful in business, are responsible not only for managing the day to day affairs of the Commission but also for determining its strategy for the future. I think Australian exporters greatly welcome this organisation, which has a greater capacity to respond to their needs. In the setting up of such an organisation, especially when it takes with it people from a number of different organisations, whether they be from part of the Department of Trade itself, the former Trade Commissioner Service or the Export Finance Insurance Corporation, of course there will be some settling down and industrial problems. In fact, those industrial problems have been very few and far between and, because of the negotiations which I conducted in setting up the Commission and the continuing negotiations between the management of the Commission and the unions, there has been, by and large, a fairly happy environment there. We need to distinguish between the actual workers and the leadership of the union or unions to which they belong. The particular industrial dispute to which the honourable member referred was inspired mainly by the union rather than the members of the Commission who belong to that union. It is about the age old problem of recruitment policy. Public sector unions, particularly those with large Public Service memberships, have been keen to ensure that recruitment policies give a preference to those who are already in the public sector. The Commission, with my support, has an open recruitment policy and, indeed, is trying to provide opportunities for people with particular expertise to come in from the private sector to help the Commission in its management tasks and in its relations with the exporters of Australia. I am not quite sure what members of the Opposition are on about. Do they want me to encourage the Commission to give in to the unions and abandon this important policy of open recruitment? What is it that they want me to do, especially as I have no authority-and I would not in any event-get involved in the day to day management of the Commission? I do not think it is appropriate for me to try to inflame this dispute, either. We saw the former Government's record of industrial disputation and how to handle it. In almost every case, whenever the former Government got involved in industrial disputes, things got worse rather than better. I am not going to inflame the dispute. I simply say that I strongly support the Commission and the recruitment policy of its Board. I hope that the dispute will be resolved very quickly. On the question of the Trade Commission, it is important for the honourable member for Gippsland to realise that trade missions are not things which I invented. In the period 1981-83 there were eight survey missions and a larger number of selling missions, and on none of those was a single trade union representative involved. The membership of those missions was drawn entirely from the business sector. My predecessor, now the Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen), took the view that it was important for trade missions to encourage a greater commitment to exports on the part of the work force to ensure that there was some union involvement. In the context of the restructuring of the Trade Development Commission, it was agreed by all the people involved that on occasions it would be useful to have union-only delegations to pursue areas of particular interest to them relating to work force organisation, tripartite models and so on. Therefore, I agreed to the idea that there should be a joint Australian Council of Trade Unions-TDC mission, the cost of which I think we paid only five-ninths. That has been a very successful mission. If anybody thinks that it was a jaunt, I simply invite their attention to the itinerary which has been included in the mission's initial and very interim report. It demonstrates that the mission worked extraordinarily hard. It was a very frugal mission in terms of its costs and the standard of travel and accommodation and so on. All the comments of the honourable member for Gippsland reveal is that he has a very shallow understanding of these matters and, more importantly, that he lacks any understanding of the important contribution that the trade union movement can make to the revitalisation of Australian industry. As I have said, I was very pleased to be associated with the launch of the mission's initial report. It is only an initial report and the mission's recommendations to the TDC, the Government and the ACTU will come in a later report, I think in a matter of weeks. I am perfectly happy with the way in which the mission has developed and look forward to seeing its further reports. This raises another very important point. There has been much discussion today about the plight of rural Australia and our mineral industries in the face of falling commodity prices and the effect of that on Australia's balance of payments. This problem has been exacerbated by the fact that Australian industry has not had the capacity to respond quickly to the new and vast opportunities which now exist for it in the international market-place. That was due entirely to the mad, inappropriate policies pursued by the National Party, and particularly by that Party in the former Government. For years and years-for most of the last 30 years-we had totally inappropriate and counterproductive industry policies which devastated Australian manufacturing industry. The fact that the Opposition parties pursued a policy of an overvalued exchange rate, particularly in the dying years of the Fraser Government, exacerbated the problem further. It wiped out jobs and wiped out factories. Therefore, our capacity to trade our way out of this difficulty has been postponed to some extent until such time as the structure of industry can be re-established, refurbished and put in the shape in which it can compete on the world market for these great new opportunities. I do not welcome the lecturing from those who were responsible for the devastation of Australian manufacturing industry about what we are trying to do to overcome the mess we inherited. The trade union movement has a fundamentally important role to play in that task. My own view is that the trade unions have never been more co-operative than they are at the moment in confronting the necessary realities in our industry policy to ensure that Australian industry becomes and remains internationally competitive in a range of areas. I mention just briefly the question of the Philippines. It is quite wrong for the honourable member for Gippsland to say that there is a ban on meat and livestock going to the Philippines. We have made active representations on this matter and have had confirmed, as a result of our Ambassador going to see the Vice-President, that there is no ban in effect in relation to livestock or meat; and permits have been issued recently in relation to that matter. Unfortunately, the whole speech of the honourable member for Gippsland was devoid of any positive contribution. I would have thought that he, representing an agricultural area, would be prepared to make some sort of acknowledgment of the tasks that the Minister for Primary Industry (Mr Kerin) and I have taken on to successfully improve the long term prospects for agriculture. It was a mealy mouthed little speech, all the worse for the fact that it was riddled with inaccuracies. I thought it was necessary to respond to those but, having said that, let me say that the Trade portfolio now is in better shape than it has ever been to deal with the great questions that confront us and to provide the assistance that Australian exporters need. But no one should be allowed to avoid the conclusion that overcoming our problems on the trade front will require a response from Australian manufacturers themselves. They will need to take advantage of Australia's great new competitiveness on international markets to see Australian industry grasp those opportunities in a way which will bring about an increase in our exports of manufactures and services. That is the great task we have before us. That is why we have the national export drive, I hope that that national export drive will enjoy the support of the Opposition and end up being a success. Mr WEBSTER(Macquarie)(5.31) —Madam Deputy Chairman-- Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mrs E. E. Darling) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 22 —— Baldwin, P. J. Kelly, R. J. Beazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Dawkins, J. S. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S. Gear, G. Punch, G. F. Gorman, R. N. J. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Snow, J. H. Holding, A. C. Staples, P. R. Hollis, C. Theophanous, A. C. Howe, B. L. Tickner, R. E. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) Uren. T. Hurford, C. J. West, S. J. Jakobsen, C. A. Willis, R. Jenkins, H. A. Wright, K. W. Jones, Barry Young, M. J. Adermann, A. E. Jull, D. F. Aldred, K. J. Katter, R. C. Beale, J. H. Lloyd, B. Blunt, C. W. McArthur, F. S. Brown, N. A. McGauran, P. J. Cadman, A. G. McVeigh, D. T. Cameron, Ewen (Teller) Macphee, I. M. Cameron, Ian Miles, C. G. Carlton, J. J. Nehl, G. B. Cobb, M. R. Peacock, A. S. Coleman, W. P. Porter, J. R. Connolly, D. M. Reith, P. K. Cowan, D. B. Rocher, A. C. Dobie, J. D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Downer, A. J. G. Shack, P. D. Drummond, P. H. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fisher, Tim Smith, W. Fischer, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. Wilson, I. B. C. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Education Proposed expenditure, $934,420,000. Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs Proposed expenditure, $173,793,000. Department of Aboriginal Affairs Proposed expenditure, $271,391,000. Mr SHACK(Tangney)(5.41) —In the short time I will have to speak on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, I want to talk about the appropriations for the Department of Education. As all honourable members who have spoken in this debate know, 10 minutes is not a very long time in which to discuss the length and breadth of the portfolios and departments in question. It allows one only a few minutes to make reference to one or two points. However, next week the House will debate legislation in the education area which flows from Budget and other Government decisions dealing with student assistance, the overseas student charge and States grants for tertiary education. I will be pleased to speak at greater length next week, amplifying the Opposition's points on many of the Government's decisions in the education portfolio. I will now spend a short time covering a couple of matters. The overall background against which I speak is that the proposed expenditure for the Department of Education for 1986-87 has been spared from the budgetary knife, with a marginal increase overall in the Department's allocation, although it is important to note that education expenditure has again declined as a proportion of total outlays from 7.2 per cent in 1985-86 to 7 per cent in 1986-87. I turn now to the higher education administration charge. It was not long ago that this Government was running the length and breadth of the nation condemning tuition fees for higher education and promising a commitment to a continuation of free education at the higher education level. In this Budget, with the so-called higher education administration charge, the Government has abandoned that stance on free education. Of course, it is a total nonsense for the Minister for Education Senator Ryan, to have promised university students, only 10 days before the Budget: `We will not impose tuition fees'. That statement, with the great wisdom that hindsight gives all of us, has as much status now as has the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the 1984 election, when he said: `We will not impose a capital gains tax'. No doubt the Minister relied, as did the Prime Minister, on the time-honoured logic that one is not bound to be honest always. The fact remains that the Minister denied that this Hawke Government would impose tuition fees. Yet 10 days after that statement, in the Budget students faced up front a $250 payment before enrolment in 1987. In a version of Hawkespeak, the Government calls it a higher education administration charge. But even the Labor Education Minister in Western Australia was not taken in by this piece of semantic gymnastics. He called it a tuition fee and condemned it as such publicly. The words and the names do not matter. It does not matter what one calls it. It does not matter how one describes it. It does not matter how one fudges with the logic. Everyone understands it as a tuition fee, plain and simple. Despite Senator Ryan's dubious claim that one-third of the student population will be exempt, this $250 compulsory fee will be paid by a greater proportion of the student population than those who paid full tuition fees in 1973. Even in 1972 and 1973, immediately before the Whitlam Government abolished tuition fees, nothing like 70 per cent of students paid the fees applicable. Senator Ryan's singular achievement has been to ensure the highest proportion of fee paying students at the higher education level for over 40 years. The mechanical design of this $250 fee is heavily flawed. One is not surprised because the level of the fee and the way it is to be charged and administered were quite simply plucked out of the air at a late stage in the Budget deliberations. There is proof that this is not an administration charge and that it has more to do with being a tuition fee when one looks at the logic in paying the fee at the same rate for full time, part time and external students. As universities, colleges and student bodies have pointed out, this is likely to discourage a large proportion of external students and a large number of part time students, with drastic consequences for institutions such as the Deakin University in Victoria which rely heavily on external students for the bulk of their enrolments. Not only do some institutions rely heavily on external students. From the community's point of view, in trying to advance the educational levels, the skill levels of our entire community, we must also recognise that part time students and external students are vital to that national effort. A full time student will receive up to 10 times the study for the same $250 fee as an external student enrolled in just one unit. In those circumstances it is no wonder that some higher education administrators are preparing themselves for massive cuts in external student enrolments. The Minister has tried to sell this fee as a money spinner for the academic institutions, with 10 per cent of the charge, or $25 a head, being retained by those institutions. Perhaps it is a bribe; but the Minister has boasted how this will be a godsend to higher education institutions. What a fantasy that is. If we take the example of the University of New South Wales, its funds were effectively reduced by $700,000 a year, on its estimates, when recurrent funds from 1 July 1986 were paid only one month in advance. Previous arrangements, with the funds paid two months in advance, permitted smart financial management which paid healthy dividends on the short term money market for those institutions. The short term investment in the present tight climate for higher education has been essential to help the university defray escalating costs. So just that one institution, the University of New South Wales, is $700,000 worse off for starters. Then along comes this $250 fee. Even with the $25 a head bonus from 18,000 students, the University of New South Wales will still be some $250,000 poorer. This puts paid to another of the Minister's myths. There is no bonus money for institutions in this Budget measure. One has only to walk into a lecture hall or a laboratory on any campus to see the reality of higher education under this Labor Administration. Our higher education sector is cracking at the seams. It is suffering a major crisis of capacity and struggling to provide state of the art education with equipment which is obsolete, run down, or irreparable and in buildings that, in many cases, are crumbling and require urgent maintenance. This Government's inaction in ignoring these problems is a national disgrace. In the debate next week I will return to that subject. In the very short time left, I turn to the cuts in multicultural education, especially to the English as a second language program. Mr Macphee —A scandal. Mr SHACK —I am very pleased to see that the honourable member for Goldstein is in the chamber, a man from our side of the Parliament who has long played a great role in the welfare of migrants in Australia to their benefit. This Budget has slashed English as a second language spending by $27m over a full year, almost cutting the program in half. One can understand the outcry from ethnic communities. One can understand the outcry from the teaching profession as its members try to battle with the problems of migrant children. This Government has no credibility in multicultural education. As I said, 10 minutes is too short a time to list the mistakes, the wrong decisions, and the lack of policy that this Government has brought to bear across the whole length and breadth of education at our schools level, our higher education level and in respect of technical and further education. Next week, in the course of more substantive debate, I will return to each and every one of those points. Mr MAHER(Lowe)(5.51) —I speak tonight on the appropriations for several departments. I want particularly to touch on the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, but there is, in a sense, a common thread between the three departments we are now debating-the Department of Education, the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. These three departments have the problems of children to deal with. The immigration authorities bring 100,000 people to our country every year. The children who come with families have to be educated and, as the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack) said, have to take part in English as a second language programs. The Education portfolio has to account for the education of Aboriginal children in remote areas who often may not speak English at all. While the Government has cut ESL funding it has given a large increase in funding for general purposes and I am sure there will be no loss of jobs in the ESL programs in the various States and, in the Catholic system, in the different dioceses. Initially, I want to speak about the program which is bring 100,000 people to our nation every year, the immigration program. It is building up our skills base, reuniting families and increasing our population. I praise the Australian immigration officers who accept overseas postings and who often serve in difficult, dangerous and lonely locations in various countries throughout the world. These people frequently have to put their children into boarding school and head off to some location and perhaps all the thanks they get is from their Department. Naturally, the families in Australia who want to bring someone to this nation cannot understand any delay, but potential immigrants have to be assessed; they have to be interviewed; they have to have health and police clearances; and it is a long, slow and tedious process. I say to constituents who might want to bring somebody to Australia that if the person they seek to bring is an aged parent, over the retiring age, or a husband, wife or fiance it is a reasonably rapid process. If they want to bring to Australia somebody who is young and skilled, that is quite possible. But if they want to bring to Australia somebody who is without skills, that is a very difficult situation. I think that many people appreciate that, if people come to Australia with little chance of obtaining employment and have to battle on their own in the job market, they will have difficulties settling in. They will be unhappy; they will have real problems finding economic security in this nation. I pay tribute to the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford), because it is a very difficult Department to run. It is a Department which has a million inquiries a year coming in; a million decisions have to be made in the Minister's name; and a million letters have to go out to people telling them that they can or cannot come. Considering the enormous volume of work that comes into that Department, let alone the ministerial representations that come from members of this chamber and senators, I think the Minister does a marvellous job. His departmental officers are extremely efficient. Many of the officers who make the decisions and try to keep this Department going well are lowly paid people. Having said all of that, I also think that not only must everything be fair-which it is-but it must also seem fair. I feel that perhaps there is some merit in publishing in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette the names, addresses and dates of birth of people approved for permanent residency. People always come forward saying: `We know people from our country who came here much quicker'. They suggest that perhaps some people got here through the passing of something behind someone's back. I say to these people: `Who are these people who are supposed to have jumped the queue? Who are the people who had some influence and did something to get ahead of others?'. But they never quite come up with the names and addresses. I think the system has to be reviewed continuously, that we have to look at the procedures for immigration and that we have to look at the means by which we nominate who can come. I do not feel that the present situation covers every eventuality. I think that if names and addresses of people approved for migration were published in the Commonwealth of Australia Gazette this would show the system as being even fairer than it is now. Such a system would also overcome problems I have dealt with in which people in Lebanon have been approved for migration but never received their letters from the Australian Embassy in Syria. These people did not know that they could pick up their visas and go to Australia. I think such a system would be a bit of a plus. I recommend it to the Minister. Many people in my electorate have brothers and sisters and perhaps mothers and fathers in such places as Lebanon or Sri Lanka, or one of the many countries in which there is civil unrest, strife and fighting. Daily we see newspaper and television reports of atrocities. It must be a terrible worry for people. Even people who have family members in countries that are peaceful and quiet still miss their families greatly at Christmas, on birthdays and at all the times that people think of their kith and kin. As I said, I congratulate the Minister on a very efficiently run Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. In the few minutes that are left I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). This Minister has a very difficult portfolio to administer, because many of the 100,000 or more Aborigines living in Australia are in the most remote parts of our nation, in areas where there is no water, electricity, communications or roads. Yet the Minister and his officers somehow have to cover these people. In the Northern Territory, they have to help many of them by bringing them from Third World type living conditions into the modern age. The allocation for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs is $271m, but other portfolios-Education, Health, Employment and Industrial Relations, and Housing and Construction-also have allocations specifically for Aborigines. The total expenditure in the area of Aboriginal Affairs is nearer to half a billion dollars, which is a considerable amount of money for the original Australians, the black Australians. The Minister has done a lot. It will be said that, to his credit he achieved land rights in Queensland and is well on the way to achieving land rights in Western Australia. The Queensland Government is handing over the Aboriginal reserves to the native people, the original Australians; and in Western Australia much progress is being made. In a sense, it has been done without coercion from the Commonwealth, without the Commonwealth stepping in and acquiring the land, which it has the legal and constitutional right to do. Therefore, the State governments are also to be praised for having co-operated in the whole process. The international community will note what Australia is doing. There is a genuine federation in that the States are handing over the reserves which they have administered for many years. Aborigines were brought to these reserves from many areas and have lived on them for some time. In Queensland most of the reserves have been handed over to the Aboriginal people in deeds in trust. The Minister has done this without spending an enormous amount of Commonwealth money and we must all be appreciative in that regard. I do not wish to delay the Committee. I serve on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and I have been extremely interested in the homelands movement, but that is another issue. History will record that the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs has achieved, where others did not achieve, the return of the reserves to the indigenous people. He has achieved this in a few short years by careful negotiation, common sense and sensitive handling of his portfolio. I again wish him well. Mr CADMAN(Mitchell)(6.01) —As I said previously in the House in debating the Budget, the Government has chosen the migrant community to hit hardest and first in this Budget. In every area of important services which one examines the Budget appropriations have been significantly reduced. I draw to the attention of the Committee those areas which I think are significant. It is a good thing that we are debating the appropriations for the Department of Education and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs at the same time. The Committee will be aware that the significant cuts are in the English as a second language program, the decision to amalgamate the Special Broadcasting Service with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and in a number of other areas within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford). The Minister has had a bad trot. He seems to scramble for cover when he has the opportunity, but everybody has a bad run and Scoop is no exception. Let us look at the way in which the Minister has handled matters and has brought more problems for himself than he need have. For instance, when he spoke in reply on the Australian Multicultural Affairs Bill on 25 September, he said: The Jupp committee did not address the question of whether AIMA should exist; that was not amongst its terms of reference. That is not right. The Jupp Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services is not restricted by its terms of reference to whether or not it can examine the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. Indeed, under items (ii) and (iv) of its terms of reference the committee could easily have taken up that charter and in fact did. I wish to quote to the Committee from the Jupp report. The extract with which I have been provided did not come from the Minister; it came on to my desk out of the air-I do not know who sent it to me-in an unmarked envelope with no name or address on it. It fell off a truck. At page 18 of the report, in item 8.62, Jupp clearly and unequivocally said: The Committee believes that AIMA should be retained as an independent research and community education organization, with a role in advising on access and equity in the delivery of Federal Government programs and services, but not with primary responsibility to promote and monitor the development of departmental plans. There it is in black and white. The Minister, having had that report in his hand, dissembles by saying that the committee did not report on it, nor was it in its charter to do so. The Minister has brought further strife on himself by claiming within the last few days that it was the Government's decision to close three offices of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I refer the Committee to the Minister's Press release No. MPS104/86, where the Minister said that the decision was in fact to close six offices but three will remain open. A subsequent Press release from the Minister, referring to decisions affecting migrant services, said: The second decision was to close three offices of the Department in provincial cities . . . No wonder the Minister brings problems on himself. He is going to try to confuse the situation by not telling the truth. It is easy to put this on the table to let us know the facts of the matter. Dr Theophanous —I raise a point of order. I ask that that reflection on the Minister be withdrawn. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —That is a correct point of order. I will uphold that. I ask the honourable member for Mitchell to withdraw that reflection. Mr CADMAN —I withdraw, and repeat that the Minister continues to dissemble and there is no need to. People know the facts of the matter. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I ask the honourable member to withdraw. Mr CADMAN —I withdrew unequivocally. The Minister continues to dissemble-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member will withdraw unreservedly and will not repeat the point which he was asked to withdraw. Mr CADMAN —Well, I was not called to order earlier in the debate on the use of the same word and I see no reason for it now. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —You do not have to. The honourable member has now been called to order on it. Mr CADMAN —So we can expect inconsistent decisions, is that right? The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Is the honourable member reflecting on the decision? Mr CADMAN —Not at all. I just want to know where I stand. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I am glad to hear that. It sounds very much so. I think that you are not au fait with the Standing Orders. I am. I have asked you to withdraw. Certainly that is quite consistent with any ruling that I have made before. Mr CADMAN —Madam Deputy Chairman, I have withdrawn. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Thank you. Will you continue debating? Mr CADMAN —The honourable member for Newcastle (Mr Allan Morris) used these words about the Minister. Madam Deputy Chairman, your own colleague said: Mr Hurford's decision was based on poorly developed and insensitive advice from the department. . . What a cop-out that is. It was the Minister's decision. He makes these decisions, but he tries to hide them. We had the 5DN thing where the Minister claimed that he was misunderstood. We had the Platter's case and we had his comments in the House on the capital gains tax and the fringe benefits tax. If the Minister would take it up front, there would be few problems. I have illustrated in simple and small instances where the Minister has tried to hide the circumstances of Government decisions. It would be much easier for him, the House and his regard in the community if he did not adopt that technique. Let us turn briefly to the English as a second language program. Of all the Government's decisions taken recently in the Budget I believe that this is the one which will cause the greatest hardship and the most concern to parents and young children around Australia. I should explain that the English as a second language program involves teaching young children whose main language is not English to become literate in their own language and then, their having learnt to read and write in their own language, conveying information to them which allows them quickly to take on the English language. It is an excellent technique of teaching which is used for Aboriginal communities and non-English speaking migrant communities. The Government's decision to halve that program is cruel and unconscionable. The Government has decided to restrict the potential and opportunity for a large number of children around Australia. Because children who come from a non-English speaking home and life are often limited in their extracurricular exposure to English, they do not develop the more sophisticated uses of the language needed for them to do well in their secondary education. Numerous reports of this Parliament, together with numerous academic writings, demonstrate that, yet the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) has chosen to cut the ESL program. I would have thought that many areas in the Budget could have been cut-some important areas, maybe, but not as important as this program. I quote from the report of the Commonwealth Schools Commission of 1984. The report referred to Professor W. J. Campbell of the University of Queensland, who reported on ESL, and said: The Campbell report reveals a serious deficiency in the provision of resources for students of non-English speaking background in need of ESL assistance and in the way many schools respond to these needs. According to the report, many students of non-English speaking background do not proceed far beyond a `coping' or `survival' level in English language competence. The Government's own body says `put more resources into it', yet within a couple of Budgets the Government had halved the program. This year the Commonwealth Schools Commission, on page 4 of its statement, said: The Commonwealth's principal responsibility is to assist the language needs of newly arrived migrant children. Yet in the same report from which I quoted earlier the Schools Commission said that six months ESL training is not enough for kids. A departmental report by D. Spearritt and J. M. Coleman entitled `Schooling for newly arrived Indo-Chinese refugees: An Evaluation of the contingency program for refugee children' revealed how significant and important it is for children to have 12 to 18 months intensive ESL programs. The time available to me is drawing to a close in this debate, but what I gather from the Government's cavalier attitude to English as a second language is that it has adopted the Treasurer's slogan: `So what? We don't care'. This afternoon the Treasurer on the delicate matter of community relations said: `Icons-what does that matter? We don't care about those values of people'. On the ESL program the Government takes the same attitude. Mr Holding —He did not say that at all. Why don't you stop telling lies. Mr CADMAN —`We don't know; we don't want to understand; we don't care. So what!' The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) —Order! I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that he said some words which should be withdrawn. Mr Holding —I withdraw. Dr THEOPHANOUS(Calwell)(6.12) —On the last comment made by the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), let me say that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. The record of those Opposition members who are responsible for policy, especially the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard), in regard to multicultural affairs is appalling. It is an insult for those Opposition members, including the honourable member for Mitchell, to come to this place and lecture us about multicultural affairs. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition thought he was making a wonderfully cheap point by saying that the Opposition intended to translate the Treasurer's comments into a number of languages and to put them out, as if the Treasurer had said something against the ethnic communities or against the cultural background of different peoples in Australia. He said nothing of the kind. He was referring to a question about capital gains tax and said that people who wanted details should seek them by questions on notice or should write to the Commissioner of Taxation. It is disgraceful for the Leader of the Opposition and the honourable member for Mitchell to misrepresent the position. In addition, in regard to the policies that were criticised by the honourable member for Mitchell, what is the position of the Leader of the Opposition? Has he got up and said `We will change the situation if we attain government', or `We will restore ESL funding and change the position in a number of areas where difficult decisions have been taken'? He has certainly not made those comments. The Leader of the Opposition said that the spending cuts were not enough. His view was that if he were in government he would cut more. And who would be cut? Would it not be the migrant communities in the first instance? I suggest that it would be. The Opposition's record on these issues is appalling. The Leader of the Opposition has never made a substantial speech on multicultural affairs or on ethnic issues, indeed he has never referred to the subject, but he has the gall to come to the House and say that he will translate something and, in a cheap way, try to get votes from the ethnic communities. I have news for him. Members of the ethnic communities are not fools and are not misled by vague rhetoric. I hope the honourable member for Mitchell will take this on board. The ethnic communities want to see concrete, specific policies in the area of multicultural affairs. Just as in many other areas where the Liberal Party has no policy, it has no policy on ethnic affairs and multiculturalism. The Government has stated its position on multiculturalism. I do not think any member of this chamber has pressed that case more than I have. On 22 August I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on multiculturalism, and I quote part of the Prime Minister's answer: And I want to say that the Government, through my Minister for Immigration, now here with me on this occasion, commits the Government unequivocally to enhancing multicultural values. `Unequivocally'-and that is the position. It is true that a number of problems were created in the Budget context but, as the Prime Minister said, there was no intended impact of the kind that the Opposition is trying to build up in relation to the ethnic communities. The whole impact that occurred was unintended, and since the Budget the Government has taken a series of actions to rectify the position. I deal first with the abolition of the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs. The Government has moved quickly to create an office of multicultural and ethnic affairs, under the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs or under the Prime Minister. That office will serve similar functions to those carried out by the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs, except that it will have the additional function of being close to government and being able to give advice to the Government in a number of multicultural areas. Secondly, let me deal with the amalgamation of the Special Broadcasting Service and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. What ever one's view on that, let us examine the real issue-that is the protection of multicultural programs on radio and television.The Government has moved and is moving, and it is having discussions within the Australian Labor Party and within the ethnic communities, to try to ensure that the amalgamated organisation will protect multicultural values. I assure the Committee that I, for one, will not approve arrangements in which there are not sufficient protections and guarantees for multicultural radio and television. There are a number of different views about amalgamation but, given that this has become a fact of life, we should look at how positively we can protect multicultural values and multicultural radio and television programs. The Government is listening to advice on these matters and is moving in that direction. Thirdly, there is the question of English as a second language. It is easy for the honourable member for Mitchell and his colleague the shadow Minister for Education the honourable member for Tangney (Mr Shack), to attack the Government, but why do they not seek some consistency? How do they expect further to cut the Budget to make even more hefty reductions in government spending and not affect areas such as education? Of course it will be affected. This is quite apart from the view one takes on the ESL matter. The Government has recognised that difficulties were created and it has acted in a number of ways to try to alleviate the problem. That is the fact of the matter. Resource agreements are being negotiated with the States to ensure that under extended resource funding extra funds will be provided for the ESL program. We have also found an extra $4m for that program. We are now negotiating with the NSW Government to see whether we can solve the problem in that State. To suggest that the Government has no conscience about such problems and is not concerned to resolve them is patent nonsense and should be recognised for what it is. I conclude my comments with another issue. Earlier I mentioned the lack of commitment to multiculturalism and multicultural issues on the part of those in the Opposition who are responsible for these matters. This is a serious question because, although those honourable members do not state their lack of commitment in open terms, their friends and supporters, the New Right in this country, do not have such reservations. Members of the New Right in Australia is the enemy of multiculturalism. Every major spokesman from the H. R. Nicholls Society and the other New Right organisation has made statements condemning multiculturalism. Yet the people to whom they are very close, such as the honourable member for Mitchell, come into this place and pretend to us and the ethnic community that they are friends of multiculturalism. One cannot have it both ways. Why has the Leader of the Opposition not denounced the New Right, not only for its economic policies, which are disgraceful, but also for its attitude to Australia as a multicultural society? If these people had their way we would have a divided Australia, one in which there would be tensions between the different ethnic groups. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mrs Darling) — Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr COBB(Parkes)(6.22) —There are 148 electorates in Australia. The electorate of Parkes, which I represent, has about the seventh largest Aboriginal population in Australia. I see that in this year's Budget the Government has allocated $570m to be spent in the area of Aboriginal affairs. It is interesting to look back and see that a decade ago the then Federal Government allocated $148m. If we go back to 1970-71 we find that only $24m was spent. On top of this $570m for Aboriginal affairs, money also comes from the States. One example of that is the land tax in NSW alone, which raises something like $15m which is used for purchases of land under the Land Rights Act. Also, on top of that, substantial amounts of welfare payments flow to Aboriginal people. These amounts are tragically high because of the high level of unemployment among Aboriginal people, which ranges from 30 to 70 per cent in some parts of the country. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard three simple columns of figures showing the expenditure to which I have just referred and the ownership of Aboriginal land to which I will refer shortly. I have shown these tables to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding). Leave granted. The tables read as follows- 1986-87 BUDGET FUNDING $m Department of Aboriginal Affairs Department of Aboriginal Affairs ... 224.800 Aboriginal Development Commission ... 83.293 Aboriginal Hostels Limited ... 16.700 Aboriginal Institute for Aboriginal studies ... 3.642 328.435 Other Departments Education ... 93.493 Community Services ... 5.456 Housing and Construction ... 58.000 Department of Employment and Industrial Relations ... 64.929 Arts Heritage and Environment ... 3.133 Communications ... 0.310 Department of Local Government and Administrative Services ... 0.747 Aboriginal Electoral Education Program ... 0.906 226.974 Other ... 14.561 Total Aboriginal funding ... 570.000 LAND OWNED BY ABORIGINES Type of land Sq Km % Aust. total land area Aboriginal freehold ... 630.269 8.20 Aboriginal leasehold ... 78.248 1.02 Aboriginal mission ... 210.367 2.74 Total ... 918.884 11.96 7.2 DIRECT COMMONWEALTH EXPENDITURE ON ABORIGINAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, RELATIVE PROPORTION OF TOTAL FUNDS: 1970-71 TO 1985-86 (a) Period Total Commonwealth Expenditure on Aboriginal assistance programs $m 1970-71 ... 24.0 1971-72 ... 28.4 1972-73 ... * 56.4 1973-74 ... Whitlam { 89.8 1974-75 ... * 147.7 1975-76 ... * 173.1 1976-77 ... | 148.1 1977-78 ... | 160.0 1978-79 ... Fraser * 135.1 1979-80 ... * 166.5 1980-81 ... | 203.4 1981-82 ... | 234.0 1982-83 ... * 263.7 1983-84 ... * 353.7 1984-85 ... Hawke * 424.6 1985-86 ... * 456.6 1986-87 ... * 570.0 Mr COBB —I thank the Committee. All this adds up to a quite considerable amount of money for the Aboriginal people. This is a reflection of the concern that the Australian people have for Aborigines and it is also a reflection of the concern felt by this Government-and indeed by all governments of all political persuasions-for Aboriginal people. This commitment and desire to help the Aboriginal people is quite commendable. However, I believe that there is a realisation that we do not solve too many of the world's problems with money and the Aboriginal area is no exception. Problems in this area are not being solved by money. If one looks at the figures that I have incorporated and compares the $24m spent in 1970 with the $570m that we are now spending, one realises that the position and status of Aboriginal people in Australia has not changed much. In fact, in some areas it has even got worse. I can give a couple of examples of that in my electorate-the towns of Brewarrina and Bourke. In Bourke not so long ago there was a dreadful riot with shots being fired all night in the main street. Windows were broken and fires broke out. It was very sad. Bourke was almost like a wild west town of the last century. Unfortunately, in Bourke today there is an antipathy between some white people and some black people; there are divisions between some black people and other black people; and in some instances there is resentment between white children and black children. Unfortunately, that will last a lifetime and it stems from many of the grants that are given to Aboriginal school children. For example, those who attend secondary schools get eight different categories of grants. Those grants are not available to any other people in Australia. There are also other small divisions in our community, such as those between black people and the police. I list those examples to show the situation in which we find ourselves. It begs the question: Where are we going wrong? I put the proposition earlier that money, while helpful in some instances is not the sole answer. Should we treat black people as black people in this country, rather than treating them as human beings in the same way as we would treat white Australians, Chinese people or whatever? I know that the special treatment we give to black people is given with the very best intentions and I know that the Minister himself has a great commitment in this area. However, there are instances in which this policy is not working and certainly the taxpayer is not getting value for his dollar. Perhaps we should consider more radical policies, such as abolishing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and replacing it with a department for disadvantaged people, which would encompass people of all colours in Australia. The dignity of Aboriginal people is, if anything, being lowered. Also, I think we should look at whether we should ask Aboriginal people to have more responsibility for the money they receive. I was interested to see a report on television-I think it was on 60 Minutes-a few weeks ago which showed a type of `work for the dole' scheme in northern Australia, particularly north Queensland. I think this operates in the Aurukun region. Mr Cadman —That was instituted by the Fraser Government. Mr Holding —And we have extended it. Mr COBB —I am interested to hear that the scheme was instituted by the Fraser Government. I am delighted that it did so and I am delighted that the scheme is still going. The Aboriginal people themselves have played a big part in the success of the scheme. I was very impressed with what I saw. The Aboriginal people there had pride in themselves and they were learning the very valuable lesson that there is no such thing as something for nothing in this world. Of course they enjoyed that attribute before white people came to this country and unfortunately in many instances we have taken it away from them. I believe that land rights should have a lower priority in this country than it has had to this stage. Aborigines comprise about 1.1 per cent of the total Australian population, yet they own just under 12 per cent of the Australian land mass, which adds up to 918,884,000 square kilometres or, in other words, just under one million square kilometres. I hasten to add that it should be appreciated that much of this land is in remote areas and has very low productivity. Nevertheless, we have roughly one per cent of the population owning close to 12 per cent of Australia's land mass. I do not see much evidence of this having done the Aborigines much good. If one breaks up that figure of 12 per cent, one finds that 8 per cent is owned as freehold land, just over one per cent is leasehold, and 2.74 per cent is Aboriginal mission land. The Aborigines have received massive land grants in some areas in recent years, but I see little evidence that it has done much to lift the living standards of the great bulk of Aboriginal people. While undoubtedly some land rights are justified, this issue should be handled on a State by State basis rather than federally because what is needed in land rights in the Northern Territory is far different from what is needed in New South Wales, for example, where most Aborigines live in towns or on the fringes of towns. Land rights does not mean much to Aborigines who live in Redfern, for example. I turn to the question of health and housing. I believe that greater emphasis should be placed on Aboriginal health and housing, rather than on land rights, which does not seem to have done the Aborigines much good. The other area I particularly wish to stress is that of education. I note that in the excellent booklet produced by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs called Aboriginal Statistics 1985, there were some very interesting figures which showed that in New South Wales, for example, of the Aboriginal students who entered year 8, only 8 per cent in one study and 10 per cent in another went on to complete year 12. That is a very low figure and is well below the average Australian figure of 13 per cent in these two studies. I was interested to see that Queensland had the highest retention rate of 21.6 per cent. Queensland comes in for a lot of vituperation on occasions, but obviously, although that figure is still very low, the Queenslanders are doing something right. Perhaps we should look at what they are doing and adapt and adopt it for other States in Australia. I believe that Queensland puts emphasis on teaching subjects that will be useful, relevant and interesting and which appeal to Aboriginal school children. I appeal particularly to Aboriginal parents because they must realise that they must make a special effort to get their children to remain at secondary school as there will be many advantages that flow from that. Of course this problem does not arise only in the Aboriginal community, it also occurs in the white community where those in low income groups, particularly, tend to have a lower participation rate up to year 12 at school. If Aboriginal children stayed on to year 12-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Sitting suspended from 6.32 to 8 p.m. Dr KLUGMAN(Prospect)(8.00) —Before the suspension of the sitting for dinner we were dealing, amongst other things, with the appropriations for the Department of Education and the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I would like to deal to some extent with the Department of Education and the administration fee of $250 which has been imposed on all tertiary students. I strongly support that imposition and I would like to justify it on the following basis: I think the policy of all governments ought to be that no person qualified for a tertiary education should be unable to receive it solely on the basis of lack of finance. The cost of providing, say, a medical degree is close to $80,000 for a five or six-year course. Let us look at the socioeconomic background of people attending universities. Recent studies by the Department of Education have shown, for example, that in 1984 54 per cent of the population of Australian males aged 35 to 54-generally those people who have university-aged children-were in what was called the working-manual classification. Yet the percentage of students at our universities with parents in that classification was only 20 per cent. The classifications `professional' and `managerial' for the same fathers represented 30 per cent of the general population, yet 62 per cent of university students were part of that population. If we look at income levels we see that the income level of the parents of university students is much higher. Some 79 per cent of parents of all university and college of advanced education students-the parents of CAE students usually have a lower income on average-were on well above the average wage, which is already significantly above the median wage. Back in 1984 some 20 per cent had an income of $50,000 or more. So it is quite clear, as far as I am concerned, that we should charge university students at least part of the costs of their education. There is no justification for parents or single-income families with relatively low incomes, for example, in the $300 a week range, to pay tax of the order of $50 or $60 a week so that my children can attend university for nothing. I think it is completely unfair and, as far as I am concerned, it is contrary to any conception of social justice. In passing, as the parliamentary representative on the Australian National University Council, I would like to congratulate that Council. At its meeting last Friday it had before it a resolution from the students association, supported by the board of the faculty, condemning the Government strongly and down to the point of regretting the imposition of the fee. I must say that, with the help of Senator Peter Baume who represents the Senate on the ANU Council, we defeated the resolution by better than a 2:1 majority-something of the order of 19:8 or 19:9-whilst other university councils have passed that sort of resolution. Let me very quickly deal with the question of multiculturalism and the teaching of English as a second language. I regret that there is a suggestion that there will not be enough money for teaching English as a second language. I think it is terribly important that students are able to learn English and that they get every possible help to learn English and for that matter, that adults should get every possible help to learn English. I have some reservations about some of our attitudes to multiculturalism. I came from a non-English speaking country at the age of about 13, not able to speak a word of English. I went straight into school and learnt English. I am not suggesting that that is necessarily the best method, although we can argue even for that method of teaching people English. I think that politicians of all parties are being conned by what I call the professional migrants. I refer to those people who own or run foreign language newspapers, solicitors, doctors, dentists, travel agents, real estate agents, clerics, some welfare workers, ethnic affairs reporters, an ever growing State and Federal bureaucracy and the Special Broadcasting Service. These people live off migrants. They live off the fact that there is a group of people in the community who feel that they can go only to a particular person to get legal or medical advice or sell or buy a house and that they are excluded from the general competitive market. Our aim must be to make it possible for everybody in the Australian community, hopefully, to get the best possible piece of the cake. That applies as far as jobs are concerned and as far as the ability to buy competitive services is concerned. Politicians are conned into believing that those people, the so-called professional migrants, can deliver votes. This again, I emphasise, is a criticism of many politicians from all sides. In fact, they do not even realise the utter paternalism and contempt with which they treat migrants by making that assumption. They will go, for example, to an Italian club-the Marconi Club in my electorate-or some other club and assume that, if they utter a few words, shake hands with the secretary or get kissed on the cheek by the president, this will deliver the so-called Italian vote. It does not deliver the Italian vote any more than if one goes to the Parramatta Rugby League Club and shakes hands with Dennis Fitzgerald. There are no votes in it. If politicians believe that they can buy the so-called ethnic vote by going to those sorts of functions and doing that sort of thing they are treating the so-called ethnic Australians with utter contempt and paternalism. If people are prepared to vote for a politician on the basis that he is prepared to go to their clubs or whatever, he does not deserve a vote. Ethnic Australians react just as intelligently to issues in the community as the rest of the Australian population and their vote for governments will go up if things are going well and it will go down if things are going badly. People can, however, antagonise particular ethnic groups and lose their votes. I certainly have to thank the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) when he was spokesman for the Liberal Party of Australia or- Mr Nehl —For the coalition. Dr KLUGMAN —For the Coalition on the question of immigration before the last election, when he went out of his way to antagonise the Indo-Chinese vote. Having a large number of Indo-Chinese in my electorate, I think the Indo-Chinese vote certainly swung to us. One can antagonise people and get other people's votes if one makes anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Indo-Chinese, anti-Jewish or anti-Arab statements, or whatever they may be. I do not believe that one can get their votes by going out of one's way and saying that one loves all the people who come from Greece, Italy, or wherever it might have been. Mr Beale —How do you think the `So what' comment will go? Dr KLUGMAN —I do not know about the `So what' comment. I must have missed it. Is that when Bjelke-Petersen kept replying `So what' on AM or PM, or whatever it was? Mr Beale —No, it was the Treasurer today at Question Time. Dr KLUGMAN —The honourable member has lost me. I do not know whether Bjelke-Petersen gets any particular `So what' vote. I have just been passed a note stating that the question of the ESL program in New South Wales, has been settled. I am certainly pleased with that. I would like to emphasise again, especially with the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) present now, that it is most important that we help people to learn English. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr CONNOLLY(Bradfield)(8.11) —The estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs are subdivided into four major categories-the Department itself, with an expenditure of some $224,800,000 this financial year, the Aboriginal Development Commission, Aboriginal Hostels Ltd and the Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies. I shall be referring to some of these organisations in the short time available to me. I note that the total expenditure for the portfolio is estimated to be $328,410,000 this financial year. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding), who is at the table, has often been quoted as saying how pleased he is about the fact that under his administration in particular-this is his fourth Budget-expenditure has grown substantially. For the record it is worth noting that in 1981-82 total expenditure was some $165m. Unfortunately, as the honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) rightly pointed out, the simple fact is that none of us knows precisely how much money is being spent on Aboriginal affairs or on programs related to the advancement of Australian Aborigines. The reason for this is that, at all three levels of government throughout this country, individual and often very separate programs directed essentially at trying to solve the same common problems are in existence in various States. One of the greatest failures of the last four years-it is worth noting that we are debating the estimates in the fourth Budget of this Government-is that no attempt seems to have been made, at least in terms of the record, to rationalise, where necessary, programs at all three levels of government related to assisting Australian Aborigines. Yet, as I said previously, the Minister has taken the view, which unfortunately is shared by the Australian Labor Party as a whole, that, provided one throws enough money at a problem, somehow or other it is meant to be solved. I think it is extraordinary that, at this time when so many State governments across Australia are of the same political kidney as the Minister and the Hawke Government, so little in fact has been achieved. It is a matter of record that it is a disgrace to this nation that the two States which have performed so badly in terms of Aboriginal affairs-I refer specifically to New South Wales and Western Australia-are both seen as epitomes of what a Labor State government is all about. In my State of New South Wales, we face domestic problems in cities such as Sydney, and in areas such as Redfern in particular, where a State Labor government made a consistent decision of policy to withdraw the police from that area for over two years and wondered why anarchy prevailed while the lives and the property of ordinary people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal alike, suffered so grievously. That was allowed to take place because of State Government inaction, because of the agreement of State Ministers and, I suspect-I say this with some concern-the inaction at the Federal level to try to emphasise to State governments that, where their responsibilities are absolute, and certainly that is the case in terms of law and order, those responsibilities must be carried through. The problem we have faced ever since the Australian people gave to this Parliament responsibility on a shared basis-I emphasise the term `shared basis'-with State governments is that there has been considerable difficulty, irrespective of who has been in government, in getting the States to pull their weight. As I said, this Government has had better advantages than most. It has had this commonality of political philosophy in most of the mainland States; yet the record stands that in the one State which has remained non-Labor during the last four years-namely, Queensland-more progress has probably been made in terms of supporting the Aboriginal people than in most other parts of Australia. It is extraordinary to note for the record again the issue of national land rights in relation to which this Minister and the Hawke Labor Government spoke so long and so eloquently and have failed so utterly to deliver. In Western Australia the State Labor Government has refused to accept the dictates of its political brethren in Canberra, and that State Labor Government is now in fact putting in place administrative arrangements which give to Aboriginals in Western Australia a very similar basis in law to that of the land management arrangements now in place in Queensland, the very State which for so long has been the butt of attack upon attack in this Parliament and elsewhere, around Australia, especially by this Minister, against its activities in relation to Aboriginal land rights. Now we see Labor State governments being prepared to accept virtually the identical formulas which have been applied with some success in Queensland. As I said, the difficulty really is in our inability to control expenditure in terms of Aboriginal affairs because it is spread over at least three sectors of government. I refer specifically to the problems of housing. We are told, in relation to the estimates, of the expenditure which is being provided for housing throughout Australia. The same thing applies in the estimates for expenditure in relation to education, health and so forth. What I think is extraordinary, however, is the differences we see in terms of per capita expenditure on various communities of Aboriginals, divided among the various States, of the funds which have been provided through the budget of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Housing for Aboriginals is principally funded, as far as this Parliament is concerned, from two sources. Firstly, there is the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, a component of which is meant to be specifically set aside for Aboriginal housing. In addition to that, there is the significant funding provided to the agency responsible for economic development in relation to Aboriginal affairs. The difficulty we face in New South Wales-I respect this as being probably typical of a problem which I mentioned earlier-is that in Moree, on what is effectively free land because it is old mission land and land which has been designated for Aboriginal habitation, the State Labor Government is putting up houses costing approximately $128,000 each. I have seen these houses. They are a significant improvement-I think the word `significant' is not strong enough-on the conditions in which those people were expected to live previously, in old weatherboard houses which had probably been built in the late 1920s or 1930s. The important point is that the houses are vast by any stretch of the imagination. They are significantly larger than probably 95 per cent of the houses of the entire white community in Moree. Let me mention what I found particularly unacceptable. I spoke to the personnel constructing those houses, and I must emphasise that some of them were Aborigines, which is excellent. I said: `Why is it that so many widows are smashed every time these houses are left empty once they have been completed?' The man said that it is costing $8,000 a night-- Mr Beale —How much? Mr CONNOLLY —Eight thousand dollars a night. Mr Beale —A night? Mr CONNOLLY —A night. That is to replace the windows which are being smashed in these houses. I then asked him why on earth the New South Wales Department of Youth and Community Services, which I understand is the one responsible, cannot employ a guard with an alsatian dog, or take some other protective measure, to look after its own property before it is handed over to the new occupants. He had no answer to give me. Yet, as I said, there were half a dozen new houses there, all of which had been vandalised between the time they were completed and the time the new residents took them over. What is so sad is that so many of the new residents were unemployed. Often they were mothers with large families but no male breadwinner. In other words, they were social security beneficiaries with very limited income. They were being put into these vast new houses, often with five bedrooms with no window coverings, no furniture and virtually no fittings, and certainly nothing on the floors. The immediate reaction of such people is to borrow money and establish themselves in a style that is at least comparable with what they perceive to be normal community levels. Yet in the very act of doing that they are getting themselves into an economic and social spiral out of which they will never emerge. In a town such as Moree, which is only typical of many of the outback communities in New South Wales, Aboriginal communities are not being supported. They are not being given the level of assistance they want and ask for to enable them to live in a style and a manner they can afford. Worst of all, despite all the money that is being expended in this Budget and elsewhere, despite the fact that since 1970 this Parliament alone has spent in excess of $4.3 billion on about 160,000 people, many of these problems still elude us. The principle I have put forward in my short speech is that we have failed because we have not been able to determine at what level of government which responsibility should lie. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr BLANCHARD(Moore)(8.22) —In the Committee stage of the debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 I would like to address a few remarks to the estimates for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. The honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly) raised the issue of our not knowing how much money has been spent in the area of Aboriginal affairs because the money has been split between Commonwealth funds, State funds, perhaps local government funds, and private funds. This is true, but it does not deny the reality of need-a need which the honourable member for Bradfield, from his perambulations around Australia, knows only too well. Mistakes have been made in the past in attempting to remedy some of the wrongs, but there have been mistakes in other areas of government expenditure also. Let us not dwell on the mistakes; let us dwell on the achievements that have been made in the area of Abor- iginal welfare. Over the past four years I have been privileged to travel around Australia a great deal, visiting Aboriginal communities and talking to the elders and the men, women and children in those communities. On occasions this has meant sleeping under the stars in sleeping bags in the company of some of my parliamentary colleagues-an experience we have all enjoyed. I feel that it has given me a better appreciation of the problems in the area of Aboriginal affairs, particularly in the outback. As the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher) indicated in his remarks, there is some merit in discussing in one debate the three areas of Aboriginal affairs, education and immigration. In particular, the link between education and Aboriginal affairs needs close attention. The report of the House of Representatives Select Committee on Aboriginal Education is well worth studying by those honourable members who have not taken the opportunity of doing so, as it reveals the problems in this area and what should be done to resolve them. The report found that Aboriginal educational attainments remain significantly below those of the non-Aboriginal community, even though there have been improvements in that regard in the past two decades following the introduction of a range of special education programs for Aboriginals. Yet the report recognised that there is still a long way to go. The Committee's first recommendation states: the National Aboriginal Education Committee in consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, the Department of Education, the Commonwealth Schools Commission, the Tertiary Education Commission and State and Territory governments and Aboriginal Educational Consultative Groups develop a co-ordinated approach to the collection of statistics in Aboriginal education with a view to improving the data base for decision-making; The second recommendation states: a research study be undertaken into the standards of educational attainment of Aboriginal people at all levels of the educational system, including the impact of Aboriginal educational programs introduced in the last decade or so, on these educational standards. It seemed to that Committee that education in Australia has as its central tenet the attainment of greater equality of educational opportunities and outcomes. Such equality does not yet exist for Aboriginal people, and the Committee concluded that there is a continuing need for special educational programs for Aboriginal people to enable improved standards to be attained. There are needs in so many areas of Aboriginal education-early childhood and pre-school education, primary education, bilingual education, homelands and outstations education, and tertiary education. I am pleased to note that in the Budget proposals, despite the transfer of some powers from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs to the Department of Education, some $15.85m will be spent by the Department on education. It is pleasing to see that both the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (Mr Holding) and the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan) have recognised the need to continue and build upon these special programs. In this Budget the Aboriginal Affairs portfolio has received a total allocation of $328.4m. This represents an increase in real terms of 4.2 per cent over 1985-86. Further, this increase follows previous increases in real terms since the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs took over the portfolio. At this point I should pay tribute to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs-a tribute richly deserved because he is the longest serving Minister for Aboriginal Affairs since that portfolio was established. The Government has made it clear that it is firmly committed to dealing with some of the conclusions in the report of the Committee of Review of Aboriginal Employment and Training Program-the Miller report. That report found that Aboriginal economic independence and reduced dependency on welfare and short term jobs needed to be looked at very seriously. It is pleasing to note that some $19.8m has been allocated for program expenditure related to the Miller report. I am pleased that in this year's Budget allocation there is provision for another 20 communities to be included in the community development employment project scheme. As honourable members know, under the CDEP scheme communities can elect to forgo unemployment benefits in return for equivalent funding which can be used for community self-help improvement projects. It is also pleasing to note that as a result of this year's Budget allocation the scheme could provide part time employment for up to 1,850 Aboriginals in remote areas. Returning to the Miller report, it was found that Aboriginal employment-this is not surprising, as those of us who are interested in Aboriginal Affairs know only too well-is concentrated in low skilled, low paid jobs that are frequently casual, temporary or seasonal and in jobs disappearing from the labour market because of technological change. Almost half of Australia's Aboriginal population lives in rural and remote communities and there are real needs in those areas. The Aboriginal unemployment rate there is often over 80 per cent. The other half lives in and around larger towns and cities and faces severe unemployment. This is compounded by racial discrimination and a lack of education and job skills. It is pleasing to note that one of the Government's policy decisions is to establish a community employment and enterprise development scheme within the Aboriginal Development Commission to help Aboriginal communities start community enterprises. A great deal needs to be done. The growth of the homelands outstation movement in the Northern Territory, for example, has meant that over the last 15 years something like 625 communities have been established. These communities need water, health facilities, schools and a number of other social amenities which those of us living in cities tend to take for granted. It is my hope that, through this Budget, some of those needs will be attended to. Mr NEHL(Cowper)(8.31) —I wish to address my remarks to the proposed expenditure for the Department of Education. I pay tribute to and compliment the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) on the contribution he made to the debate a little earlier tonight. I found myself in total agreement with almost every word he said. I particularly endorse what he said about the need for teaching English as a second language for migrants who have come to this country. I have had close personal experience of this need, having lived in a migrant hostel for two years as my wife, as I have told the chamber before, was a teacher of English as a second language. I am totally dedicated to the proposition that, whichever Government is in power, adequate money must be provided for teaching English to migrant Australians. Moving on from that, I refer specifically to the need for more tertiary education institutions on the north coast of New South Wales. At present we have the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education in Lismore, which is doing an excellent job. I certainly do not restrict my thinking on tertiary education to CAEs and universities; I have to emphasise also that the technical and further education institutions up and down the north coast of New South Wales-I refer to that area because that is the only area about which I know specifically-are doing an absolutely marvellous job. Mr Cowan —There is a wonderful one at Taree. Mr NEHL —As the honourable member for Lyne says, the one at Taree is superb, and of course at Wauchope, Port Macquarie, Coffs Harbour, Kempsey and other places up and down the north coast they are also doing a superb job. They are limited only by a lack of adequate funding. They can expand, they can do a better job, with more money. I might say, too-I am sure the honourable member for Lyne will endorse my comments-that one of the reasons why the TAFE colleges up and down the north coast have been so successful in expanding and extending the services they offer is that they have had the full support of National Party State members of parliament right along the coast. Mr McVeigh —And the local Federal members, too. Mr NEHL —Undoubtedly the local Federal members as well. I point out that the north coast of New South Wales has the highest growth rate in the whole of the State. From June 1981 to December 1985 the growth rate was 3.9 per cent. Honourable members on both sides of the chamber will know how significant that total growth rate figure is. Of course, if we particularise it a little further, we see that for the mid-north coast region, the rate comes up to 4.4 per cent. Those figures are from the New South Wales Department of Environment and Planning. Many centres on the north coast are growing at extraordinarily rapid rates. The December 1986 figure for at least one is a population of 104,000-a significant number indeed-within commuting distance. Whilst paying tribute to the work done by local government, State and Federal members, and the community, I must say that the north coast region from Taree to the Queensland border really is disadvantaged when we consider other parts of Australia. Mr McGauran —There is no doubt about it. Mr NEHL —The honourable member for Gippsland indicates that that is absolutely correct. The current population of the north coast of New South Wales is 367,400 people but there is only one college of advanced education to serve the region. The population predictions totally support the case that a further tertiary education institution must be provided in the area. Estimates show that by the year 2000 the population will have grown to 700,000 people. If we go a decade further, by the year 2011 the population of the north coast of New South Wales will be 855,000. As my friend the honourable member for Braddon (Mr Miles) told me earlier, that is about twice the size of the current population of Tasmania. How can anyone in this country visualise that, in the next 20 or 30 years, we will have an area with twice the population of the wonderful state of Tasmania, still with only one tertiary institution. Mr McGauran —It is unimaginable. Mr NEHL —It is totally unimaginable and anybody who accepts that has no vision. At that time it will have 11 per cent of the State's population, compared with only 6 per cent now. It will have three times the population of the Riverina-Murray area and more than the Hunter Valley, including Newcastle. As demonstrated by the Northern Rivers College of Advanced Education, the area has the lowest provision of tertiary education places per head of population in New South Wales, including the western suburbs of Sydney. However that the lack of university level courses is the main tertiary education deficiency in the north coast region of New South Wales has been clearly demonstrated. As I have said, looking to the future, the State Department's population projection group forecasts a population of 700,000 people by the year 2000, so we will be very short of tertiary education places. Undoubtedly the most economical means of providing additional university student places is to add places to existing institutions and undoubtedly this should be the technique adopted for the western suburbs of Sydney, where there are already three universities and seven colleges of advanced education within a radius of 57 kilometres, as well as good public transport. But in the north coast region where, as I have said, there is already a significant population which will increase still further, there is virtually no suitable public transport for commuting students and no university for them to attend. Those wishing to study at university level must travel to Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney or Armidale, and transport and accommodation costs prove to be prohibitive for many. I believe that the additional tuition fee-no, it is an administration fee is it not? Mr McVeigh —It's a tuition fee. Mr NEHL —It is a Clayton's fee. It is the fee you have when you are not having a fee. It is $250 which could well be the last straw that will break the camel's back for many country students. I have to say clearly right here and now that many young country people in Australia are being totally deprived of university education because of that artificial cut-off point which means families are up for about $3,000 a year to keep their son or daughter at a university or CAE. It is not fair. Mr Miles —It is $5,000. Mr NEHL —The honourable member comes from Tasmania; perhaps it is worse there. We always hear from the honourable member for Franklin (Mr Goodluck) about the cost of fuel in Tasmania; it appears that the cost of education is more as well. In the north coast region of New South Wales 25,208 young people currently attend government secondary schools and a significant number attend church and independent schools. Who can doubt that there is a great potential well of tertiary institution students? There is no doubt of the size of the potential tertiary student population. We can add to these figures the additional numbers of people likely to be attracted to the area because it is God's own coastline, as I have said here many times. People travel there from all over Australia. We heard Queensland being attacked today because people go there to be unemployed. This happens also in my electorate because people would rather be unemployed there than in the freezing wastes of Canberra or other places that are not as attractive. Of course, in Cowper it does not cost people as much for heating, food and clothing. It is more advantageous for them to live there. Mr McVeigh —It is almost Queensland. Mr NEHL —It is almost Queensland. I am almost a Queenslander; both of my children were born there, as the honourable member knows. Mr Cowan —You haven't got Joh and you would love to have him. Mr NEHL —Yes, we would love to have Joh. We admit that the problems of a new developing institution will be minimised if it develops from its inception under the aegis of a well developed institution in the way that the University of New England did under the aegis of the University of Sydney. The system works. It was introduced by those great members of the National Party of Australia-- Mr McVeigh —Sir Earle Page. Mr NEHL —Yes, Sir Earle Page and David Drummond, a great member of this place, and other people who worked to support the inception of tertiary education. That has to continue. There must be further tertiary institutions on the north coast of New South Wales to provide fairness, equity and justice for the young people who live in that area. Mr MILES(Braddon)(8.42) —The previous speaker, the honourable member for Cowper (Mr Nehl), talked about the need to provide education facilities or opportunities for people from rural areas of Australia to have a good education. I agree with what he said. Education is one of the great needs of this nation. It is interesting to look at some of the Press statements released by the Minister for Education (Senator Ryan). The heading of one of them, released on 19 August when the Budget was brought down, was: `Education's role in national development to be maintained'. If we look at the actual figures for education, we find that, even though the education budget has gone up by 5.9 per cent-and we all realise that inflation has gone up by approximately 8 per cent-there is no real maintenance of education funds in this nation. It is interesting that this Government spends so much time talking about justice, equity, fairness and non-discrimination. That is all on its logic and its assumptions. It is not an objective standard. If we look around Australia, we find that the policies put into practice by this Government do not involve justice; they do not involve equity or equal opportunity for people in the rural areas. One of the reasons for this is that over the last three or four years since this Government came into office there has been a considerable economic downturn in this nation and, as a consequence, education funding has had to be cut. I will list a few of the ways in which education funding has been cut. The list in Budget Paper No. 1 goes through capital grants to schools, which have been reduced by $8.5m in 1986-87 with a total of $16.6m in a full year. Multicultural education will be reduced by $5.6m in a full year. Professional development programs will be reduced by $13m. The English as a second language program will be cut by $30m. It is no wonder that several speakers tonight have spoken about the removal of the English as a second language programs. We realise that in this nation there are many people who have come from other countries and who need to learn English and have a good grasp of the language if they are to make their way in our society. To continue: Funding for the ethnic schools program will be reduced by $8m. The education centres program will be reduced by $0.9m. I will come back and say a little more about the education centres later. As I have said, the real reason that we do not have sufficient funds for education is that this Government has mismanaged the economy. I can go through several factors or features which show what has happened to Australia over the last three or four years. A salient fact is that our overseas debt under this Hawke Labor Government has risen from the equivalent of $2,373 for every man, woman and child in Australia to $5,333. Of course, the problem is that we now also have the highest real interest rates since the Depression. Taxes have increased to the highest level in 40 years. Of course, I could go on adding to this list. If we add all of those things together, even though we are told that tax cuts are in the pipeline-and let us accept that those tax cuts come-the average family in Australia will be poorer under this Government. In rural parts of Australia where people will now have to pay the extra $250 university fee, the simple fact is that people will not be able to afford to send their children to tertiary education. This brings me back to the point of cutting the number of education centres in Australia from 33 to 24, even though I understand that only today or yesterday the Minister indicated that some funding will continue for five of the nine centres which have been cut back. These education centres were a new innovation in the Australian scene. They have been operating for 11 years. The fact that the Minister has cut back so much funding for these centres indicates that the Government has lost touch with the grass roots of education. It is no wonder that people all around Australia are asking: `When is the next election? When can we get rid of these economic vandals that are running this nation?' Australian parents and community leaders accept that the gravy train for education funds from governments cannot carry enough gravy to satisfy the demands of the community. Therefore, they are looking to private funds, or an entrepreneurial approach by government bodies, to raise funds in the market-place. That is exactly what was happening with these education centres. They received $2.34m from the Government and at the same time were raising from other sources about $2.5m. This style of approach to funding education centres was a very progressive one. They were doing a tremendous job in the community. Certainly the 22 or 23 that remain will provide a certain style of education which is very important. They bring together teachers, business people and community people interested in education. New curriculums can be developed at the school level instead of their being handed down from an education department which probably does not appreciate the particular needs of the region. These centres were opening up a new approach to professional education development for teachers. Instead of coming under an education Act, the centres which were incorporated were able to bring in people from private sector employment to share their ideas on management with the teachers. This provided a real interface and a stimulus to people in government schools in particular to look at new ways of doing things and certainly provided a stimulus to parents to participate in education, which should be one of the things that we encourage at this stage in Australia's history. Mr Cobb —An exciting concept. Mr MILES —It certainly is a very exciting concept because private money is being used to benefit education. That is a real step forward in this nation. Until now this nation's education has depended so much on funding from government. These centres were providing the opportunity for other people to contribute and also to be entrepreneurial in the way in which they sold education. I believe it is a tragedy that this Government knew so little about them that it decided it would lop around $900,000 off these centres around Australia. They were servicing in particular the rural areas of Australia with a very much sought after set of resources. I think we should be giving every form of encouragement we can, as leaders in this nation, for people to contribute finance from private sources to education. Time is obviously running out and I would like to finish up by saying that many other measures undertaken by this Government are seriously affecting Australian families' ability to provide education for their young people. Even though it is said that the $250 tertiary education fee is not all that significant, when it comes on top of lost rebates on medical insurance, lost rebates on housing interest, cuts imposed on the children's tax threshold, reductions in and now the abolition of the general rebate, lost family benefits for 18-year-old students, and the means testing of family benefits for 16-year-olds, with no account taken of the number, it has a very serious effect on Australian families. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr HOLDING(Melbourne Ports-Minister for Aboriginal Affairs)(8.52) —This Estimates debate gives honourable members an opportunity to make comment not merely about government administration in general but about the detail of the administration of government departments. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I have sat here and listened to the whole of this debate hoping on this occasion that I would get not merely criticism from honourable gentlemen opposite-that I am used to-but some constructive criticism-- Mr Ruddock —I have not had a chance to speak yet. Mr HOLDING —That is not my fault. I am bound to say this: If there is anything for which I would condemn members of the Opposition in terms of their approach to their responsibilities in my portfolio area, it is that, looking at the debates-they are very few and far between-and considers the questions that I am not asked, because questions on Aboriginal affairs from honourable members opposite also are very few and far between, the one thing that comes out in terms of Aboriginal affairs in this Parliament is that the approach of the Opposition is superficial at best and neglectful at worst. If one considers the kind of generalised nonsense we heard in this chamber tonight about what was occurring in the area of Aboriginal affairs throughout Australia, one could not but be disappointed with both the level and the quality of the contribution. Let me deal with that. A couple of common themes have become part of the general viewpoint which one finds emanating from the coalition. The first is a very simple proposition in Aboriginal affairs. One adds up all the money that has been spent over many years and asks: `How can it be that we have spent all this money and there are still so many problems?'. We are asked: `How can it be that there is a lack of co-ordination between Commonwealth and State spending agencies?'. The implication following from that is that, because these problems are not solved by throwing money at people-they are the terms that are used-we need to cut back in areas of expenditure. Let us deal with those propositions. It is perfectly true that there was, until this Government came into office, a complete lack of co-ordination in the administration of funds between the Commonwealth and the States. I am the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has been given the specific responsibility by Cabinet to co-ordinate the range of funding for Aboriginal programs in all Commonwealth Government departments. I am the first Minister for Aboriginal Affairs who has tackled the problem and invited States to critically examine their own problems as well as ours, with a view to producing a co-ordinated approach. All this information is discoverable and available if honourable gentlemen opposite are industrious enough either to ask a question or to look at the documents which are published by the Department. The other allegation we hear is that funds are wasted in the administration of Aboriginal affairs. The reality is that right throughout the history of previous non-Labor governments the administrative component of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs expenditure ranged from approximately 11 per cent to 13 per cent. Last year the administrative component of my Department's expenditure was brought down to 9.6 per cent and this year it will be 8.5 per cent. We are running a very tight ship indeed, in order to see that the full benefit of every government dollar gets to where it ought to be directed-that is, on to the ground to service Aboriginal communities. I listened with great interest to the arguments directed to my colleague the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (Mr Hurford) on the English as a second language courses. I have some sympathy for the arguments because I represent an electorate in which English as a second language courses have become very much a part of the State education system. That is due to the nature of the population and the fact that Labor governments at a State level have tackled this problem with great vigor. But is it not extraordinary that within this Federal Parliament, when there is so much criticism from honourable gentlemen opposite about our approach to English as a second language programs, not one honourable member opposite sees fit to mention that, if one were to draw a line across Australia from Broome to Cairns, between 60 and 70 per cent of all the Aboriginal children north of that line do not have English as their mother tongue; it is their second language. Such is the concern, the compassion and the lack of industry of these gentlemen opposite. Honourable members opposite might think there is a vote in arguing about English as a second language programs because they deal with migrants and there are more migrants. But how can they sit in this chamber and not know the elementary facts that cater for Aboriginal children, who in many cases are possessed of languages which are fairly rare indeed-not French, not German, not Greek and not Italian-involves a considerable allocation of resources? Do honourable members opposite look at the particulars of that? No. But we are told that we must not throw money away. I assure honourable members opposite that of these most dispossessed and grievously treated people, the Aboriginal people, who are at the bottom of every social and economic scale in Australia, there are not too many who can say that they are the recipients of money that has been thrown at them. The very use of those terms show where the thinking of the Opposition on this important social issue really lies. Is there too much money? It was commonly agreed among all Aboriginal affairs Ministers, State and Federal, two years ago that if we were to provide an effective level of shelter-not a flash house, not the sorts of houses that the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, the honourable member for Bradfield (Mr Connolly), was talking about in Moree-we would be looking at a total Budget outlay of in excess of $850m, and we do not have $850m. Let us look at these programs which involve money allegedly being thrown at those people who, as I said, are the most grievously treated people, those at the bottom levels of our socio-economic scale throughout Australia. It is too glib and too easy for the shadow Minister to say that he saw some houses in Moree which are too large. He has not caught up with the fact that Aboriginal people have extended families. The houses in Moree, which I saw, I believe were a credit to that community, because most of them were built by Aboriginal labour. The houses are large because of the cultural and social factors that Aboriginal people live in extended families; they do not have the nuclear family. The shadow Minister was grievously concerned because he saw some windows broken. Well, I am grievously concerned when windows are broken and I do not treat it lightly; but if the honourable gentleman walked into an inadequate State school-there are not many electorates in Australia which do not have one or two-and found that there were-a few windows broken, would he then come into this place to put the kind of generalised proposition that he invited us to consider: `Well, perhaps you have to look at the whole question of funding'? Of course he would not. He deals basically with a white Anglo-Saxon community in his own electorate, so he would not put forward that argument for one minute. There is a view that is now prevalent, running through the ranks of the coalition, that all these problems can be solved by somehow abolishing the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, despite the administrative competence which has been shown and despite the reports which show that the Department is running on a more effective basis now than at any time in its history. There is a view that if we somehow abolish one department and put it in with a much larger bureaucracy, because it is bigger it must be better. That is one of the disappointing things about this debate. Not a day goes by when we cannot pick up the newspaper and read that honourable members opposite are on about cutting costs. They say: `Make little Johnny Howard Prime Minister of Australia and it will all be solved. He will reduce the size of the Public Service, he will spend less money in the public sector'. We have been waiting through this debate to hear the Opposition tell us of one area in which it believes costs should be cut. The shadow Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman), said that it is a monstrous thing to make any cuts at all in the English as a second language program. He said that there are other areas in which cuts should and could be made, but he did not specify the areas. Not one speaker from the other side of the chamber during this Estimates debate has been prepared to specify those areas where cuts could be made. Frankly, that is not good enough. The honourable member for Parkes (Mr Cobb) said that too much money is being spent in my portfolio. I invite him to tell me where he believes cuts can be made. When we talk about Commonwealth-State responsibilities, I am the first Minister who has tried to co-ordinate them. It is an extraordinary thing that the political colleagues of the honourable gentlemen opposite say quite frankly and openly that they are States righters and that they are not prepared to yield an inch to the Commonwealth. However, when there is any talk about building houses for Aboriginal people in Queensland we are told that Queensland will take Commonwealth funding but it will decide where the houses will go. There is no public accounts committee in the Queensland Parliament, so there is no accounting for where and how Commonwealth funds are expended. I have been to the Torres Strait Islands. It is extraordinary. Who has ever been prepared to argue here that the provision of proper water and electricity supplies are not a State responsibility? When I travel to Queensland I am told frankly by my colleague responsible for Aboriginal affairs that unless the Commonwealth picks up the tab-we are looking at $6m to $8m for the basic water supply and another $10m for the electricity supply-Torres Strait Islanders will not have those services. If one goes to the Aboriginal reserves, they are extraordinary. If there is a choice as to whether a road will go past one of the properties owned by Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen or one of his mates in the National Party of Australia, or an Aboriginal community which houses 2,000 or 3,000 people, you can bet your dollar where the road finishes up. When it comes to allocating funds for electricity supplies, which are administered in Queensland through local boards made up of members of the National Party, if there is a choice between an Aboriginal community which has no electricity and a pastoralist who contributes to the Bjelke-Petersen slush fund, one does not have to worry about where the electricity supply will go, and we all know it. I have travelled to the Torres Strait Islands and have been placed in a house which was built by Commonwealth funds at a cost of $160,000. I was told: `If you want to have a wash, that is okay, there is a bucket of water there. Don't try to turn the lights on because there is no electricity'. Think about that. Do honourable members opposite believe that that is a fair go in terms of the expenditure of Commonwealth dollars? Would any one of the honourable gentlemen opposite regard a house built by a State government in his own community- Mr Tim Fischer —Which State Government has the best Aboriginal education track record? Mr HOLDING —Queensland-no question about it. Mr Fischer —Why? Mr HOLDING —I am happy to debate that with the honourable member. Some States have better health and some have better education, but it is not the answer to the allegation I am making. I went to the Yarrabah community and saw timber being shipped out of there. When I asked `Where does it go?', I was told: `It is going to the Torres Strait Islands'. But when I went to the Torres Strait Islands there was no timber from Yarrabah and there is no public accounts committee in Queensland to examine what funds were received from that timber and how they have been applied. It is not a fair go. These problems have to be sorted out. There are plenty of problems in every portfolio, but what I find appalling in this place is that not one honourable member opposite is prepared to do even the basic reading. If honourable members opposite had read the departmental statement which sets out the details of our expenditure-the statistics show the job that has to be done-I would not have to sit here and listen to the generalised nonsense from honourable members opposite who say that somehow or other it will all be better if we spend less money, abolish the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, and let the States run it, or to the kind of criticism levelled by the shadow Minister for Aboriginal Affairs at the administration in Western Australia. The shadow Minister forgot to tell the House that until the Burke Government came to power previous conservative governments had taken Commonwealth funding for Aboriginal affairs but they did not have the administrative competence to deliver a single program. The so-called Minister in Western Australia had as his adviser the permanent regional head of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, paid for by the Commonwealth. The head of a Commonwealth division had to advise the relevant Minister in Western Australia. It is only now, under the auspices of the Burke Labor Government, that something is being put in place-it is not completed and they would be honest enough to tell you that it is not completed-the kind of administrative competence that is necessary to deliver effective programs on the ground. Those are facts which ought to be known. As Minister for Aboriginal Affairs I walked into an Aboriginal community in Western Australia some 18 months ago and found that every adult person over 25 years of age had kidney stones, including the white people who were there to help the Aboriginal people-the whole community-and there were no fewer than three infants in the Royal Perth Hospital being operated on for kidney stones. And water is a State responsibility! What should I do? Should I turn my back and argue about Commonwealth-States rights or should I find the money to fix it up? I am not prepared to come into this place and listen to the glib nonsense that is spoken by honourable members opposite, who are not prepared to do their homework, to look at the statistical facts or to offer the balanced criticism that I believe can properly be levelled at almost any level of government administration. The problem with this Parliament at the moment is that the Opposition is looking for easy answers to difficult and complex problems. Nowhere is that more amply demonstrated than in my own portfolio. I have sat in this place month after month aware of some of the problems, but do I get a question put to me on those matters by Opposition members? No, I do not. If it is a matter of some controversy, more questions are put to me by members on my own side than are from Opposition members. That is true in portfolio after portfolio. Mr Tim Fischer —We might rectify that. Mr HOLDING —It's about bloody time you did. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN(Mr Drummond) —Order! I ask the Minister to withdraw that word. Mr HOLDING —I am happy to withdraw it. I am certain that the honourable gentleman opposite has heard it before. All I can say is that it is about time that the standards of the Opposition were raised. There are serious problems at every level of our society. The Opposition has a role to play, but it has not played that role in this debate, and it certainly has not demonstrated an ability to do so in any of the comments made about the administration of my portfolio. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —I call the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr Ruddock —Mr Drummond-- The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs has been called. Two honourable members were called from the other side. The honourable member for Dundas may get the opportunity after the Minister has finished. Mr Ruddock —I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Chairman. Standing order 61 reads: When two or more members rise together to speak the Speaker shall call upon the member who, in his opinion, first rose in his place . . . The question of opinion is usually exercised in the alternative. A Minister has just spoken on behalf of the Government and I seek the call as a member of the Opposition. I simply make the point that, in accordance with that standing order, certain consequences follow. If the Chair does not permit me to speak, I shall move in accordance with that standing order. Mr Tim Fischer —Further to the point of order, I point out that it is a long-standing convention that members be called from either side. I also point out that, while on the earlier occasion there were two speakers on the Opposition side, no speaker rose on the Government side at that time and that is why two speakers were called from the Opposition side. That is not germane to the present situation, when two members are contesting the call. The Minister for Aboriginal Affairs had just completed his remarks and convention would dictate that the call therefore would go to my colleague the honourable member for Dundas. Mr Hurford —Further to the point of order, Mr Drummond, unfortunately the honourable member for Farrer was not here, nor I believe was the honourable member for Dundas, when the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs rose to speak, as he expected to do at that time. The honourable member for Braddon was called instead, because the then occupant of the chair, the Chairman, Mr McLeay, thought that it would suit the Committee's convenience if the two Ministers were to sum up concurrently at the end. Two Opposition members spoke concurrently, which was an arrangement arrived at by the Chairman. I now ask you, Mr Drummond, to give me the call in accordance with that arrangement. The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN —Order! In ruling on the point of order, it is my understanding that Ministers can seek the call at any time during a debate. In accordance with what the Minister said as to the form of things before I came into the chair, I rule that I call the Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas) —I move, in accordance with standing order 61: That the honourable member for Dundas be now heard. Question put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 72 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 20 —— Adermann, A. E. Katter, R. C. Aldred, K. J. Lloyd, B. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McArthur, F. S. Beale, J. H. McGauran, P. J. Blunt, C. W. McVeigh, D. T. Brown, N. A. Macphee, I. M. Cadman, A. G. Miles, C. G. Cameron, Donald Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Ewen Peacock, A. S. Carlton, J. J. Porter, J. R. Cobb, M. R. Reith, P. K. Coleman, W. P. Robinson, IanConnolly, D. M. Rocher, A. C. Cowan, D. B. Ruddock, P. M. Dobie, J. D. M. Shack, P. D. Downer, A. J. G. Sharp, J. Edwards, Harry Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Smith, W. Fisher, Peter Spender, J. M. Hall, Steele Sullivan, K. J. Halverson, R. G. Tuckey, C. W. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Watson, D. J. H. Hodges, J. C. Webster, A. P. Hodgman, W. M. White, P. N. D. Jull, D. F. Wilson, I. B. C. Baldwin, P. J. Jones, BarryBeazley, K. C. Kelly, R. J. Beddall, D. P. Kent, L. Bilney, G. N. Keogh, L. J. Blanchard, C. A. Kerin, J. C. Blewett, N. Klugman, R. E. Bowen, Lionel Lamb, A. H. Brown, Robert Langmore, J. V. Brumby, J. M. Lee, M. Campbell, G. Lindsay, E. J. Charles, D. E. McHugh, J. Chynoweth, R. L. McLeay, LeoCleeland, P. R. Maher, M. J. Cohen, B. Martin, S. P. Cross, M. D. Mayer, H. Cunningham, B. (Teller) Mildren, J. B. Darling, E. E. Milton, P. Duncan, P. Morris, AllanEdwards, Ronald Morris, PeterFatin, W. F. Mountford, J. G. Fitzgibbon, E. J. O'Keefe, N. P. Free, R. V. O'Neil, L. R. T. Gayler, J. Price, L. R. S. Gear, G. Punch, G. F. Gorman, R. N. J. Saunderson, J. Grace, E. L. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. C. (Teller) West, S. J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the negative. Mr HURFORD(Adelaide-Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs)(9.22) —I am pleased to support the appropriations of these three departments, particularly my own, the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I take this opportunity to thank the departmental officers around the world for their dedicated service in this sensitive area of immigration and ethnic affairs. Immigration, with its settlement, enforcement and various other divisions, is a difficult area and the work is hard to carry out. I thank the officers for their efforts. I note the thoughtful contribution by the honourable member for Lowe (Mr Maher). Frankly it would be difficult for me to agree to publishing the names of new arrivals. That would be an assault on their privacy. I will have further discussions with him on this matter because I cannot see my way clear to supporting his suggestion. On the other hand, the contribution of the honourable member for Mitchell (Mr Cadman) was personal and I believe it was deplorable. I notice that when he took over the shadow Ministry he was described in the Sydney Morning Herald as: . . . a voluble man of seemingly modest talent. That sums him up very well indeed. He has lived up to that description. His contribution today was nothing more than a personal one and I will not stoop to respond with a personal attack on him, but there is plenty of ammunition should I wish to do so. The honourable member was the chief henchman of the honourable member for Denison (Mr Hodgman) during the infamous Blainey debate and I simply ask other honourable members to look up the record on that matter. I have not raised these matters over the past year and I do not intend to raise them in great detail tonight because I believe that bipartisanship in this portfolio was and is important. However, bipartisanship must be a two-way trade. How can one have respect for the present shadow Minister when his contribution to a debate such as this is merely personal? I will confer with previous Liberal Ministers for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs-the honourable member for Goldstein (Mr Macphee), the honourable member for Warringah (Mr MacKellar) and the honourable member for Petrie (Mr Hodges)-for whom I have respect. They know something about the portfolio so I will be pleased to confer with them. I was criticised by the shadow Minister for the so-called Platters decision. Let everyone note that by implication the Opposition will have an open-door policy for people coming into this country who have some sort of skill-in this case entertainers. The further implication is that the Opposition will have an open-door policy not just for temporary entries, but also for people who come here permanently, whatever the market for their particular skill at the time. We on this side of the chamber will not have that open-door policy. I have mentioned that immigration is a very sensitive area and part of its sensitivity is to ensure that opportunities are given to those who are here, particularly those in the unemployment lists. That applies to temporary entry applicants, just as it does to permanent entry applicants. Of course there will always be conflict between those who are seeking to protect the jobs of people in this country and those who are seeking to bring in people from overseas. Because the policy on entertainers has been so sensitive, prior to my day a national disputes committee was set up to resolve any such dispute. In the case of the Platters I was presented with what was purported to be the unanimous decision of the national disputes committee that that group should not come into this country. That committee consists of employers' representatives as well as employees' representatives, so what would have been the decision of any Minister unless, of course, he wanted his national disputes committee to resign on the spot? It is the committee's job to resolve these disputes. Let it be noted that by implication the Opposition would ignore a unanimous recommendation of the disputes committee which was set up to resolve these questions. The Opposition would have no policy whatsoever to look after the interests of those who are here. I do not act in that way. Let us realise that this shadow Minister, in the way he approached this issue and the debate tonight, was doing nothing more than climbing aboard a mindless Press campaign supported, I might add, by journalists who, through their union, the Australian Journalists Association, operate one of the most protectionist attitudes in their dealings with Ministers responsible for immigration, seeking to protect journalists' working conditions and jobs in this country, if it has good reason to do so. But it ill behoves journalists, of all people, to climb on to that band-wagon when entertainers seek to protect their jobs in this country. The next speaker in the debate was the honourable member for Calwell (Dr Theophanous) who, like the honourable member for Moore (Mr Blanchard), made a thoughtful contribution. I thank them for their supportive comments, in the case of the honourable member for Calwell in relation to immigration and in the case of the honourable member for Moore in relation to Aboriginal affairs and education. I turn to a couple of matters which are outside my own portfolio but which were mentioned in the debate tonight and which affect the relationship of the Government with migrant communities. I refer first of all to the Special Broadcasting Service-Australian Broadcasting Corporation merger. I am confident that there will be real security now for ethnic radio and television in this country. I am quite confident that, when the steering committee completes its report and the legislation comes to the Parliament, it will be seen that now, for the first time, there is a solid future for ethnic radio and television, unique as it is in this country. It is very valuable indeed and something of which we on this side of the chamber are very proud. The second issue that was raised was that of English as a second language or ESL, as it is known. This is the teaching of English to children of non-English speaking backgrounds. The Government is pledged to ensure that the teaching of English to children of non-English speaking backgrounds, as is the teaching of English to adults through a program organised in my Department, will be as effective for those who need it as it ever was. It is important to overcome disadvantages, it helps the integration of new people into this country, particularly people of non-English speaking backgrounds who need particular help, and it helps the social cohesion of this country. We want the teaching of English-for the young as well as adults-to be better than ever and we are determined to see that that goal is achieved. However, we heed the 1985 Karmel report into the quality of education, we heed the work of Professor Jack Richardson who in 1984 looked at this specific area of English as a second language. We heed their aspirations, and they are our aspirations, for English teaching to be done in a whole of school approach. We want it to be a standard part of our school curriculum, not just a special program appended to the end of the standard school curriculum. With this in mind we shall be ensuring that the States, which after all have the main responsibilities in education, play their part in ensuring that the teaching of English in schools is as effective as ever. The Hawke Labor Government made available an extra $38m in general funding for schools. We still have resource agreements to be signed by the various States concerning the expenditure of that extra $38m funding for general education. We are confident that the teaching of English as a second language-ESL-will be at the top of the list of the States' expenditure of these extra general education funds. I pay tribute to Mr Crafter, the Minister for Education in my home State of South Australia, who he has announced that the South Australian Government will be ensuring that the special teaching of English to children from non-English speaking backgrounds in our schools will be as effective as ever. As the honourable member for Prospect (Dr Klugman) intimated, there are expectations around this place tonight that an agreement with New South Wales will be announced shortly, I hope as soon as tomorrow, along the same lines. The honourable member for Prospect was as challenging as ever in what he had to say. I do not agree with his perspective. I believe that multiculturalism is very important for this country, but it needs spelling out. The end of sloganeering should be reached and we should be explaining what it means. To me it means equality of opportunity for all people in this country, whatever their background, and whatever their race, creed or colour may be, to contribute to this developing country and to contribute to our developing identity. Along with that, multiculturalism means equality of treatment for all people in this country, whatever their background, when it comes to the programs and services of government. If we on both sides of the chamber spell that out we will no longer have the sloganeering, the misrepresentation and the misunderstanding about multiculturalism. It is something very dear to those on this side who believe in equality of opportunity. In this case there is a need for ethnospecific services to overcome the disadvantages of people from non-English speaking backgrounds. As the honourable member for Prospect has said, there is no need for patronising attitudes towards people of non-English speaking backgrounds. Since the days of the Whitlam Government they have been given dignity, and so it should be. While the Hawke Government is in power they will continue to be given dignity. I certainly shall not be patronising. I know that during my stewardship here the Government will continue to be helpful in promoting multiculturalism. I am proud of the way in which the tough decisions in my portfolio have been accepted. Of course, I would have preferred that the Australian Institute of Multicultural Affairs were not terminated. I am proud that the Government chose the option of not cutting grass roots services in the migrant education program for adults, in the grants in aid which finance social workers to help the various communities settle into this country, and the translator and interpreter services. I am proud of the fact that the Government chose that option and that route, even though it has meant the tough decision of terminating AIMA. But we will be setting up an office of multicultural affairs to continue the valuable work of promoting multiculturalism and equality of opportunity and treatment. It means that the work of providing access and equity to the services and programs of government will continue. It means that there will be further community education and further research into appropriate fields. As multiculturalism is for all Australians, it is certainly an option for the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to consider that office being not in the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, where it may be associated with just the migrant community, but in some other department where it is seen to belong to all Australians. The honourable member for Mitchell, in his miserable contribution to this debate discussed the Jupp Committee of Review of Migrant and Multicultural Programs and Services. By selectively quoting he gave the impression that the Jupp Committee was specifically supporting AIMA. It was not. It did not choose between a number of options but said that it wanted multiculturalism pursued and promoted, and the Hawke Labor Government will do so. In drawing to a close, I repeat how proud I am at the way these tough options that we chose have been accepted. I am very sorry that three regional offices of my Department had to be closed but I am glad that there did not have to be the closure of another office. Mr Tim Fischer —Albury. Mr HURFORD —Yes. I say to the honourable member for Farrer that I regret that very much, but we will be sending officers to Albury- Mr Ewen Cameron —Hear, hear! Mr HURFORD —And to Wodonga; I recognise the interjection of the honourable member for Indi. I will keep that promise of sending officers there regularly, as to Rockhampton and Launceston as well. I am glad that, when we came to work further on the cost-effectiveness of the offices, the other three offices did not have to be closed, but is it sad that they have to be reduced greatly in size. Honourable members can rest assured that the views of the administration by honourable members opposite would have meant all those offices being closed. After all, they make a virtue of cutting government spending by billions of dollars more than we do. They would not only have cut those three offices in Wollongong, Newcastle and Geelong, they would have cut them all out, as they would have reduced migrant education services, the translator and interpreter services, and so on. That will not happen under Labor, and I commend to this Committee the sensible appropriations for all three departments. Mr RUDDOCK(Dundas)(9.37) —Mr Deputy Chairman, I would like to talk tonight about the northern districts education centre, which the Government has seen fit to cut out in relation to the funding of programs under this Budget. Motion (by Mr Humphreys) put: That the question be now put. The Committee divided. (The Deputy Chairman-Mr P. H. Drummond) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 52 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 19 —— Baldwin, P. H. Kelly, R. J. Beazley, K. C. Kent, L. Beddall, D. P. Keogh, L. J. Bilney, G. N. Kerin, J. C. Blanchard, C. A. Klugman, R. E. Blewett, N. Lamb, H. A. Bowen. Lionel Langmore, J. V. Brown, Robert Lee, M. Brumby, J. M. Lindsay, E. J. Campbell, G. McHugh, J. Charles, D. E. McLeay, Leo Chynoweth, R. L. Maher, M. J. Cleeland, P. R. Martin, S. P. Cohen, B. Mayer, H. Cross, N. D. Mildren, J. B. Cunningham, B. T. (Teller) Milton, P. Darling, E. E. Morris, AllanDawkins, J. S. Morris, PeterDuncan, P. Mountford, J. G. Edwards, Ronald O'Keefe, N. P. Fatin, W. F. O'Neil, L. R. T. Free, R. V. Price, L. R. S. Gayler, J. Punch, G. F. Gear, G. Saunderson, J. Gorman, R. N. J. Scholes, G. G. D. Griffiths, A. G. Scott, J. L. Hand, G. L. Simmons, D. W. Hayden, W. G. Staples, P. R. Holding, A. C. Theophanous, A. C. Hollis, C. Tickner, R. E. Howe, B. L. Uren, T. Humphreys, B. (Teller) West, J. Hurford, C. J. Willis, R. Jakobsen, C. A. Wright, K. W. Jenkins, H. A. Young, M. J. Jones, Barry Adermann, A. E. Lloyd, B. Aldred, K. J. McArthur, F. S. Andrew, J. N. (Teller) McGauran, P. J. Beale, J. H. McVeigh, D. T. Blunt, C. W. Macphee, I. M. Brown, N. A. Miles, C. G. Cadman, A. G. Nehl, G. B. Cameron, Donald Peacock, A. S. Cameron, Ewen Porter, J. R. Carlton, J. J. Reith, P. K. Cobb, M. R. Robinson, IanColeman, W. P. Rocher, A. C. Connolly, D. M. Ruddock, P. M. Cowan, D. B. Shack, P. D. Dobie, J. D. M. Sharp, J. Downer, A. J. G. Shipton, R. F. Everingham, P. A. E. Sinclair, I. McC. Fischer, Tim Slipper, P. N. Fisher, Peter Smith, W. Hall, Steele Spender, J. M. Halverson, R. G. Sullivan, K. J. Hicks, N. J. (Teller) Tuckey, C. W. Hodges, J. C. Watson, DavidHodgman, W. M. Webster, A. P. Jull, D. F. White, P. N. D. Katter, R. C. Wilson, I. B. C. Dubois, S. G. Hawker, D. P. M. Brown, John MacKellar, M. J. R. Jacobi, R. Millar, P. C. Question so resolved in the affirmative. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Department of Housing and Construction Proposed Expenditure, $573,892,000. Department of Local Government and Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $619,734,000. Mr BEALE(Deakin)(9.45) —The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West) has told us in recent days that there is no crisis in housing. I draw the attention of the Committee to the Daily Telegraph of Thursday, 16 October, in which the whole of page 6 is devoted to what is described as `the housing crisis'. The consideration of the estimates of expenditure for 1986-87 for the Department of Housing and Construction provides the opportunity to comment on the performance of the Department. A convenient starting point for such comment is the paper that was prepared for the fourth meeting of the Australian Housing Council by the Government's Indicative Planning Council, clause 2.8 of which reads: The Council's overall assessment is that underlying requirements for housing are still growing and are above the current activity level. The Committee should be reminded that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) at his Press conference on 2 April this year, after he had announced the housing package, promised that there would be 135,000 housing starts in the current year. In June the Indicative Planning Council marked down that number to 130,000. On 3 October the Indicative Planning Council yet again marked down that number to between 120,000 and 125,000 and settled on the mean number of 122,500. As the Ministers leave the chamber, I note that the Prime Minister's promise is worthless. Clause 2.13 of that report says: The mid-point of 122,500 has been used in this paper. The uncertainties for the housing industry are at present substantial. Whatever these two sentences mean, it looks as though the Indicative Planning Council may be doing a little hedging of its own. Whatever those two sentences mean, two things are clear: Firstly, we will see substantially lower commencements than the Prime Minister promised us on 2 April and, secondly, there is significant uncertainty surrounding the housing market. We have a situation in which demand for housing is increasing and the supply is falling. This is an appalling performance by the Government and by the Department of Housing and Construction. Due to the Government's gross mismanagement of the economy and the Minister's mismanagement of his Department, we have a situation in which young couples are unable to buy new homes. Under normal circumstances these people would find their way into the private rental market. Perhaps the best way to determine what is happening there is to quote the New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing in some of his recent utterances. For example, on 9 October, at the first meeting of the New South Wales Housing Council, he said: Continued high interest rates have had a major impact in substantially reducing housing affordability. Repayments on an average loan have increased by one quarter over the course of the last financial year. The high cost of housing finance remains the prime obstacle to home ownership for most low and middle income earners, and affordability is the name of the game. He went on: The parlous state of the private rental market in New South Wales is well known to you all. Rents in Sydney have reached an all time high after 18 months of rapid rises-- Mr O'Keefe —This is the first time you have said anything about housing for six months. Mr BEALE —Do honourable members opposite not like to hear what a Labor Minister for Housing is saying? He continued: and the shortage of rental accommodation is worsening as owners abandon real estate in favour of other investments. Yesterday in the New South Wales Parliament the Labor Minister for Housing said: There is a crisis in the accommodation market . . . of the private rental markets and our housing markets in this country. This is a fact of life that anyone in politics knows. He went on: . . . there was another decision that affected the building industry. And that was the decision of income taxation. There was a change in our income taxation laws and the negative gearing that was given to landlords and encouraged investors in the private rental market was taken away. The provision on negative gearing was taken away by this Government. Here we have an unbelievable situation. The New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing, a member of the same Left faction as the Federal Minister for Housing and Construction, strongly criticised this Minister's policies. What an indictment of the Federal Minister's performance that was. But that is not the end of it. The New South Wales Labor Minister for Housing said on 9 October: Demand on public rental housing, crisis and emergency housing is accelerating. Of course there is an increased demand for public rental housing and of course it is in crisis. There is demand in excess of supply on housing starts, with investors leaving the rental market in droves because of the abolition of negative gearing and the capital gains tax. I repeat what my colleagues and I have been saying about the capital gains tax, because it needs to be said again and again: In government we will repeal the tax. The state of the housing industry in Australia is a complete indictment of the performance of the Minister and his Department, and unless Government policies are changed the housing industry will continue to lurch from one crisis to another. In order to demonstrate further particular aspects of the departmental appropriations, I now turn to the estimates and draw the Committee's attention to a series of expenditure items which have not been explained fully either in the Estimates or in the Senate Estimates Committee hearings on those estimates. First, one cannot help expressing surprise at what the Department of Housing and Construction does not appear to know. Let me quote a series of questions and answers from the Senate Estimates Committee hearing of 29 September 1986. When asked about the Neutral Bay boatshed, the Department's answer was: `I do not have many details on it'. When asked whether the boatshed was not adjacent to a submarine base, the Department's answer was: `I do not know'. To the question `Is this the first replacement?' the answer was: `I do not know'. To the question concerning whether the figure of $25,000 seemed like an awful lot for glass doors at Bruce, the response was: `I would have to check on that'. Mr Donald Cameron —Who said that? Mr BEALE —This was the Department of Housing and Construction in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. Mr Donald Cameron —The Minister's Department? Mr BEALE —The Minister's Department. When asked why people would want access to a major Commonwealth building in Sydney, the Department's reply was: `I will have to find out'. In another answer the Department said that it did not know where the new occupants of a certain building came from. The response to a question concerning housing for people rather than for equipment was: `I do not think we have that figure'. Those answers from the Department of Housing and Construction are repeated again and again in the record of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. The Minister's Department has said again and again that it does know what it is doing, that it will have to check on a matter, that it does not have the information requested. This is a further indictment of the Minister's Department and his performance. Let me finally refer to a matter that arose in the Senate Estimates Committee hearings on 18 September. The Department said, in answer to a question about log books appropriate to the fringe benefits tax: I am not sure that we will have to do the log-books. We are still waiting for the Public Service Board to clarify it. How highly predictable that is. The private sector has to fill in the log books and the Department of Housing and Construction is still waiting to hear from the Public Service Board on what it has to do. But the private sector should not despair, for by now it is well known that the coalition, in Government will repeal the fringe benefits tax, lock, stock and barrel. The Ministry of Housing and Construction is in complete disarray, new housing starts are way behind demands. The private rental market is in crisis and public housing queues are growing daily. The Minister is under attack even from his own Left faction in New South Wales, and the Department's vague and uninformed answers in the Senate Committee hearings on the estimates are a complete indictment of the Minister for Housing and Construction and the way in which he administers his Department. Mr MOUNTFORD(Banks)(9.56) —As we debate Appropriation Bill (No. 1) in Committee, I would like to address my remarks to the allocation for the Department of Housing and Construction. The Department will receive $1,964.1m for the 1986-87 financial year, which is an increase of 8 per cent on the previous year's figure in money terms. In real terms the Department will receive about the same. This allocation, at a time of restraint when virtually every other Government department has had to accept cut-backs, is a good indication of the importance which this Administration places on the role of construction. The work of the Department is vital for several reasons. The first is the paramount importance of adequate housing, which is, after all, a basic human right. On this score, Australians can be justifiably proud of our housing record over several governments. In fact, our high standard of living is partly related to the quality of housing which we enjoy. Private home ownership is above 70 per cent in Australia, which is the highest level in the entire world. The Great Australian aspiration to own one's own family house has been taken seriously by the Government, despite the current economic difficulties. To this end, the first home owners scheme will receive $209.8m in the coming financial year. These funds will assist over 41,000 low to medium income families in purchasing their first home, while the money will also provide continuing subsidies to more than 203,600 buyers. These people receive a tax-free benefit in the form of a subsidy of up to $6,000 over five years. What this scheme means is that families, single parents and joint applicants have the opportunity to own their own homes, something which in other countries would be difficult if not downright impossible. Full assistance is given for families with a combined income up to $20,000, the cut-out rate being income in excess of $27,900. Individuals without dependents qualify if their income is below $13,950. Earlier this year the Government faced a crisis in the housing industry created by the shortage of savings bank funds due to the 13.5 per cent ceiling on housing interest rates. It was a difficult situation which threatened the jobs of thousands in the industry. The Government, however, responded quickly and responsibly. On 2 April the Government announced the lifting of the interest rate ceiling for future loans only, thus allowing the savings banks to increase their interest rates to attract more investment. The Government also promised to provide a subsidy to allow banks to maintain their deposit base while the higher interest rates attracted more funds to savings banks reserves. In return for this, the banks guaranteed to lend at an interest rate consistent with total savings bank housing loan approvals of $6m for 1986-87, and to improve conditions of low start loans to lower income earners. The housing package was designed not only to help the people working within the industry, but also to enable more Australians to own their family home. That is why the Government insisted on an easing up of repayment conditions to allow lower income earners to have a chance. The traditional credit foncier loan, with its equal repayments schedule, did not properly account for inflation. Whereas the equal dollar value repayments appear fair, in reality the initial repayments are often beyond the scope of young buyers, while the effect of inflation means that the repayments in years to come towards the end of the loan period are very small indeed. The Government initiative has given the banks the incentive to introduce low start loans which begin repayments at a more manageable level, scaling payments up in accord with the borrowers' likely ability to pay more in later years when they are more financially secure. There is a lesson in this exercise for members of the Opposition, who are always singing the praises of free enterprise and market forces as instruments of economic well-being. Competition and entrepreneurial initiative had nothing to do with the banks' introduction of low start loans. The incentive to introduce them on a larger scale was a Government condition, a Labor Government move. To gain the rest of their housing assistance package, the banks must prove they are helping the lower income earners buy into the private housing market. That move demonstrates the commitment which this Government has towards fulfilling the Australian dream of private home ownership for all, not just the wealthy. Final dwelling commencements for last financial year total about 125,000, an admirable figure especially in the light of Australia's current economic difficulties. It is a figure of which we of the Government are justifiably proud, especially when it is compared to the 20-year low figure of 105,000 for 1982-83-the culmination of the present Opposition's efforts on housing. The housing assistance package was a bold move, but the difficulties which the industry faced required swift action. It is pleasing to see that our actions have now paid off. The banks recently sought a renegotiation of the assistance measures to allow a deregulation of the ceiling on housing loans granted prior to April 2 1986. Strong growth in the industry and an increase in savings bank deposits has undermined their position, so there is no question of a need to revise this decision. The one million existing housing loans which were taken out on the expectation of the 13.5 per cent ceiling continuing are thus safe, a situation which the banks seem to have accepted for the moment. The measures taken in the Budget to ease pressure on interest rates will take effect in the long term, and we can already see encouraging signs of a fall from the present rate of around 15.5 per cent. The outcome is an ever better one for the Government's policy when we consider that most of the fall of 5,000 housing starts, from the Indicative Planning Council's June forecast of 130,000, is due to a sharp downturn in the Queensland industry. Try as it might, this Government cannot turn around the backward economic thinking of the arch conservatives in the north. With the highest unemployment rate and the lowest average weekly earnings for males it is no wonder that the Queensland industry is in the doldrums. This Government cannot and will not accept responsibility for the failure of the Bjelke-Petersen Administration to properly look after the housing needs of its population. Perhaps in a few weeks time the people of Queensland can look forward to a more responsible State government more able to provide the basic rights. In any case, the Indicative Planning Council's review estimate foreshadows 130,000 starts annually by the 1987 June quarter. That is one side of the housing picture-the need to maintain standards for consumers. On the other side is the industry itself and its value to the economy. The housing and construction industry contributes 10 per cent to the nation's gross domestic product. Despite the introduction of modern technology, the building industry remains a labour intensive industry, directly employing nearly half a million Australians. The construction industry draws resources from several other sectors as well; so, all in all, about 15 per cent of the Australian work force is dependent on the building industry in one form or another. Nor does the labour intensive nature of the industry make it less productive. In fact, on the basis of man hours per square metre of space, housing costs in Australia are the lowest in the world. At a time when we are looking at ways of scaling down imports and replacing necessary imports with local products for the sake of our balance of payments, the building industry offers a service which is almost entirely Australian based. The raw materials, timber, bricks and mortar, the equipment and capital are all local produce. While private home ownership remains a high priority, much of the Government's building activity is directed towards public-owned property. Part of the housing assistance package in April was a Government commitment to increased expenditure on public housing, a commitment which was honoured at the Premiers Conference on 13 June this year. In the current Budget $1,278.9m was allowed to the States and the Northern Territory for public housing, made up of $693.7m in grants under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and $584.7m from borrowings through the Loan Council. This is an increase of $164.6m, or 14.8 per cent, over last year's allocation. The rise is thus well in excess of normal consumer price index rises and demonstrates the Government's commitment to providing adequate housing for all. When State government contributions under the CSHA are added, public housing funding will be about $2 billion for this financial year. The increase will enable the Government to pursue its broader strategy for public housing. Single people and youth will be made eligible. More public housing will be made available for rent-purchase schemes, allowing lower income earners to buy their own home over time. Where such homes are sold, arrangements are being made to replace public stock. There will also be provision for the introduction of cost rents instead of market rents, while there will be reduced rents for those unable to afford even those costs. In addition, the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement will provide $149m for five programs with specific target groups. An amount of $58m will be provided for Aboriginal rental housing, some of which will go to dwellings under the control of Aboriginal housing associations, and $37m will be set aside for pensioner housing, including not only age and invalid pensioners but supporting parent beneficiaries as well. Naturally people under these categories can also apply for assistance under other CSHA programs. An amount of $24.1m will be provided by the Commonwealth and matched dollar for dollar by the States for mortgage and rent relief schemes. This will be for the benefit of low income earners who encounter problems making their mortgage repayments, or who cannot pay private rental accommodation or cannot find private accommodation due to their financial status in the first place. A further $19m has been allocated for the supported accommodation assistance program, which will provide funds for the outright buying, leasing, or renovation of housing stock for short term emergency accommodation. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr TUCKEY(O'Connor)(10.05) —The Committee is dealing tonight with the proposed expenditures for the Department of Housing and Construction and the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. The honourable member for Banks (Mr Mountford) spent all his time talking about the Government's policy on housing, and particularly the first home owners scheme. I suppose he is aware that shortly after the introduction of that scheme the cost of housing to the people who needed to buy it went up far in excess of the actual grant, the maximum amount of which was $7,000. Of course many people in limited circumstances who took that money now find they are unable to service the interest charges brought about purely by his Government's policy of borrowing $24,000m over its four years in office, so pressurising the domestic money markets. He talks of the Government's wonderful record on public housing. Of course, public housing is provided at cost to the taxpayer and puts other people into poverty. This is an example of the Government's policy of picking only winners. It does not approve of people getting special tax deductions for investing in housing that might assist people and en- abling, because of the tax breaks involved, those investors to charge rents that these people can afford, but it sees deductions as being highly appropriate in the area of research and development-corporate structures, big business, can spend $50,000 a year. That strikes me, as do so many of the champagne socialist philosophies of this Government, as being back to front. As shadow Minister for Administrative Services I want to use the rest of my time to address that portfolio area. For your information, Mr Chairman, I have here the Federal Government's property portfolio. These documents contain 22,000 items of property, ranging from lighthouses and bits of land accommodating Telecom Australia's various little exchanges and things of that nature which are obviously of no commercial value, to some very valuable commercial properties. These properties are sometimes occupied by public servants and sometimes they are not. Sometimes they are allowed to be vacant for up to two years while someone makes up his mind what should be done with it. This is highly inappropriate and it is interesting that on 25 November 1985 the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren), who has just entered the chamber, in answering a dorothy dixer question in the House, said what a disgrace it was that the previous Government had allowed the Commonwealth's rent bill to get out to $248m. He was going to fix that; he was going to get all this office space for nothing, apparently. It was not going to cost anything; it was not going to cost the taxpayer or force the Commonwealth to borrow money. He was going to fix the rent bill. On that same day some very capable business people such as those involved with the Coles-Myer company had full page advertisements in newspapers putting their properties up for sale. I put out a Press release saying: `If Tom Uren is so right, how can Woolies and Coles-Myer be so wrong?' My final words in that Press release were: Were I seeking advice to run such a business effectively, I am sure the success and experience of the Coles Myer management would overshadow that of Tom Uren. That is the point we have to consider. There are many people in the private sector, as is well known by Coles-Myer and others, who are greatly skilled in the provision of rental property, in accommodating people in houses or providing them with office accommodation. They are the ones who should be providing this service for the Government. Sure, they will make a profit, but they will do it more cheaply. I thank the Minister for his co-operation in making that property portfolio available to me. I wonder whether he has ever had a look at it himself. I have provided it to the Real Estate Institute of Australia. I believe that the Institute's members are experts in the field, and I have asked the Institute simply to utilise its membership, which we would find goes close to covering every piece of property in that portfolio, to advise us as to what use the properties are being put, whether they are being properly utilised, or utilised at all, and of course how we could best deal with them when we inevitably recover government at the next election. I will be equipped with the best possible advice. I will get it for nothing because the industry has agreed to do that for me. How does this compare? Let us look at the Canberra Times of 10 September, which carried an article headed `Dealings in property ``poorly handled'' '. This is a case of the Government criticising the Government. The article states: The criticism came in submissions to the Joint Parliamentary Public Accounts Committee . . . . . . The Department of Defence said it had about 70 properties, valued at about $25 million, awaiting disposal by the department. Australia Post said that, on average, two years elapsed between the time the Department was notified a property was surplus and when it was sold. . . . . . . . The Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce said in its submission `. . . property management matters should be transferred to departments'. The Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs said it `would like to see the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services become more responsive to client needs . . . The Overseas Telecommunications Commission said it believed the department's resources and approaches were `not attuned to the needs of commercially oriented organisations such as the commission'. . . . . The Australian Customs Service said, `An overall concern . . . The Attorney-General's Department said Department of Local Government and Administrative Services officers were sometimes conditioned to seeing problems rather than solutions, and `the solutions ultimately adopted tend to solve (its own) problems rather than those of client departments'. In the Sunday Telegraph of 21 September we saw the heading `$167m bill to repair Canberra buildings'. If these buildings were the property of the private sector and the Government was negotiating for turnkey-type deals where the property owners provide all services, these problems would not occur. Properties would be properly maintained. It appears from other documents I have here that the rent would not need to be any higher than is being paid at present. This matter goes back a long way. I do not know how many times in this place we have heard complaints about the standard of maintenance of defence houses. Why are they not made the retirement investment of ordinary Australians? Why cannot an Australian couple, if the house is off base, own the house and have the responsibility to maintain it? Why can there not be a notice in the toilet which states: `If this blocks up, ring this number'. The number would be the number of the owner of the house, who would have the responsibility to fix it. There is a good chance that the owner would go round with a set of tools and do the repairs. The owner could put on a coat of paint and maintain the property because it belonged to him. The Government could rent from such people; it does not have to deal directly with the tenant. The point is that the Government wants to cut its rent bill. A Government committee is investigating allegations that $100m is being wasted each year by the Commonwealth on exorbitant rent prices. When the Minister complained the other day, he should not have been complaining about the size of the rent bill. He should have been considering how it could be reduced and how more properties could be rented. If he needs advice on how to get a fair deal in those matters, there is the Joint Committee on Public Works which investigates the Government's expenditure on capital works. Why not give it the job of overseeing major rental arrangements and consequently of advising the Government whether the arrangements accord with its guidelines? That could be done just as simply. Of course, when the buildings are no longer needed, they can be given back at the termination of the lease, which hopefully would be written for a sensible period. The Government has the capacity for decision-making. The Minister has an electorate out near Parramatta, and other influential Ministers are concerned to build an office tower out there. That might be a good idea, but they should have asked who would work there. It seems that they are confronted with all sorts of pressures from people who do not want to go there. I understand that the main complaint is that the direct means of transport to that area is bad. It is not that the people do not live close to that area; it just so happens that it is more difficult to get there. When Government decides to rent property-or, worse, to build it-it should have a proper investigation of those sorts of things. The Daily News of 10 September, under the heading `There's room to move . . . ', stated: An inquiry into Commonwealth rent waste and inefficiency has been told that 91 Commonwealth properties in WA are not needed. The properties are worth $23.6 million. Over the last four years the Government has borrowed $24,000m. We have seen Commonwealth expenditure on interest rise from $3,500m to $7,500m. The Government is not worried about getting that cash back in and reducing that debt, although I doubt sincerely that the Government would reduce that debt. We have the ridiculous situation that, when the Government does move to dispose of some property-I do not criticise it for that-it picks on something such as the Anzac rifle range in Sydney. Other Ministers have already promised financial assistance for a major bicentennial sports program. Apparently, it is the only rifle range in New South Wales appropriate for that international event. It appears that the Government may organise a few liaison committees so that one Minister knows what another is doing. Of course, the Minister is also responsible for Commonwealth cars. He recently had to refer to the fact that a car was provided out of sympathy to the Barlow family when they returned from their traumatic experience when their son was hanged as a drug offender. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr O'KEEFE(Burke)(10.16) —Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87, particularly as it relates to the estimates for the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and the Department of Housing and Construction, includes some of the most significant of our Budget allocations. On the election of the Hawke Labor Government in 1983 the most significant challenge facing that Government was to get Australia back to work. One of the very significant components of the task of getting Australia back to work, of repairing the massive problem of unemployment that had been created in the community, was to boost public sector spending not only on job creation but also on productive investment. One of the areas often bypassed in such a discussion is that of local government. I am delighted to see the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) in the chamber tonight. Through his Department, be has administered a massive injection of funding into local government which in turn has found its way down to public sector job creation opportunities. Whether the funding has been for professionally related activities in council offices, whether it has assisted councils to increase the range of community services they provide, or whether it has been in road works under the community employment program or the various other programs in which the councils have been actively involved, these contributions through the Budget allocation have been very significant. Funding is also provided under the Minister's portfolio to boost the formation of regional groups of councils. The Minister knows that in my electorate there are now two very significant regional groups of councils-one being the northern region commission and the other the central Victorian group. They use that funding to bring together through a co-ordinating process a range of local councils which in the past, despite all the best intentions, had wandered off in their own directions. Because of the various pressures at the local level they were not able to gain a perspective of themselves as part of a broader region. They were not able to capitalise on their capacity to present a united development plan for their region. Through the funding assistance from this Government through this program, we have seen them come together and present not just proposals that directly affect their local community but proposals for industrial development, for tourism development, for a whole range of job creation schemes, education development and so on. Councils are not just collecting garbage and building roads; they are playing a greater role in the social development of their region. I give very direct credit to the Minister for his administration of this very constructive Labor program. I make no bones about pointing out this very constructive Hawke Labor Government program for a more direct role for local government in these areas. I have recently written to a number of my councils suggesting that they pick up the theme of the Government's Australian made campaign. Those councils are very significant spenders in the domestic economy. They spend almost a billion dollars a year. I know that the Minister is working towards bringing those councils into a co-ordinated approach to assist this campaign. They have a social role to play; they have a role to play in the broader economy. I think everyone who is closely involved in local government will acknowledge that under this Government and this Minister a true and real role for local government is being developed in Australia. I am very proud both to commend and to refer to that matter. I now turn to another part of the Bills under discussion tonight, the section relating to the Housing and Construction portfolio. When this Government came to office, faced with a plethora of confusing and ineffectual assistance schemes, one of its very first moves was to put together a common and easily understood scheme to help young people get a roof over their heads. Thus the Government developed the first home owners scheme. I think I would have to point to that as the most successful innovation in getting the housing and construction industry back on its feet. Mr Jenkins —Outstanding. Mr O'KEEFE —As my colleague the honourable member for Scullin said, it has been an outstanding program; one can use no other word to describe it. It has helped in my electorate, which is one of the fastest growing electorates in Australia. It has helped the domestic housing economy to boom, so much so that literally thousands of people in the last three years have been rehoused in new homes in such areas as Craigieburn, Sunbury, Gisbourne, Bacchus Marsh, Castlemaine and Daylesford. The list is endless. The effect of the first home owners scheme throughout Australia cannot be underestimated. In my electorate I have much to do with local builders; I have much to do with local small business proprietors. I can assure honourable members that they are appreciative of the measures that this Government has taken to boost this industry, because we all know that the housing industry is vital to the survival, the thrust and the health of all our local small business sectors. I also believe that the injection of funding into public sector housing has played a significant part. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), who is at the table, can look back with considerable pride at the difference between the level of funding in public sector housing before this Government came to office and the level that is now being injected. Of course, that massive increase in funding for public sector housing does not go as far as we would want. Certainly I am the first to concede that, but it is a massive step forward. It indicates the priorities of this Government. Public sector housing is an area which will continue to be a priority of this Government. It stands, along with local government funding, as one of those very significant areas which, in a year of achievement in reducing the Budget deficit and taking hard decisions as part of the Budget measures, maintain their priority. Local government funding is maintained in real terms, as is the funding for housing and construction in the public sector. They are the bottom lines. Compare the facts with the rhetoric of those who preach alternatives. The bottom line is the 670,000 new jobs that have been created under this Government and the maintenance of real funding levels for councils. They are the areas that people who make judgments look to. They are the areas in respect of which this Government can hold its head high and quite boastfully talk about a program of real public achievement. Mr HODGES(Petrie)(10.25) —Earlier this month I received a communication from Mr Peter Moses, who is a partner in the Brisbane firm of John Wilson and Partners, which is a firm of consulting engineers and town planners. This firm submitted to me a very serious complaint concerning the activities of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation, or SMEC as it is commonly known. John Wilson and Partners has been established in Queensland-although it has also done work outside Queensland-for about 63 years. It has a head office in Brisbane, branch offices south of Brisbane at Cleveland and north of Brisbane at Nambour, Tewantin and Caloundra. Mr Moses advised me that the Queensland Manager of SMEC, Mr Ryan, made contact with a client of John Wilson and Partners, namely, the Landsborough-Maroochy Water Supply Board, in an endeavour to pirate a project for which John Wilson and Partners had been appointed consulting engineers some two years previously. This is a very serious matter. It is most unprofessional and unethical of any firm of engineers, whether it is a statutory authority of the Commonwealth-or any other parliament, for that matter-or another private firm of consulting engineers. Mr Ryan apparently got hold of a design report from John Wilson and Partners which is, I emphasise, a well established and well respected firm in Queensland, made photocopies of that report and made certain amendments to it and trotted it off to the Chairman of the Board with the suggestion that it could save $3m by altering the design of this particular project. Mr Ryan apparently took a copy of the fifteenth annual report-the glossly 1984-85 report about which I will have something to say a little later on-a number of other glossy publications and paraded himself before the board under the mantle of Queensland Manager of the Brisbane office of the Snowy Mountains Engineering Corporation. That title is perhaps quite impressive to many people, certainly when a carrot is being dangled, as Mr Moses put it to me, in front of the Board in the form of a proposed saving of $3m on this scheme. It was a scheme to augment the water supply for a fast growing area north of Brisbane on the Sunshine Coast. These engineers had been appointed two years previously. They have done investigative and design work. Indeed, some of the work had been put out to tender. They had had the Queensland Water Resources Commission do a model of the spillway of the dam. I mention that to indicate to the Committee just how far advanced this particular project was before SMEC came on the scene. So SMEC approached the Board with the proposition that it could save $3m. Of course, the dam level had to be raised in order to maintain the capacity of the project and that was to cost an estimated $2.7m. But the design change recommended by SMEC, involved shortening the length of the tunnel from 2.5 kilometres to 1.4 kilometres. Saving $3m overall on the project when raising the height of the dam would cost of $2.7m would require a saving of $5.7m on the tunnel. I am informed by John Wilson and Partners that the lowest tender-tenders closed on 22 September-for the tunnel was $3.4m. No one has to be an Einstein, a Rhodes scholar or even an engineer to work out that it was an ill-informed approach and just very bad estimating on the part of SMEC's Brisbane office. What good sense the Board showed by rejecting SMEC's approach. I raise this issue because I have examined the reports of SMEC over the past few years. The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr West), when introducing amending legislation last year-I am pleased that he is at the table tonight-indicated that he wanted to put SMEC on to a more commercial footing to allow it to participate more effectively in the international engineering market. He also said that, as far as practicable, SMEC would involve Australian organisations in its performance overseas and he claimed additionally that it had been a major source of engineering expertise to governments and industry in Australia. The Minister went on to claim that he was determined the the Corporation should once again become a commercially viable organisation. In addition to those matters there was an injection of $6m of taxpayer's funds to prop up SMEC. SMEC's operations in Australia have involved it in all States. It has been working hand in glove in Queensland with the Water Resources Commission and the Queensland Electricity Commission. A statutory authority of the Commonwealth has been working in close co-operation, one might say in a privileged position, with a statutory authority of a State. SMEC's overseas operations involve it in much work that it gains through its association with the Australian Development Assistance Bureau. ADAB is Australia's overseas aid agency, so it works in areas such as Burma, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Thailand, the People's Republic of China, Laos and even places such as Mozambique, but particularly in Asia and around the Indian Ocean rim. If one examines the SMEC report of 1982-83 one will note that SMEC has a head office in Cooma. Why one would want to entrench a head office in Cooma, I do not know, but there were reasons for putting it there when it was established many decades ago. SMEC had offices in Canberra, Perth, Brisbane, Darwin, Sydney and five overseas. Two years later it had maintained the head office in Cooma and the offices in Brisbane and Darwin; it had a laboratory in Fyshwick; and it had closed down its offices in Canberra, Perth and Sydney and one overseas office. A closer examination of the report reveals that SMEC has the capacity to repay to the Commonwealth-when the Minister determines, in conjunction with the Minister for Finance-the capital of the Corporation and additionally the Minister can determine, in concurrence with that same Minister, the payment of surplus revenue to the Commonwealth. In addition, SMEC is supposed to pay tax, but there has been no profit for a number of years, so there is no money to pay tax, or to pay surplus revenue or to repay capital to the Commonwealth. On the contrary, millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been pumped into SMEC to keep it alive and all of that has happened with a great deal of unfair competition, but in Australia and overseas. Why one would want to put up new buildings for the headquarters of SMEC in Cooma, I do not know. SMEC has no cadetships or traineeships, according to the staff training and development section of its 1984-85 report. Its staff levels have been reduced considerably-in two years the number of staff has decreased by 248. The report states that there have been lower levels of work activity, and so it goes on. It is not a very healthy situation as far as SMEC is concerned. I maintain that SMEC has to be fairly desperate to do what the Brisbane manager of SMEC has done, or has attempted to do, to a well regarded and respected firm of consulting engineers such as John Wilson and Partners. I suggest that the Minister ought to institute an urgent inquiry into the operations of SMEC. It is totally unacceptable that SMEC should be pirating clients, or endeavouring to pirate clients, as I pointed out to the Committee tonight. Taxpayers are footing the bill to keep this Corporation afloat. I wonder how an engineer out there feels when he is paying his taxes only to see those taxes go towards propping up this Corporation and to have that same Corporation come along and try to take his clients from him. There ought to be an inquiry into the pirating aspect and to see whether we can save the squandering of more taxpayers' money. I believe that it is a very good argument for the privatisation of SMEC or to have SMEC's operations scaled down and then abolished altogether. The fringe benefits tax no doubt will hit SMEC. I believe that SMEC is like a sick chook. It has a disease and the disease is incurable. We have seen the transfusion of millions of dollars to it but it still cannot stand on its own two feet. The Minister ought to take the axe to it and lop off its head. The CHAIRMAN —Order! The honourable member's time has expired. Mr WEST(Cunningham-Minister for Housing and Construction)(10.36) —I will deal with several points made in the debate by the honourable member for Deakin (Mr Beale). He said that the Opposition will repeal our capital gains tax and fringe benefits tax. Quite frankly, all that that indicates to me is that this Opposition is perfectly willing in the future, in the unlikely event of its ever being returned to government, to restore the tax rorts, ramps, write-offs and tax evasion measures that it tolerated when it was in government. When the Opposition talks about repealing such taxes, which are necessary, it is really saying that it will resort to other taxation measures-perhaps broadly based consumer taxes and so on. It is marvellous how people who talk so much about reducing the Budget deficit through reducing the welfare vote are perfectly willing to continue to allow people to evade their taxes. I simply leave that matter there and press on. The honourable member for Deakin seemed to be very much concerned with an obscure matter that surfaced during the Senate Estimates Committee hearings; that is, the details of work going on at the Neutral Bay boatshed. I have been able to ascertain in the last few minutes that that is a $400,000 job, basically for the Australian Customs Service. It is a renovation job of a fairly old boathouse which in future will be used as a base for the Customs Service in the port of Sydney. So there is certainly nothing there that the Opposition has got on to that is not perfectly well known. I will deal with a bit of policy. The Opposition basically has no policies in the housing and construction area. When the Opposition was in government it ran down the housing industry. We have only to compare the Opposition's record when it was in government with our record to see that in 1982-83 the Opposition was able to manage only 105,000 commencements. Within several years we were able to manage 153,000 commencements and in the last financial year there were 137,000 commencements. In the area of home ownership assistance the Opposition struggled on with its inadequate home deposits assistance scheme which made available a lump sum of $3,500, while our first home owners scheme, which has superseded the home deposit assistance scheme of the Fraser Government, makes available not only a lump sum but also an ongoing interest rate subsidy. Already this Government has helped 214,000 households into home ownership through that scheme. As far as the private rental market is concerned, one has only to look at the vacancy rates to get a lead on what the situation is there. If one looks across the board and compares the vacancy rates of September 1982 with the situation today, one finds that the vacancy rates for the private rental market today-of course, the market is tight, I am not denying that-are worse in only two cities, Sydney and Perth, than they were in 1982. Even with negative gearing, tax rorts, lack of a capital gains tax and with investment incentives in that area at that time, it must be said that only two capital cities had a vacancy rate better than the present rate. Of course, the Government is removing the tax rorts and replacing them with a depreciation allowance. The main means of getting investment in the private rental market is to keep interest rates down, and that is what this Government is about. Over the course of the next year I am certain that that will occur. I turn to the subject of public housing. Over the past four years the Hawke Labor Government has increased funding to the States for public housing by 130 per cent. That will enable the States this year to double the acquisitions for rental housing over what they were able to acquire back in 1982-83. For the record, I would point out that by new construction and acquisition of existing dwellings they should be able to increase the national rental stock by 18,000 units over an increase of less than 9,000 in the coalition's last year of office. Let me give the figures: In 1982-83, through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement and through the nominated funds arrangement, a total of $552m was made available to the States for public housing and this year the equivalent figure will be $1,275.9m. When one adds to that the States' matching grants, it will be seen that over $1.9 billion will be available to the States for public housing expenditure this year. We should get about 22,000 new starts out of the total number of private and public commencements across Australia for 1986-87. Our new Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, which was negotiated and agreed back in late 1984, not only directs untied grants for home ownership loans and for rental construction to the States, but also adds two new tied programs-that is, the local government community housing program and the crisis accommodation program-to the three tied programs that we inherited from the Fraser Government, that is, the rental assistance for pensioner program, the rental assistance for Aboriginals program and the mortgage and rent relief scheme. We kept those three tied programs going and added the other two. As I said, a magnificent $1.939 billion, compared with a figure of just over $1.8 billion, will be available all up for public housing this year. People across Australia, from the community groups to the State ministries-whether in the two conservative governments, the Northern Territory Government or the four State Labor governments-agree that that is the best public housing effort this country has ever seen. One compares that with what one gets from the Opposition. What are Opposition members saying on this matter? All I have seen from the Opposition over the last few months has been a policy draft issued at some time towards the end of the last session, the two main highlights of which advocated a savage slashing of funds for public housing and the abolition of the first home owners scheme. I have already dealt with that scheme and said how it had helped the 214,000 households into home ownership. All that the Opposition could do was to say that it would abolish the scheme and savagely slash public housing funds at a time when everyone knows that there is a good deal of pressure on public housing waiting lists. I heard more or less moderate criticism of the Government from the Opposition during this debate tonight. Certainly, there was nothing that I would be worried about. I say to the Opposition that when it has a housing policy, and a program and a track record in housing performance such as this Government has, it can be critical of us and we might listen to it. But the Opposition had nothing on the record in government and it has no policy now to put to the people of Australia. In conclusion, I would like to refer briefly to two more issues which I have dealt with in the House over the last several days but which bear mentioning again-the future of the housing industry in terms of commencements, and the private rental market. To get investment going in the private rental market we do not need to restore the old tax rorts and ramps that the Opposition tolerated when it was in government. What we really need to do-and I am sure this is going to happen over the next 12 months-is get interest rates down. That will help the housing construction industry and investment in the private rental market. I am confident that that will occur. We set the parameters right in the Budget. We have our fiscal policy right. We have implemented over the past year-1986-87 over 1985-86-a 38 per cent reduction in the Budget deficit. We have actually achieved an $805m domestic surplus. The public sector borrowing requirement takes pressure off interest rates by bringing the percentage component of gross domestic product down to 4.4 per cent. As everyone knows, over the last few days the Australian dollar has become much firmer. So we see the bank bill rates now at their lowest levels since early August. Both the 180-day and 90-day bill rates are under 17 per cent. I am pretty confident that those general rates will continue to trend down moderately and that we will see less pressure on housing interest rates by about the June quarter of 1987. That is the picture as far as housing is concerned. We are proud of what we have done in public housing. We are moderately confident about the future as far as commencements are concerned. We have to watch investment in the private rental market, but the main requirement is to get interest rates down. We are confident that we have the right macro-policies, fiscal and wages policies, in place to achieve that result. Despite the tightness of the Budget, we were able to get a moderate expansion in construction activity going this year. In this respect, $1,226m will be expended on very large Commonwealth works. I am sure that even the few members of the Opposition who are in the chamber at present will applaud what we have done in this area. We have been able to continue and start some major new civil and defence projects. I might just mention the international airport projects. The complex at Perth is just about finished and will be opened by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) in the next few weeks. Work in the Brisbane international airport will finish on time. We are doing some new work in Townsville and Sydney. In the area of defence works, we have already undertaken the construction of a major new air base at Tindal in the Northern Territory. I am informed that about half of the contracts for the project, which will cost over $300m, are now let. In concluding this debate, let me say that our policy in housing and construction is one of which we can be proud. It is not a policy by which we will return to the tax ramps and rorts of the past, as advocated by the Opposition. We are relying on a constructive policy and one which will continue. Mr ANDREW(Wakefield)(10.50) —I address my remarks in this debate on Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 1986-87 principally to the appropriation of $619m for the Department of Local Government and Administrative Services. I refer to that tier of government which is effectively the flagship of democracy and, in my estimation, the benchmark of government as it should be. Local government is comprised of 834 local governing bodies across Australia and is the area of government which is in touch with what is happening to each of the constituents whom we represent here. It is the area of government that is held to be most responsible and accountable because of its proximity to the constituents it represents. I point out that there are about 8,300 members of local councils across Australia and that the majority of these serve their constituents for little more remuneration than the expenses they incur. Rural councils have been particularly disadvantaged by this appropriation. The allocation of $619m will do nothing to redress the problems that rural councils and local government face. The major problem is that of a shrinking rate base. Basically, local government funds are raised from a capital gains tax. In rural areas, as farm values fall and farm owners leave, the capacity of local government to generate funds from its capital gains base becomes thinner and thinner. In fact, this year's Budget is not as joyous for local government, particularly in rural areas, as the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) would have us believe. Mr Uren —Rubbish! Mr ANDREW —I remind the Minister that I am trying to be as brief as I can, so the fewer interjections I get the sooner I can finish my remarks. I refer to a comment about local government funding and the fact the part of the distress that local government recognises over funding is that indirect payments have been decreased by 9.4 per cent against 1985-86 funding and total grants have been increased by only 1.8 per cent. The other area of dilemma to rural councils particularly has been the zero growth in the Australian land transport program, which provides essential funding for local and rural arterial roads. These roads are important not only because of the service they offer to rural ratepayers but also because they make it possible for rural goods to reach the ports and earn the export income that is so essential to this country. Local government has also suffered because of the imposition of the fringe benefits tax, which is in itself a disadvantage. I quote from a reply by the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services (Mr Uren) to the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ryan (Mr Moore). The Minister said: . . . the fringe benefits tax could adversely affect a number of local governments and local government in more isolated areas maybe particularly disadvantaged. I plead with the Minister to encourage the committee reviewing the fringe benefits tax to look particularly at the implications of the tax for local government. I touch briefly on the area of fuel and the 10 per cent per litre increase in fuel costs, compared with the prices last year, despite a world price fall of up to 50 per cent. This has severely disadvantaged local government. The other area about which local government may well be indignant is the removal of the Australian Council for Inter-Government Relations, which was the one body that provided for a dovetailing of Federal, State and local governments. In deference to you, Mr Chairman, and the Committee, I conclude my remarks by turning briefly to the area of local government that has been particularly the responsibility of the Department-the area of national awards for innovation in local government which the Minister made so much of earlier this year at an event I attended. I acknowledge quite freely that my counterpart in government, the honourable member for McMillan (Mr Cunningham), was very proud of the commendable work that his corporation in the district council area of Moe had made in qualifying for this award. But I must express publicly my dismay at the degree to which the presentation of those awards was politicised by the Government. I am prepared to concede that it may well not have been the Minister's intention but even the most enthusiastic apologist for the Government would have to agree that the exercise of backslapping that went on mutually between the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) did nothing to keep local government as apolitical as I believe we on both sides of the chamber would want it to be. The honourable member for Burke said that local government ought to see itself moving more rapidly into the area of servicing the social services that local communities demand. I have to say that we cannot hand that responsibility to local government unless we are prepared to hand it additional resources. If we are in fact, as we would all want, to shrink the role of total government, I suggest we ought to hand it not only resources but also the total responsibility in areas that we currently assume responsibility for. The allocation does not indicate to me that the Government has shown the sort of confidence in local government that would see this allocation of responsibility and resources move from Federal and State governments to local government. Mr UREN(Reid-Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services)(10.56) —The honourable member for Wakefield (Mr Andrew) and the honourable member for Burke (Mr O'Keefe) spoke about local government. I commend the honourable member for Burke for his support of the Government's policy. The honourable member for Wakefield knows that if anybody has fared well under this Government and particularly under this Budget, local government has. This year it received an 8.2 per cent increase over last year, increasing the amount budgeted last year from $540m to $585m this year. At the same time, the States had a real decrease of 1.7 per cent. Let us be clear on what local government has received. I could give statement after statement of applause by local government. I do not want to go into all the details that the honourable member for Wakefield raised, but I would like to say one thing: The innovation awards were given and received in great spirit, and we did not try to politicise them. At the national award conference I intimated that I would be retiring as Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services at the end of this Parliament-whether it be late 1987 or early 1988-having served 8 years as Minister. Any Minister knows that when he struggles internally against forces, particularly those of the Department of Finance and the Department of Treasury, and he is able to make a major achievement he can do that only with the support of the Prime Minister. I was able to place on record not only there but right across Australia the great support and commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to local government. It is not a matter of the Prime Minister and me patting each other on the back, because in fact we have been very critical of one another from time to time in our political lifetimes. But where credit is due, I have given it to him and, as far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister has been a great ally and supporter of local government. I want to reply to the matters raised by the honourable member for O'Connor (Mr Tuckey) on the rent paid by the Government to provide office accommodation for its public servants. The rent bill increased from $79m in 1980-81 to $284m this year, and it will rise to $400m in 1989-90, less than four years away. That is a tragedy. The Fraser Government, from 1976 through to 1983, when it was defeated, did not construct any buildings for its public servants to work in. The rent bill has risen astronomically because of that. When we came to government we made a commitment to try to stimulate the economy by constructing public buildings right across the country to house our Commonwealth public servants. We constructed buildings in Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton and Mackay in Queensland. We constructed buildings in Phillip Street, Sydney; Parramatta; Wollongong; and Dubbo in New South Wales. We constructed buildings in Devonport and Bellerive in Tasmania and Port Pirie and the central business district of Adelaide in South Australia. We have restored an old building in Fremantle to blend in with the beautiful architecture of that city. Our savings on those constructions alone are estimated to be $33m each year. As most of these buildings are being constructed over a repayment period of 10 years and the purchase price is being paid for in instalments we will make a $330m profit Australia-wide and $150m on the Parramatta site alone. The Building in Parramatta will cost us $115m, which is $209 per square metre. I might say that, at present, the newest buildings in the central district of Sydney are costing between $400 and $450 per square metre. Over a period of 10 years we will save something like $150m on the purchase of the building at Parramatta, which, at 55,000 square metres, is one of the largest buildings in this nation. By that time, we will own it. It will take 10 years to pay it off, so honourable members can see the astronomical costs that we will save by that move. The sad thing is that at present only 20 per cent of the buildings in which public servants are housed in the major capital cities of both Sydney and Melbourne are owned by the public sector. Eighty per cent of the buildings are owned by the private sector. It has had a dream run due to the negative attitude of the Fraser Government. We hope that this is just the beginning of this new phase of moving Commonwealth public servants into more buildings of their own so that not only will there be pleasant places for public servants to work in, but also the regional development and planning within metropolises will be of great value. There is much that I can say, but I appreciate that it is now 11.03 p.m. Even though I have had only six minutes in which to reply to this debate, I think I have placed on record this Government's role in local government, in regional and administrative matters and, in particular, in regard to property. Proposed expenditures agreed to. Progress reported. House adjourned at 11.04 p.m. The following paper was deemed to have been presented on 16 October 1986: Lands Acquisition Act-Statement of lands acquired by agreement authorised under sub-section 7 (1). The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 2379) Mr Duncan asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 12 November 1985: (1) Will he provide details of bank loan agreements between (a) Australian banks and (b) international banks which are to operate in Australia, and least developed countries (LDCs). (2) What is the estimated exposure of each bank compared to the (a) equity base and (b) shareholders funds of each. (3) Is he satisfied that (a) Australian and (b) foreign banks operating in Australia will not require favourable treatment for reserves through LDC default. (4) Are Australian banks operating international subsidiaries from tax havens which reduce their taxation obligations in Australia. (5) What is the purpose and function of the Grand Cayman branch of the Commonwealth Banking Corporation. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) Details of loan agreements on the basis sought are not available. However, it is estimated that the general exposure of Australian banks (loans outstanding and undrawn commitments) to less developed countries (as defined by the OECD) represent about 5 per cent of Australian banks' total assets and is approximately equivalent to aggregate shareholders' funds. Not all countries to which these loans are made are experiencing debt servicing problems. Australian banks' exposures to less developed countries experiencing debt servicing problems represent about 1 per cent of banks' total assets. Comparable figures for foreign banks invited to establish operations in Australia are not available. (3) In managing their loan business, Australian banks make provision for losses on domestic and overseas loans. These provisions include a specific element to provide cover for identified doubtful debts and a general element to provide cover for possible future losses not identified but inherent in any loan portfolio. These reserves are additional to banks' shareholder funds. Practice is to write off against provisions any known bad debts in the year in which they are brought to account. New entrants to Australia's banking system have been required to establish locally incorporated, fully capitalised subsidiaries. Among other things, this aids the separation of lending portfolios and provisions of the Australian subsidiaries from those of the parents. New banks establishing in Australia have been counselled on the need to make adequate provisions. (4) Some Australian banks do maintain branches and subsidiaries in so-called `tax havens'. Those banks, like any other taxpayers, are subject to special provisions in the income tax law and in Australia's international taxation treaties which allow the Commissioner of Taxation to redress losses of revenue that could arise from the use of transfer pricing and other tax avoidance practices. To ensure greater voluntary compliance and more effective enforcement of taxation laws, the Government has made a number of changes, including an increase in the level of penalties for breaches of those laws and modernised prosecution provisions for dealing with offences. As a result any taxpayer, including a bank, engaging in transfer pricing or other tax avoidance practices may expect to be liable to substantial pecuniary penalties. While the Commissioner of Taxation is precluded by section 16 of the Income Tax Assessment Act from commenting on the taxation affairs of particular taxpayers, he has assured me that banks will be treated in the same way as any other taxpayers in ensuring that they meet their Australian taxation obligations. As noted in the Government's Draft White Paper and my September 1985 Statement to Parliament on `Reform of the Australian Taxation System', the present manner of treating foreign source income of Australian residents provides a tax-induced incentive for investment abroad rather than in Australia. The introduction of a general foreign tax credit system as from 1 July 1987 in place of paragraph 23 (q) of the Income Tax Assessment Act (which exempts much foreign source income, including branch income, if it is not exempt from tax in the other country) is aimed at dealing with this problem. (5) The purpose of the Grand Cayman branch of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia is to meet the demands for US dollar-related banking facilities from non-resident US clients of the Bank and to match competitive forces. The principal functions of the branch are the provision of deposit and lending facilities in Euro-currencies. In most respects, the activities of the Grand Cayman branch can be compared with those available in the US through International Banking Facilities commonly referred to as `IBF's. (Question No. 3265) Mr Tickner asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 February 1986: What is the level of Australia's (a) public and (b) private foreign debt at 19 February 1986. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The most recent date for which data are available on Australia's external debt is 31 March 1986. At that time Australia's external debt was estimated to be $80,885 million comprising: (a) public sector gross external debt of $34,599 million; and (b) private sector gross external debt of $46,286 million. At that time, Australia's official reserve assets were valued at $12,811 million and Australian lending overseas was $5,825 million. Reflecting this, on 31 March 1986 Australia's net external debt was estimated to be $62,249 million. On the basis of provisional Treasury estimates presented in the 1986-87 Budget papers, Australia's gross external debt was estimated at around $86 billion or 37 per cent of GDP at end-June 1986. Net external debt was estimated at around $66 billion or 28 per cent of GDP at end-June 1986. (Question No. 3653) Mr Hunt asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 20 March 1986: (1) What quarantine restrictions apply to the importation of uncanned pig meat into Australia. (2) Have these restrictions been altered in any way since 1982. (3) Did he meet representatives of the Australian pork industry early in 1986; if so, what assurances were given to producers in relation to quarantine provisions. (4) What diseases identified overseas constitute the main threats to pork production in Australia. (5) Do the circumstances justify an easing of the current quarantine provisions. Mr Kerin —Further to my reply to the above questions from Mr Hunt concerning the quarantine restrictions on the importation of uncanned pigmeat to Australia, (Hansard of 19 August 1986, page 59) I am able to provide the following further information: (1) In respect of transmissible gastroenteritis (TGE) I indicated in my reply that ``my Department is awaiting the results of transmission trials currently being conducted by Agriculture Canada in Canada. On receipt of advice from Canada on the results of these trials I would be in a position to finalise a policy on possible future importation''. This advice was based on information from the Australian Veterinary Counsellor in Washington. Subsequently I have received a letter from the Canadian Minister for Agriculture providing further technical information on transmissible gastroenteritis virus and indicating that the trials had not been initiated. My Department is currently assessing the Canadian Minister's advice. (Question No. 4275) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Did Mr Emanuel Klein gain his support for the Senior Trade Commissioner's post in Milan; if so, when. (2) Did the Minister suggest to Mr Klein that he should apply for the job; if so, when. (3) Did Mr Klein inform the Minister that he would apply if the job were advertised. (4) When was the advertisement for Mr Walton's position (a) drafted and (b) amended by his office. (5) Did he personally instruct that amendments be made. (6) Is it a fact that (a) a report in the Age of March 20 1986 stated that he supported Mr Klein taking up the Milan Post, (b) he stated in the House of Representatives on 16 April 1986 that he did not know who the applicants were and (c) he stated on 17 April that he had suggested to Mr Klein that he consider applying for Mr Walton's position; if so, how can the statements be reconciled. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows: (1) No. (2) Yes. I do not recall the exact date but it occurred after I had decided that the post should be vacated by the then incumbent. (3) Yes. (4) Officials of the Department of Trade drafted the advertisement. A minor change was made in my office. These events occurred during the week of 9-13 December 1985. (5) Yes. (6) I indicated in my reply to the House that I had not been involved in the selection process and did not know who all the applicants were. (Question No. 4310) Mr Braithwaite asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 5 June 1986: (1) Whose advice in the Australian/Italian business community did he seek when looking for a person to accompany him to Italy following his receipt of advice of Mr J. Bayutti's illness. (2) On what date did he seek this advice. (3) Was Mr Klein contacted by a number (sic) of the Minister's staff while the Minister was en route to Italy; if so, (a) was Mr Klein asked to join him in Rome and (b) how does he reconcile this with the advance notice he received of Mr Bayutti's illness. (4) How many meetings did he have in Italy while Mr Klein was also in Italy. (5) At how many meetings in Italy was he accompanied by Mr Klein. (6) Did Mr Klein have discussions with 3 companies not known to his Department during this visit, if so (a) why, (b) was the Minister present. Mr Dawkins —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I do not believe that confidential discussions held between a Minister and members of the business community should be revealed in this way and I therefore do not propose to answer this question. (2) See (1) above. (3) Yes. (a) Yes. (b) I do not believe any reconciliation is required. (4) Four. (5) Four. (6) Yes (a) This question is ridiculous and is based on complete ignorance. My Department cannot be expected to know the details of every company located in Italy wishing to trade with Australia. (b) No. (Question No. 4311) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Se- curity, upon notice, on 19 August 1986: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Perspective, published in Hong Kong, on the practices adopted by migrants from Asia who obtain Australian social security payments while earning an income from either an employer or their own business; if so, what action has he initiated to remedy this problem. (2) If he has not initiated such action, why not. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) I understand that the magazine referred to is a Chinese language periodical. It has not been possible to obtain a copy through the major libraries; however, if the honourable member is able to supply a copy I would be pleased to consider the matter further. (Question No. 4402) Mr Staples asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 22 August 1986: Will he detail the steps taken by the Government in recent years to prevent the production and use of chemical weapons. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Government, as part of its disarmament policy, is making a special effort to develop effective international measures against chemical weapons. The Government is committed to the early conclusion of a comprehensive Chemical Weapons Convention which would ban the production, stockpiling and use of all chemical weapons and provide for the destruction of all existing stocks of chemical weapons and their production facilities. The Government has greatly expanded Australia's involvement in efforts to resist the spread of chemical weapons, and to conclude the Convention, to the point where foreign commentators have spoken of ``Australia's Leadership'' in this area. Measures taken by the Government since March 1983 include: (i) increased priority and diplomatic resources for work against chemical weapons; (ii) additional manpower and equipment costing nearly $400,000 for the Defence Department's Materials Research Laboratories (MRL) which provides technical support for Australian efforts in this field; (iii) designation of MRL as an analytical centre available to the UN Secretary General for investigation of evidence of chemical warfare; (iv) participation of an Australian expert in the 1984 and 1986 UN Secretary General's on-site investigations which confirmed Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the Gulf War; (v) introduction of export controls on chemicals capable of being used for the manufacture of chemical weapons; and convening consultations amongst 18 countries aimed at improving the effectiveness of such controls; (vi) increased participation in the chemical weapons negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, with Australia chairing, in 1986, one of three working groups; (vii) in cooperation with an Australia chemical company, testing procedures for the inspection of the civilian chemical industry to guard against clandestine production of chemical weapons and to assist the development of such procedures for the Convention; (viii) co-sponsorship of resolutions in the United Nations General Assembly and promotion of statements on the subject in the Security Council. (Question No. 4408) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: (1) Is he able to confirm reports in the June edition of the Pacific Islands Monthly that there has been a regional revolutionary committee formed at the behest of the Libyan Leader, Colonel Gaddafi, between the ruling Vanua'aku Party in Vanuatu, the OPM in Irian Jaya and a constituent of the New Caledonian FLNKS known as the FULK (United Front for Kanak Liberation). (2) Is he able to say whether the Libyan regime has made financial contributions to the FULK by way of deposits to a bank in Port Vila, Vanuatu. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I understand that some form of association between the ruling Vanua'aku Party in Vanuatu, the OPM in Irian Jaya and the FULK faction of the FLNKS has been established but the precise nature of this association is not known. (2) No. (Question No. 4414) Mr Coleman asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 August 1986: What was the total amount of direct aid given by the Government to Nicaragua in the financial years 1983-84, 1984-85 and 1985-86. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is shown in the following table: BILATERAL OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO NICARAGUA 1983-84 1984-85 1985-86 $A $A $A Emergency Humanitarian Assistance ... 75,000 85,000 . . Support for Non-Government Organisations ... 6,775 1,515 4,040 Head of Mission Discretionary Aid Fund ... . . 111,000 29,320 TOTAL ... 81,775 197,515 33,360 (Question No. 4447) Mr Hollis asked the Minister for Primary Industry, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Do the Australian delegations to the biennial sessions of the FAO Conference prepare reports on the work of the sessions. (2) If so, why are the reports not tabled, as are the reports of the Australian delegations to the International Labour Conference and UNESCO General Conference. Mr Kerin —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. The current delegation reports consist of cables, memoranda on issues of particular interest and notes on Australian interventions. They are prepared for the guidance of officials involved with FAO on a day-to-day basis. (2) FAO publishes a comprehensive official report on each Conference which is available from the Australian Government Publishing Service and also from commercial outlets. (Question No. 4458) Mr Reith asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) What was the cost of the celebration hosted by the Constitutional Commission in Sydney's Centennial Park on Sunday, 29 June, 1986. (2) What were (a) the cost of airfares for members of the Commission to attend, (b) the cost of food and (c) other costs. Mr Lionel Bowen —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The cost of staging the re-enactment, including costs of engaging a firm of public relations consultants, was $9,772. (2) (a) $613 (included in (1) above); (b) $1,333 (included in (1) above); (c) $7,826 (included in (1) above). (Question No. 4468) Mr Reith asked the Minister for Local Government and Administrative Services, upon notice, on 21 August 1986: (1) Was he reported in the Australian of 6 August 1986 as saying that it was now recognised that the fringe benefits tax would particularly disadvantage councils in isolated regions. (2) Is it the intention of the Government that the Local Government Grants Commission should compensate municipalities in isolated areas for the fringe benefits tax. (3) Has he issued any directions to the Local Government Grants Commission on the fringe benefits tax. (4) What is the estimated fringe benefits tax to be paid by municipalities in 1986-87 and 1987-88. Mr Uren —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The report I saw in the Australian of 6 August 1986 refers to the opening address I gave at the 56th conference of the Country Shire Councils' Association in Perth. What I actually said in that opening address was `I appreciate that the fringe benefits tax could adversely affect a number of Local Governments and that Local Governments in more isolated areas may be particularly disadvantaged.' (2) In the course of distributing Commonwealth untied grants among Councils, State Local Government Grants Commissions have regard to the relative disabilities of individual Councils. In so far as the fringe benefits tax imposes a relative disability on a Council it will be taken into account in determining that Council's grant. (3) No. The Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act does not provide me with the power to issue directions to State Local Government Grants Commissions. (4) Currently no Federal Government estimates as to the likely monetary impacts of fringe benefits tax on municipalities are available. (Question No. 4491) Mr Downer asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 September 1986: (1) What communications of any kind did (a) the Secretary of the Treasury and (b) any other Treasury officer have with representatives of any US financial institution over the 4 weeks to 19 August 1986. (2) What was the date and time of each such communication. (3) Who initiated each communication. (4) What was the subject matter of the communication. Mr Keating —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) to (4) (a) The Secretary met with overseas representatives of the Chemical Bank of New York on 22 July. The meeting was held at the request of a local representative of the Bank and was primarily a courtesy call by the visitors for the purpose of outlining their Bank's plans and operations. These and various other matters of mutual interest were discussed in general and informal terms; (b) During the period in question, and as part of the Treasury's performance of its on-going duties, there were numerous contacts between representatives (local and overseas) of US financial institutions and senior officers of the Treasury. Such contacts-in person, on the telephone and in correspondence-with US (and other overseas) financial institutions are an everyday occurrence for Treasury officers and, partly for that reason, detailed records of the representatives, the times and the topics discussed are not always kept. In the vast majority of cases involving Treasury officers in Canberra, however, the initiative would have come from representatives of the financial institution concerned. The discussions, which are invariably understood by both parties to be confidential, tend to cover a variety of topics including, in communications in the period in question, macro economic developments in Australia and overseas, foreign investment matters, taxation issues, loan raisings, and banking and other financial matters. (Question No. 4577) Mr Mildren asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce, upon notice, on 18 September 1986: (1) How many applications for the rebate to farmers for off-road use of diesel fuel were approved in 1985-86. (2) How many individual farms does this represent. (3) What was the cost to the revenue of approved applications. (4) How many applications for rebate were disallowed because they were out of time. (5) How many individual farms were involved in applications that were disallowed. Mr Barry Jones —The Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) 206,086 applications were paid under the agricultural category. (2) Because some farmers claim more than once a year and computer records are only maintained in relation to claims rather than claimants, this information is not readily available. (3) $105,816,592. (4) Approximately 11,800 covering all categories of use. (5) This information is not recorded. (Question No. 4606) Mr Peacock asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) Is he able to say whether the Soviet Union is using Estonian army reservists in the decontamination of the zone surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. (2) Is he able to say whether the Estonian reservists were conscripted to decontamination duties in the area; if so, (a) what were their duties, (b) how long have they spent in the contaminated area and (c) how long have reservist groups from other areas of the Soviet Union spent in the contaminated area. (3) Has he raised the matter with the Soviet Union; if not, why not and will he now do so. Mr Hayden —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government has been informed of reports, carried by the Communist youth newspaper of Estonia, suggesting that Estonian army reservists have been conscripted by the Soviet authorities to assist in the decontamination of areas near the Chernobyl nuclear reactor. These reports have been acknowledged by an official spokesman in Estonia, but described by him as either ``a mistake or an exaggeration''. (3) This matter has not been raised with the Soviet Union by the Australian Government. Should I receive confirmed evidence that the human rights of these reservists have been grossly violated I would consider taking appropriate action. (Question No. 4612) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What arrangements were made to cope with large volume printing requirements of the overpayments project. (2) Were outside contractors employed; if so: (a) who was employed; (b) at what cost and; (c) for what functions. (3) Were additional facilities purchased by his Department: if so, for what other functions besides the overpayments project are they used. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable members's question is as follows: (1) The department placed contracts with a number of suppliers to undertake the large volume printing requirements for the overpayments project. The areas involved are: The production of pensioner advices by laser printing methods. These advices were issued to some 2,017,000 pensioners to coincide with the May 1986 CPI increase; The production of Overpayment and Debt Recovery Manuals and training material and user guides for the Computer Assisted System for the Calculation of Debits and Entitlements (CASCADE); The Amnesty: and: Changed admission procedures pilot project. (2) Yes. (a) (b) (c) $ Lasercomp Print Services P/L... 71,955 Production of Personalised Laser Printed Advices QM Laser Graphics... 40,782 Microsystems... 180,686 CPN Publications... 13,938 Production of Copy Qik Pty Ltd... 6,585 Regional Office Overpayment Manual; Regional Office Overpayment Handbook Debt Recovery Manual; Debt Recovery Users Handbook; and Training Material and user guides for the Computer Assisted System for the Calculation ofDebits and Entitlements, (CASCADE). Canberra Publishing and Printing... 935 AH92 Amnesty Application Form Canberra Publishing and Printing... 935 AH93 Amnesty Data Collection Form Canberra Publishing and Printing... 5,110 AH94 Amnesty Insert Canberra Times Print... 15,604 AH94A Amnesty Insert Ciril's Printers... 3,240 Admission procedures- SU3(T) Package Information Cards and Wallets Canberra Publishing and Printing... 2,602 SU3(T) Package-Forms and Modules 342,372 (3) Yes. One Apple Macintosh Personal Computer (cost $10,218) for use in Forms Design and Graphics functions. Further, the Government has allocated $4m for the purchase of laser printers in each State Headquarters of the Department. The printers will be used primarily to `personalise' each client's letter and this personalisation will extend to a detailed statement of payment as well as providing the pensioner's notification requirements. The provision of the equipment will largely negate the need to use outside contractors for the production of the pensions advices. (Question No. 4636) Mr Blunt asked the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 19 September 1986: (1) What is the estimated cost of telephone rental and postage concessions to be provided in 1986-87. (2) What is the variation in this expenditure from 1985-86 and how has it arisen. (3) What variations are attributable to (a) new telephone concessions, (b) new postage concessions, (c) increases in the cost of providing concessions and (d) increases in the number of recipients. Mr Howe —The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) $40.550m. (2) An additional $3.285m (+ 8.8%). This variation is due to an increase in cost of providing the concessions and an estimated increase in the number of recipients. (3) (a) and (b) None. (c) $168,000; (d) $3.117m.